Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate expands circumstances when deadly force may be used to protect property; critics warn of unintended consequences
Summary
Senators approved SB 18 47 to permit deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent certain property crimes when other force would expose them to serious bodily injury; opponents cited risks to bystanders and gave examples of tragic mistaken incidents.
The Senate passed SB 18 47 on third and final consideration after floor debate that featured sharp criticism of broadening deadly-force rules to include property-based offenses.
Sponsor Senator Hensley framed the bill as narrowing circumstances where deadly force could be used only to instances where it is "immediately necessary" to prevent trespass, arson, burglary, theft and related offenses if lesser force would expose the person or a third person to risk of death or serious bodily injury. Hensley said the measure is intended for last-resort situations when property cannot be protected by other means.
Opponents including Senator Yarbrough and Senator Akbari urged caution, arguing that extending deadly-force justification to attempted trespass or property offenses could allow tragic mistakes such as shootings of innocents or children playing near yards. Senator Ackbary cited examples of real-world mistaken shootings to underscore potential unintended consequences.
Why it matters: The change touches on criminal-law standards for self-defense and property protection and could affect prosecution outcomes and civil liability. Supporters described narrow circumstances for permitted use; opponents warned the language is too broad and could produce fatal errors in real-world scenarios.
The bill passed on the floor after recorded voting; the chair declared it passed.
