Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 20, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Sarah Kit filer ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Ryan Frank & Carl Yeh NIGHT EDITOR: Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR: Mike Schmierbach editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541) 346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541) 346-4343 Fire at will ■ OUR OPINION: Louisiana’s new law allowing suspected carjackers to be shot will likely increase the violence Louisiana is known tor many things. New Orleans alone has more of a reputation than many countries. The Louisiana Leg islature didn’t need to draw any more attention to itself or the community it gov erns. Nevertheless, the legislature has re ueuiiy iiidwii a iui ui autJiiy.uft'rora recently passed laW.Tn addition, they have added to the state’s reputation a new labelUrigga***^***! ’ happy. A new law in Louisiana makes it legal to shoot suspect ed carjackers. According to some reports, this means any one, not merely the owner of a car, can shoot someone they suspect is trying to use armed force to take control of a vehicle. The law was passed after a string of recent carjackings in the New Orleans area, including one that made a victim of a beautv pageant contestant. Let that be a les son to potential criminals every where: attacking beauty pageant con testants in the South will not be tolerated. Obviously, there is something profoundly wrong with this law and the mentality that spawned it. Worse, the law doesn’t even do anything to con front the problem of carjacking. It is already legal in most states, including Louisiana, to use deadly force to protect yourself if you feel your life is threatened. Had the beauty pageant contestant been packing a shotgun, she /ould have been well within her legal rights to splatter the brains of her attacker all over the park ing garage where the incident occurred. Given the obvious leniency toward vigilante measures that exists within the state, one suspects the following police investigation wouldn’t have tried very hard to determine exactly how threat ened her life was. Some states even have laws that allow the use of deadly force to protect property, including cars. Grand juries in Oregon, for example, have proved reluctant to indict people who shot individuals trying to steal their cars. The claim made by the de fense was that the thieves had made threatening gestures; this was enough to keep the case from go ing to court. In Louisiana, even more forceful laws have been passed regarding the use of deadly force in defend ing one’s home — one man shot an exchange stu dent who came to his door while trick-or-treating, and CHRIS HUTCHINSON/EmeraM this has largely been regarded as being legal un der the expanding defense of violent vigilante tactics under Louisiana law. So, the precedent al ready existed within the state to take the use of force to unreasonable ends. Even in Louisiana, however, the new law seems absurd. There are two fundamental problems with the new legislation. One is that it allows anyone who suspects a carjacking is taking place to use firearms. Because the law could be interpreted broadly, this opens up the dangerous possibility of dozens or even hundreds of firelights on the street, all made perfectly legal by the claim that one of the involved parties looked like he or she was stealing a car at gun or knifepoint. Any time it becomes easier for people to obtain and use handguns without careful training and scrutiny, the possibility of deadly accidents and misunderstandings increases. The only way peo ple can really be sure their guns will be used safely is to keep them locked up. Rarely are guns owned by homeowners used to defend the owner or their house. Instead, the firearms are often used in acci dental shootings or moments of rage. The other pri mary problem with the law is the message it sends about killing. By passing this legislation, the Louisiana Legislature has come very close to saying that the defense of property justifies mur der. Moreover, it also says that the average citizen is justified in using deadly force whenever he or she perceives a threat to person or, by extension, prop erty. Police have to be carefully trained to know when to use a gun, and police officers who do shoot sus pects are still put under very careful scrutiny. The average person walking down a street in New Or leans is neither trained to use deadly force nor like ly to understand the consequences, especially when his or her government has just told him or her it’s okay to shoot on suspicion. Guns are frighteningly deadly tools that serve no purpose other than to kill. By encouraging their cit izens to freely wield such tools with little thought or legal ramification, the Louisiana Legislature has made its community far more dangerous. It has certainly done nothing to reduce crime. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon .edu. To Governor Kitzhaber: By vetoing the tax break the Legisla ture wished to grant to timber companies, the governor has once again done a good job of looking out for the citizens of Oregon. When this break was first passed, we op posed it because it | grants extra mon- : ey to an industry that already profits by stealing the re- j sources of Ore gon, disrupting our economy and taking advantage of massive federal subsidies. ^ i To the Microsoft investment in Apple: While we can think j of worse people to t rule the world than Bill Gates, we still wish he had a lot less power. Feder- 1 al law says mo nopolies are ille gal, but the government has been reluctant to enforce such anti- j trust legislation, despite its eco nomic and political | necessity. LETTERS 16 misrepresented If Johnny Cochran turned a double mur der trial into a referendum on police abuse, Gov. Kitzhaber just did the same thing with Measure 16’s Death with Dignity. In his zeal to score political capital, his attack on the legislature further charges an already emo tional atmosphere and invites voter anger to “send a message” on the alleged abuse of re ferring 16 for a second opinion. He neglects a few facts, if they still matter. Briefly: By omitting the failure rate from the origi nal bill, 16’s proponents misrepresented its claims. In a classic Catch-22, legislators had no ability to fix that omission AND the fail ure rate (ensuring “dignity”), without adding lethal injection, changes outside the parameters of Measure 16. No credible rewrite instructed by the governor could ig nore that. An outright appeal (with which the gov ernor taunted legislators), would have dis missed all citizen input from recent lengthy testimony in Salem and precluded the pub lic’s debate on 16’s flaws that even the gov 2 Oregon Daily Emerald — Law School Edition emor, in contradiction to himself, concedes was lacking. An attempt to correct the law by mandat ing psychiatric consultation failed when psychiatrists objected to proposed parity with the mental status evaluations of con demned criminals awaiting execution. For this ethical lapse of viewing suicidal pa tients differently, they were called “hyp ocrites” by one legislator. Dr. Kitzhaber seems a few credits short of his CME in medical ethics. His willingness to implement a law he condemned in order to punish legislators speaks volumes on the priority he assigns patient care, and likely on the wisdom of the law itself. Bevin Gilmore Eugene Smokescreen removed With all the attendant concern and discus sion surrounding the tobacco industry and its impact on youth addiction I find it alarm ing to note the on-going price promotional activities being conducted, and I must as sume condoned, by the various warehouse Wednesday, August 20, 1997 format stores throughout our land ... these behemoth marketers have become an ex tremely integral part of the American family shopping experience and yet they continue to exert unbelievable downward pricing pressure on the cost of cigarettes and all the other popular forms of tobacco product. Beating up on Sears, Nordstrom and the food industry in general can be condoned by all of us in the competitive race to the bottom line ... but it seems to me an obligation to the next generation of consumers is continuing to be abrogated! To cost consumers less is one matter... to care less about them should give all of us some concern! John Broderick Redmond, WA Protect public bodies An organization is starting to combat the constant attack on state and local services which Oregon has suffered over the recent years. FROGS, For Restoring Oregon’s Gov ernment Services, is a non-partisan political action committee registered with the Ore gon Secretary of State’s Office. FROGS is based on the belief that each generation has an obligation to improve an protect public bodies such as schools, libraries, and parks for coming generations. Recently FROGS has been successful in helping to pass SJR 27 in this legislative session. SJR 27 is a bill which will allow Oregon voters to repeal the double majority provision of Measure 50. I would like to start a FROGS chapter here in Lane County because I believe that many in the area are also tired of the continuing assaults on public services by anti-govern ment interests like Bill Sizemore. I would like to invite all concerned citizens to meet to discuss the local implications of these cutbacks. We will hold our initial meeting at the Lane County Public Service Center, in Harris Hall, corner of 8th and Oak in Eu gene, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27. If you are ready to take a stand for Oregon’s fu ture, let’s meet and talk about restoring a sense of value to our public affairs. Paul Alig Eugene
