▼ 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