Lawmaker pulls bill to limit self-defense rights, citing threats
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A Washington state lawmaker last week withdrew a bill to limit self-defense rights after saying she receiving threats by telephone and email that have made her fear for her life.
Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, said House Bill 1012, filed last month, was spurred by the Trayvon Martin shooting last February, in which a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida shot dead the unarmed Martin, 17, after confronting him on the street.
The shooter, George Zimmerman, was not immediately arrested after the shooting, with local law enforcement citing Florida's "stand your ground" law as justification for his actions. Zimmerman was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree murder last April. His case is pending.
Appleton's bill would have required a person to retreat from a dangerous confrontation that person "knows or should know" that doing so would afford "complete safety."
"I was so appalled by the Trayvon Martin shooting," Appleton said. "I did the bill because we have no verbiage on 'duty to retreat' in Washington."
Washington is one of at least 29 states with no explicit duty to retreat. Some other states employ a "castle doctrine," exempting a person in his home from the duty to retreat.
Appleton said her bill was written in September and she lamented that it was caught up in the reignited national debate over guns in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 children, were killed.
"It's unfortunate, because Newtown happened, and that riled up so many people," Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown."
The threats against Appleton, which were among the more than a hundred emails and telephone calls she received about the bill after reports of it circulated on gun advocacy websites, were non-specific but "very scary," said her assistant, Donna Bezon.
Bezon declined to provide copies of emails or transcripts of voice messages to The Associated Press, saying she wanted to spare Appleton, who has not seen the worst of them, the details contained therein. But she said the most concerning included information about where Appleton lived.
One advised the lawmaker to heed the lesson of an unnamed lawyer who had defended "murderers and rapists" but who had changed his allegiances after his family was attacked, Bezon said.
One of the perceived threats was forwarded to the state House of Representatives' security office, said House Security Director Mark Arras.
"There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language," said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
Appleton conceded that the bill could have been written more narrowly, but said the threats have left her fearful and unwilling to pursue such legislation again.
"I'm not going to fall on my sword to have to live with those kinds of threats," Appleton said. "It will have to be somebody else that will do the bill."
Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, a gun enthusiast, said he was heartened by the strong negative response to the measure - but he condemned any physical threats.
"When the grassroots gets involved like they did and they call her up and they say, 'Hey, we oppose this,' that's grassroots activism at its finest," said Shea. "Anytime anyone on either side of the aisle gets threatened, obviously that doesn't help."
The bill was removed last week from the House's official register of bills.
Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, said House Bill 1012, filed last month, was spurred by the Trayvon Martin shooting last February, in which a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida shot dead the unarmed Martin, 17, after confronting him on the street.
The shooter, George Zimmerman, was not immediately arrested after the shooting, with local law enforcement citing Florida's "stand your ground" law as justification for his actions. Zimmerman was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree murder last April. His case is pending.
Appleton's bill would have required a person to retreat from a dangerous confrontation that person "knows or should know" that doing so would afford "complete safety."
"I was so appalled by the Trayvon Martin shooting," Appleton said. "I did the bill because we have no verbiage on 'duty to retreat' in Washington."
Washington is one of at least 29 states with no explicit duty to retreat. Some other states employ a "castle doctrine," exempting a person in his home from the duty to retreat.
Appleton said her bill was written in September and she lamented that it was caught up in the reignited national debate over guns in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 children, were killed.
"It's unfortunate, because Newtown happened, and that riled up so many people," Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown."
The threats against Appleton, which were among the more than a hundred emails and telephone calls she received about the bill after reports of it circulated on gun advocacy websites, were non-specific but "very scary," said her assistant, Donna Bezon.
Bezon declined to provide copies of emails or transcripts of voice messages to The Associated Press, saying she wanted to spare Appleton, who has not seen the worst of them, the details contained therein. But she said the most concerning included information about where Appleton lived.
One advised the lawmaker to heed the lesson of an unnamed lawyer who had defended "murderers and rapists" but who had changed his allegiances after his family was attacked, Bezon said.
One of the perceived threats was forwarded to the state House of Representatives' security office, said House Security Director Mark Arras.
"There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language," said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
Appleton conceded that the bill could have been written more narrowly, but said the threats have left her fearful and unwilling to pursue such legislation again.
"I'm not going to fall on my sword to have to live with those kinds of threats," Appleton said. "It will have to be somebody else that will do the bill."
Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, a gun enthusiast, said he was heartened by the strong negative response to the measure - but he condemned any physical threats.
"When the grassroots gets involved like they did and they call her up and they say, 'Hey, we oppose this,' that's grassroots activism at its finest," said Shea. "Anytime anyone on either side of the aisle gets threatened, obviously that doesn't help."
The bill was removed last week from the House's official register of bills.
We're actually very lucky here in Washington. We have some of the best gun and self defense laws in the country. Thats pretty good for one of the most liberal states in the union.
Here you don't even need to be threatened by someone with a weapon to have the right to use deadly force. All it takes is a verbal threat or a non armed physical threat. Though I would be very careful to shoot just because of a verbal threat. Have had 2 opportunities in my life where I was armed and could have legally shot someone. Those 2 cases I felt the other party didn't do anything bad enough to deserve to die over it so I backed off. One was just a hungry couple of guys who were stealing food and chased me with a 2X4.lol
If you're going to carry then be sure to weigh the consequences of your actions. Taking another persons life should never be done lightly or in times of emotional distress.
 @Blindman the statistics seem to support our lax regulations, we have half the national average in gun homicides (1.25 per 100K)
Allowing citizenry to murder people as they wish and then claim they they might have felt a little threatened as the justification is BS. No society or government should be enabling NRA nut jobs Prosecutors do indeed need to have a tool if the facts cannot prove imminent threat. A minority of thrill killers in waiting cannot be allowed to hijack society.Â
Â
Guy gets in your face because you pulled ahead and took the parking spot he was trying to get into...oops, that was a threat. Someone confronts you about a comment you made about their girlfriend, oops, that was a threat. College kid delivering a flyer to your door, that could be a threat. Meter reader, someone who can't find an odd house number that is near yours and is asking for directions on your porch, that could be a threat. So it will be justified to kill in those situations because you want this to be Florida or Texas? Forget it.Â
Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 Hey smart guy this even applied to people in their homes! That means if a robber busts in it would require you to run out your backdoor and let them take whatever they wanted from your house or hurt your other family members any way they wanted to.
Appleton is lying, there probably were no threats and when she had the bill going she admittedly lied about having law enforcement and judicial endorsements for it! Then she told us she was pulling the bill because lawyers had advised her to due to flaws in it, now as a last minute publicity stunt she is making up fake threats!
Â
Komo, this is big news, you can bust a corrupt legislator.
Â
Check this out, when an official info request was used to force her to produce endorsements for the bill, all of a sudden there were NONE after she had said there were some. Â Then she publicly stated she was pulling the bill due to flaws, now all of a sudden she's trying to smear gun owners with fake threats. Don't worry, we have FOIA requests going for those "threats" and the only way she can refuse them is if they are part of a legit WSP investigation. If not, then she's lying.
Â
Here's a chance for some real investigative reporting Komo:
Â
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109541-HB-1012-An-order-to-retreat&highlight=1012
Â
Â
 @NWCoin That was my thought as well.  Were there actual threats they would have been addressed by the Security staff and State Patrol.  Since they have not been, she's attempting to smear lawful gun owners to cover her own incompetence and corruption.
 @NWCoin Great thread. Thank you for the link.
Â
It is very enlightening to read about the casual claim for LE/judicial support from Appleton's office and then to find out that there was absolutely no request from either LE or the judicial community for such a law (duty to retreat). It casts an unfavorable light on Appleton's refusal to provide these alleged threatening emails.
Rep Appleton is an idiot to think that you have to retreat before you can defend yourself. How each person handles a threat is different for everyone. Fight or flight. If a threat has a grasp on you, then the person has to think flight or be prosecuted for a crime? A person must be allowed to defend themselves as they see fit when a threat of life or death is iminent. You have to trust the justice system it there is foul play. Â
Good to see she is beginning to understand how a democracy works. If the people are scared of the government we have tyranny, if the government is afraid of the public we have democracy. Its the only way a democracy works.
"I was so appalled by the Trayvon Martin shooting," Appleton said. "I did the bill because we have no verbiage on 'duty to retreat' in Washington." Unfortunately, we have so much "verbiage" amassed by these people, that your average person reading the bills they try to put through, falls asleep halfway through. Her wanting to "slip things through" is a pretty scary thought, but I'm beginning to think with some of the insane things our leaders have approved lately, that they all have their approval stamps attached to their foreheads, and when they fall asleep whilst wading through "verbiage"......"clunk"....it's passed.
 @Harley-H.S.C. Her proposed duty to retreat law would have been a gold mine for abusive prosecutors. Who, other than the person defending themselves, could know that they could retreat in safety? Second guessing in the prosecutor's office or the squad car what occurred during a confrontation is a perfect recipe for enterprising prosecutors to conduct witchhunts on honest citizens. This, in turn, ends up with advice from self-defense trainers that people should either run as soon as possible or wait until severe injury had occurred.
Â
For example, consider a different ending of the story of a contractor shooting and wounding a burglar a couple of years ago (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/08/18/1786615/contractor-shoots-n-end-burglary.html). An abusive prosecutor or jerk responding officer (they do exist) might have thought that blocking the driveway with his car incited the confrontation when the burglar rammed the contractor's car. Or since the ramming did not injure the contractor that running away from the suspect could have resulted in complete safety for the contractor.
Â
As a result, instead of providing law that protects honest citizens and does not attempt to second guess their decisions in a confrontation this would be a law that does the exact opposite. It would provide Law Enforcement with the power to presume everyone was guilty of illegal violence and forgive a favored few.
 @Iconoclast It basically negates the 'Castle Doctrine'.
 @SargeMcC  @Iconoclast It basically negated the right to self defense EVER unless you could, without shadow of a doubt, prove you had no other option; even then the Prosecutor would second guess that decision.
 @Harley-H.S.C. I'm with you. That comment really caught my attention when I read the article.
I was one of hundreds of people who contacted that office when word of the "Run Away and Hide" bill sponsored by this legislator. So she cancelled it because she was threatened in an email. Oh, you poor baby. You cannot handle a nasty email? The real reason was that so many people inundated her office with mail letter and phone calls, she realized she made a mistake. No big threat, she just "ran and Hid".Â
Som how I have this bit of doubt in my mind about the treats etc....More publicity is what she wanted maybe ????
 @clem77 Yes, it does sound like the legislator might have tried to use emails objecting to her vile duty to retreat legislation as propaganda. Typical gun-controller dishonesty.
Again gun rights advocates doing what they do best -- nothing but a bunch of bullies. Now today you will be the bullies that you are at your rally at the capital. Â
 @ark You are welcome to join us and see that you are completely, absolutely wrong.
@ark, Again, liberal passifists doing what they do best-- demonizing an entire group whom the know nothing about because you don't agree with their political views.Â
 @ark you are still drinking the koolaid. She cannot handle the hundreds of people who told her this was a bad idea. Now she "hides" behind a lie.Â
@msglaigaie @ark -- If she's a politician, she can handle the crap that people dish out - or she wouldn't be a politician.
Â
It's the over the top harrassment and demonization, threats and so on that turn people from thier tasks.
Â
With only the tiny bit of detail from her proposed bill, I'm not impressed with what she was doing, but I also don't agree with the extremism of -some- of the 'stand your ground' bills when they allow an unrestrained free-for-all when it comes to interpreting a threat and responding to it. Example: The clowns that do things like the pharmacist who responded with a gun to a pair trying to rob his pharmacy. He had the right to protect his store and his employees, even in initially shooting one of the robbers, but he crossed the line when he pursued and shot at the other FLEEING robber (well outside the store) - and then came back,walked ACROSS the down and motionless robber that he had already shot got ANOTHER pistol and repeatedly shot him again. MANY people were outraged when he was taken to task for coming back in and repeatedly shooting the down, motionless, defenseless and no longer capable of being any sort of threat wounded robber. He was well outside of his self defense rights (or his 'stand your ground' rights) to come back in, walk across the wounded robber, get another gun and repeatedly shoot the now defensless and no longer dangerous robber... aka the law states that you are no longer in 'self defense' when the person is no longer a direct threat to you and is retreating/giving up.  But that seems to not matter to these extremist 'stand your ground' people...
Â
There is a difference between 'stand your ground' and being vigilante - I beleive that she was trying to make it clear that you cannot cross the line and become vigilante with her attempt.
Â
but then, I fully expect the same sort of folks who attacked her for her apparently misguided and not quite thought through attempt at defining this to attack me for daring to not be fully behind the kind of potentially dangerous vigilante actions that they beleive are equal to 'protecting yourself'...
Â
Â
@FormerMarineSgt ...That pharmacist is now in prison for his actions (and the barbarian in me is not shedding a tear for those he killed). You said it â a misguided effortâ and since been pulled. I think she is lying about the threats. The WSP is aware and not investigating (house security office is monitoring) Why didnât WSP open up an investigation? Threatening a politician is a serious offense. That is why I think it is another example of a career liar twisting a situation.
Well if she was threatened with bodily harm then those threats should be taken seriously and those persons pursued and brought to justice.
Â
However I would suspect she probably got more along of the lines of her concern for being re-elected, which is the corner stone of politics in the country.
Â
It does bother me when I hear statements about  "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown."
Â
"It's unfortunate, because Newtown happened, and that riled up so many people," Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown." If the "majority" does not find this statement disturbing, then our American "way of life" is in big big trouble!
Britain and I believe Canada have a "duty to retreat" law on their books. If some douche bag forces their way into you home and you defend yourself, YOU will be the one to go to jail.Â
"It's unfortunate, because Newtown happened, and that riled up so many people," Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown." Â So that's how our esteemed representatives pass laws? slipping them in unnoticed??? Â They say we get the government we deserve but do we really deserve something this pathetic???Â
The fact is that she was never threatened.  She is trying to paint gun owners as  deranged and violent people, and of course, the media bought it as they always do.
@Pathfinder What ? Huh ? Gun owners deranged and violent ? Only the assault rifle & crazy magazine clip owners...are deranged and violent...
I am surprised the AP didn't put a baby picture of the thug, Trayvon, on the story.
So there were no threats since the WSP did not act on the emails. And if the Representative is not even willing to provide copies to the Democratic public relations firm--the AP--then the so-called threats must have been particularly uninteresting.
Â
But she was so frightened anyway.So much so that she pulled this moronic bill. A real profile in courage.
" "There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language," said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation.
Â
Appleton conceded that the bill could have been written more narrowly, but said the threats have left her fearful and unwilling to pursue such legislation again."
Â
Â
If she was writing law due to a strong petition from her consituency, she would not have this problem. However, if she is writing law out of her own feelings and opinions, then she has found one of the checks and balances in the representative system of government... If you do something that is opposed by the people, they may be strongly critical of you.Â
Â
If anyone did make actual threats, they do a major disservice to all of us that believe in our system of government, even if the actors within it are distasteful. Threats of harm so not advance ones agenda at all.
 @georgef Agree totally but you can guarantee if there were any actual threats, we'd be hearing about someone getting arrested right now, not vague lines about "disturbing language". It's doublespeak for "speech we don't agree with but can't legally do anything about"....
"more than a hundred emails and telephone calls she received about the bill after reports of it circulated on gun advocacy websites"
I always find it interesting when those people who support respecting their right to own firearms find no problem in violating another person's right to speak out in a way they see as a threat - by making threats of their own...
@OrcasThunder....Oh I agree 100% my friend however, in this case I do have doubts about there where actual threats. I do not support this bill nor do I care for the way Appleton indicated it was to go "unoticed" (the bills are posted on the web in advance so constructive notice was given to the public but still?) Politicians will always get a bad rap (deservedly) the solution? Vote them off the island...
Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown."
Â
Anyone else have a problem with this? Is she seriously hoping that we are not paying attention so she can pass anything she wants?
 @Kent253 "Is she seriously hoping that we are not paying attention so she can pass anything she wants?"
SHE does not "pass" anything on her own, it takes a majority vote in both houses AND the Governor's signature. It's called the legislative process - are you really that afraid of letting government do it's job that you feel empowered to make anonymous threats against someone you disagree with?
And you actually think that makes you stable enough to own a firearm?
 @OrcasThunder Where is this anonymous threat?Â
 @Kent253 See above.
 @OrcasThunder  @Kent253 uh...what "anonymous threats" are you referring to? I saw none in Kent253's post. It was a fair question asked and you twisted the whole thing"It's unfortunate, because Newtown happened, and that riled up so many people," Appleton said. "I think it would have gone unnoticed if it hadn't been for Newtown."
Those were her words...what do you think she meant by them?
 @Tim Personius  @Kent253 The "anonymous threats" were the emails and phone calls, the "you feel empowered" arises out of the implied support of the threats as a valid way to influence laws...
@Kent253 ..I think it is an incredibly arrogant and dishonest approach and Appleton is a liar.
@schramalot -- no more arrogant than you and folks like you who automatically assume what you do about her intent.
@FormerMarineSgt ...Aren't you the one always preaching about civil discourse and honest conversations without rhetoric? Oh well, must be someone else because you would not be that hypocritical.
 @Kent253 I think that is a basic plank in the demorat platform.Â
Well, there you have the mentality of your average vocal gun nut - even as proved by comments posted on KOMO: "I have a right to defend myself by shooting you, and it you try to limit my right by legislation, I will kill you!"
Real HE-man at work!
Find this idiot who voiced these threats, and put him in prison for a couple of years. That will "cure" his gun logic just a bit! (Or at least keep him from ever owning guns again legally!)
@JLS1950 ..It is easy to be pious when you have never been threatened or a victim or forced to fight. Easy to proclaim your virtue from the high ground while looking at others who are passionate about an issue with disdain. You pile all who disagree with you into a category and label them as ânutsâ (again easy for such a righteous and holy giant). I have my own views on guns but I try to keep them in the forums they belong and not take every opportunity to espouse my rhetoric. You are entitled to your opinion and I wonder when you actually realize what happens in the world, how that opinion will mature.
 @schramalot  @JLS1950 Your Crystal Vision has cataracts AND macular degeneration. You have NO CLUE what I have faced in my life!
@JLS1950... Nor do I care to pal, you see things the way you want and you rant like a lunatic too often for me to even engage, As far as my eyes? I see you and know your kind well enough.
 @schramalot  @JLS1950 "Easy to proclaim your virtue from the high ground while looking at others who are passionate about an issue with disdain. You pile all who disagree with you into a category and label them as ânutsâ"
Are you saying that is not also true with the gun rights supporters who often make thinly veiled comments about "And we have guns!" and hinting at the "revolution against big government"?
@OrcasThunder... Did I say that "no", would I agree with that "yes".
@JLS1950
First and foremost, there were no threats, got it, ZERO threats. Second anyone has the right to defend themselves. Defending your self is a basic right, and defending your family is a basic responsibility. From your comment(s) I assume you are one of those willing to have your family violated or killed as long as you could maintain your âprincipalsâ. You can die happy knowing that you are, in your little mind, guilt free. You moronic progressives just plain suck.Â
@oldster70 -- there's a difference between defending yourself and going vigilante.
Â
While her attempt at helping to define that difference may have been badly done, it does not invalidate the difference.
Â
'Stand your ground' laws tend to remove any definition of this so that people are allowed to go excessive, 'vigilante' if you will. Â
Â
I have no problem with people defending themselves. However, for one example - you cannot pursue a perpetrator and shoot them down when they are fleeing and still use 'self defense' to allow you to do it. Why? Because they are no longer a threat to you or your property if they are fleeing/running away/etc.
Â
I think her actions were most likely a poorly thought out or poorly articulated attempt to prevent 'stand your ground' from being used to create open season on bad guys - because in some states that is how the stand your ground law is being put to use.
Â
Don't worry - I'm no 'anti-self protection' type. I own a few guns, have a concealed carry permit and WILL use them to protect myself and my family if needed.
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt Going vigilante is already illegal. Duty to retreat is something entirely different. Stand your ground laws are quite clear that vigilante actions are not covered. Pursuing someone and shooting them will earn you a criminal charge, if not a conviction depending upon the evidence.
Â
You give this twit of a legislator too much credit. It was duty to retreat legislation.
Â
As for the allegation that stand your ground laws are being abused, her example was the Zimmerman case which is far from an example of abuse. If the state of Florida can prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon then stand your ground will not protect him. What she, and many other commenters as well as race-baiting "leaders", were concerned about was that Zimmerman was not arrested immediately. What she clearly sought was yet another small negative consequence toward defending yourself. Just another fuzzy-brained liberal who has watched too much daytime television.
 @oldster70  @JLS1950 "First and foremost, there were no threats, got it, ZERO threats."
Then why is the WSP investigating them?
Emails and phone calls are logged and recorded...
And the immature and demeaning ending of your post shows that you could very easily be one of the people who sent those emails or made the calls...
 @OrcasThunder This is your way of agreeing that you were wrong (again), I see. A feeble attempt to change the subject.
Â
You really aren't convincing anyone of anything other than your posts cannot be trusted.
@FormerMarineSgt ...WSP is not investigating ....re-read it.
@OrcasThunder ...Be careful, stay on the high ground
@bk425 -- I don't see where Orcas Thunder claimed anything about guilt of those making threats/disturbing phone calls. Orcas Thunder merely pointed out the falicy of Iconoclast's comment that there were zero threats.  (If zero threats, why is the WSP investigating? They wouldn't if there weren't threats).
Â
I don't see much in the way of anyone supporting Appleton's bill - but I do see much in the way of idiotic attacks on her (even here in the comments) because she dared to introduce a bill that wanted to define a difference between protecting yourself and crossing the line into vigilanty-ism in a way that many people don't like.
Â
While I don't agree with what little is published here about her bill, I certainly won't lower myself to attacking her like so many on here are willing to do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The level of hate being expressed by so many on here is beyond pathetic. Disagree with her - fine. Express that with comments about what you don't like, don't spew the hate filled comments and expect others to respect your comments.
@OrcasThunder@Iconoclast
"First and foremost, there were no threats, got it, ZERO threats."
Then why is the WSP investigating them?
----------
Dear "thunder", In -this- country, we investigate -claims- and -then- a court of law determines guilt. You seem to think that guilt comes first and then the investigation. While there certainly have been cultures like that around the world we can thank (whatever you hold dear) most of them were brought down by history. Then you go on to smear Iconoclast for his "support (of) the kind of harassment described in this article" but the article was about threats which is different then harassment. IF -your- claims that Appleton was harassed turn out to be true then that is a sad thing indeed. You should ask WSP to investigate them. I would hope that others would use the logic and courtesy I did in writing in opposition to her bill
 @Iconoclast I figured that you might support the kind of harassment described in this article..the kind who favors rule by intimidation and fear.
Are you also one of those who are called "truthers" and are attacking the families of Sandy Hook?
 @OrcasThunder ""There was no direct or immediate threat, but there was disturbing language," said Arras, adding that his office discussed it with the Washington State Patrol and continues to monitor the situation."
Â
Monitor--to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose
Â
And the ignorance of your post indicate that you could be one of the loons who voted for this twit.