Assembly Bill 1333 Threatens Law-Abiding Citizens While Protecting Criminals

About 15 years, or so, ago, Guatemala dramatically changed the way they administer the law in its society. The country determined that it was not good to kill, or to hurt another human being. On the surface, this is a good value, a Christian value, a civilized value. So, the law changed such that it was punishable to respond to violence with violence, even if you were simply trying to protect yourself. The outcome of this philosophical approach – to stop violence at all costs – has been astonishing. AB1333 in California, presented by Rep. Rick Chavez Zbur, slow steps in the same direction. 

When you fly into Guatemala City and leave the nursery of the airport, a dystopian scene of guards in swat uniforms holding shotguns and machine guns - hired guns, not government ordained police – stand at the entrances of Guatemala’s Kmart and Walmart, and Toyota Dealership equivalents as “deterrents”, Padre, our guide, cooly said. “For what”, I surprisingly pondered quietly. But, as I saw more and more, my initial surprise turned to concern. I quickly asked our guide, “Padre” (I will call him Padre, as he has asked for anonymity), “are we safe?” He declared, “We are safe as long as you stay with me.” As I asked why, at every store, there were armed guards at the entry of all parking lots, and doors of commercial buildings, he declared, “Do not worry, they cannot shoot people.” My next question was simple and to the point, I thought, “Why are they carrying guns if they cannot shoot people?” I mean, sounds like a rational question right? He declared with equally simplistic exhale, “Because it is against the law.” 

Laws That Punish Self-Defense and Police Protection

As we continued the back and forth, the gist of the state of Guatemalan society was that violence could not be met with violence, even the police could harm no one. If the police, in the act of stopping a burglary, were to kill, or even hurt a criminal, the police officer would be charged with a crime, he indicated, and most likely with jail time. I said, that can’t be true, surely you don’t understand what I am saying – assuming that some language barrier, even though he spoke amazing English, might be causing a misunderstanding. 

So, I pressed him with a scenario – “So, a man breaks into my house, is raping my daughter or wife, I hurt or kill this man, what happens to me?”  

“You will go to jail”, Padre answers with ease. Then he said, “Dallan, this is not America.” It was apparent, and it is now apparent to me, six years later, that some legislators in America want us to go the same way, as we see in Texas and now in California, with AB1333.  

We stayed for another nine days in Guatemala, and the effects of such a policy, such a philosophical view, on society was palpable. Guatemala was beautiful, but the people had no trust in one another. They were rich in resources, but the basis for the social contract was broken – there was effectively no law, because there was this contradiction that gave an incredible advantage to criminals, who have no natural restraint on using violence. 

Law abiding citizens have a natural restraint; this is why they choose to be law abiding. To place restraints around self defense, with threat of criminal punishment, on your productive, good, and safe citizenry, is chilling to say the least! Criminals were then, and still are, emboldened, because the citizenry, even the police, afraid the law would hold them accountable any self defense they might have to exert, do nothing. 

Yes, even the police turn their backs on rape, theft, etc., for fear of reprisal of the law against them because, during an attempted apprehension, a criminal most certainly will become deadly violent to get away, and the police officer trying to protect the public, and themselves, if they had to respond with equally violent force, would go to jail.  

America’s Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrines

All over the US, there are legislators who believe we should repeal “Stand Your Ground” doctrine and place limits on “Castle” doctrine. “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) means that wherever you are legally – your home, the sidewalk of a public place, your car, a shopping center – anywhere you have a right to be as a law-abiding citizen, you can protect yourself, even with deadly force when confronted violently. Castle doctrine means you can protect yourself even with deadly force in your home. 

Already, there are provisions against flagrant use of violence, and masking it with SYG or Castle doctrine protections. If you use flagrant or unwarranted excessive force, as determined by a judge/jury, “SYG” will not help you. Even with these protections already in place, Terry Meza, a Texas State Rep, has proposed that the law in Texas be changed to amend Castle and SYG doctrine so that the only place you can protect yourself is in your home, and only under certain circumstances. According to ABC 13 Eye Witness News:

“…House Bill 196 by State Rep. Terry Meza, D-Irving … would still allow a resident to use deadly force to defend his or her home if the resident reasonably believed it was immediately necessary, did not provoke the person, had a legal right to be on the property and was not engaged in criminal activity. However, the new bill adds that deadly force can be used ONLY if the resident is "unable to safely retreat."

The language in the new proposal is where the intent lies. With this language it would be very difficult to prove innocence. It would most often tend to make criminals out of regular law-abiding citizens who are simply trying to protect themselves from criminal activity, if they didn’t retreat. As a result, most would retreat, or take the beating or be raped, and hope for the best. And this would prove disastrous for civilized society. Criminals would be set loose with no natural restraints – like what we have seen in the lax laws so called “progressives” have pushed on society in NYC and California. 

AB 1333 Would Make Our Cities and Homes Less Safe

In California, AB 1333 is aiming to repeal the “SYG” doctrine. Some advocates stop short of wanting to repeal the “Castle” doctrine but calls to repeal “SYG” are essentially the same. In a civilized society you have a right to a safe abode, but you also have a right to safe intercourse in society – to shop, drive, go to get gas, food, and go out to have a good time. Removing the ability to protect oneself while in public is just as bad as removing this protection in the home. The bill’s author, LA’s Rick Chavez Zbur, I am sure knows this is the case. 

What is more concerning and confounding is the fact that he knows California voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal all so-called “progressive” legal positions that reduced certain drug and theft felonies to misdemeanors. As we observed, the reduction in consequences emboldened criminals over the last four years, and Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in California joined forces on this matter – we voted 70% in favor of repealing these nonsense laws in Prop 36 just a few months ago. 

And what’s more dumbfounding, these politicians advocating for this kind of change to our society are paradoxically adamant that we send bombs and missiles, and tanks and guns, and ammo to Ukraine. Why? Because shouldn’t we stop the killing? Shouldn’t we advocate for life? Shouldn’t we demand that Ukraine retreat and hand over everything to Russia – just step aside and let Russia in, and after Russia has set up house, then begin to work with Russia and convince them to a better position?

Remember Seattle’s “Summer of Peace” camp, a violently armed group who trashed businesses, intimidated and prevented business owners from doing business for a few months? The lawmakers of Washington and Seattle handcuffed the police and would not allow them to bring law and order to the streets, causing all citizens – the business owners who lost their life’s work and businesses, and citizens who wanted to shop and frequent that locale – to suffer. But at least we didn’t cause the criminals to suffer, and at least we didn’t hurt anyone, right? According to the newly advocated Duty to Retreat Doctrine, as proposed in AB 1333, that’s precisely what we should do, so argues the author of the bill, LA’s Rick Chavez Zbur.

Consider a world where our only focus was to stop killing, and to accomplish this we were convinced that the only way to stop killing was for us to retreat and allow others to commit violence against us - to retreat when a car thief approaches us with a gun, to turn our backs when someone is raping another person, to walk out of our homes when an intruder decides he/she wants things in our homes and allow them to do what they want.  

To dig deeper, you need to ask questions, such as:

• What will happen when intruders aren’t afraid of a threat of retaliation?

• Will this embolden or deter future criminal activity?

• What will happen to society in general, when law abiding citizens, who, under the threat of becoming criminals themselves in the eyes of altered laws, cannot protect their home, their family, their contents, indeed, the very life they’re attempting to build? 

Those calls to change the way that we protect ourselves and those we love, by restraining natural and normal self defense are actually advocating on behalf of criminals, and the end of civilized society, as the natural consequence will not stop criminal behavior, but embolden it.  

This discussion is good, and while not all considerations of how society responds to criminal activity are unwise, many are simply uneducated, unintelligent, and have not come from a place of thoroughness of thought. And it is also interesting to note that all these calls are coming from one political party, Democrats, a party I have voted for many times, but who, it appears of late, have lost their way on so many issues of common sense.   

With the recent, in the last four years, call for defunding of police over a few highly publicized misconduct allegations against police, it is evident that the sites of some lawmakers are not just on citizenry retreating and not inflicting violence upon criminals, but also our law enforcement entities as well. So, these proposed law alterations around SYG doctrine are even more alarming – what is their end game? While we should not condone, in any way, excessive force by police or citizens, whether it be verbal, emotional, or physical, we also should not, and cannot reflexively and irrationally support laws that will lead to embolden criminals and destroy our good and productive society.  

Call your legislators and Mr. Chavez and say NO to AB 1333. Let’s learn our lessons from the past four years and say YES to common sense laws that protect law-abiding society from those who decide to disregard safe and productive society.  

Yes, we should show love, and help those apprehended who want to change, but they still must be handled, so society can remain safe and productive!