PA Gov Corbett will sign Castle Doctrine

[RamboLiberal]

HARRISBURG -- Without debate, the state Senate today approved a bill expanding self-defense rights and sent it to Gov. Tom Corbett for his signature.

Corbett will sign the bill, said his spokesman Kevin Harley.

By a 45-5 vote, the Senate approved an expansion of the so-called Castle Doctrine.

Under current law, a person can use deadly force -- without retreat -- in his or her home. Outside the home, using lethal force to defend oneself requires first taking steps away from an assailant. The bill approved today allows someone to shoot an attacker without retreat outside the home -- anywhere a person is legally allowed to be.

Supporters called it "stand your ground" legislation. Critics call it "shoot first" legislation.

Read more: Corbett will sign Castle Doctrine - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_743056.html#ixzz1PrOyAeVN

At least 1 good thing from Gov Corporate & the Repubs. At 45-5 there were certainly Dems who voted Yay.

[Bold Lib]

1. Great news!

[onehandle]

2. Conservatives are AWESOME!

Can one of them dislodge the Kenyan usurper.

Really.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. I was in central PA the other day and thought my head was going to pop off my body.

I actually heard a conversation in a restaurant where a young (early 20s was my guess) waitress was questioning if Hawaiians were legally allowed to vote. The reasoning was that it isn't "attached to the US". My immediate mental reaction was "typical FOX viewer".

I kid you not.

And now they get to CCW in public with impunity on shooting first and asking questions later.

Ain't life grand?

[TheWraith]

12. 49 states have concealed carry laws, and this isn't about "shooting first & asking questions later"

It's about protecting a person's right to defend themselves without first being obligated to try and flee their own home. Prior to Castle Doctrine laws, many states self defense statutes had a "duty to retreat" clause, meaning if someone was attacking you in your own home, you couldn't legally defend yourself without at least trying to flee from them.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Read it again.

It is already on the books that it is lawful to protect your home (and yourself from home invasion) without attempting defensive measures (fleeing the scene). This extends to a perceived threat in public.

[TheWraith]

26. So you should be required to run away from your car? Or if you're surrounded?

Being legally required to run away from a threat before defending yourself only puts you in greater danger.

[spin]

35. Florida's "stand your ground" law protects the honest citizen...

1)It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

2)In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

3)In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

4)If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.emphasis added
http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/April/Stand-Your-Ground-An-Absolute-Defense-in-the-Sta.aspx

If I am minding my own business and walking down a street and I am attacked by some fool who I seriously believes not only intends to rob me but also plans to seriously hurt or kill me with his firearm or knife and I draw my legally concealed firearm and shoot him, why should I face a legal hassle from some very liberal prosecuting attorney who believes I should have tried to run away? Why should I face the expense of defending myself in a civil lawsuit?

I did nothing to provoke or cause the attack. Why should I be punished for exercising my right to use legitimate self defense? Why should I have to use up all my life's savings or take a second mortgage out on my home to pay for an attorney to defend me?

I haven't researched Pennsylvania's new Castle Doctrine law but the article in the OP indicates that it is basically similar to the one in Florida.

During a lengthy House debate in April, opponents claimed the bill if enacted would create a "Wild West" mentality in Pennsylvania. But those voting for the bill said it sends a message to criminals that people will no longer be fearful of lawsuits or prosecution if they act when their lives are at risk.emphasis added

Read more: Corbett will sign Castle Doctrine - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_743056.html#ixzz1PwqydMFk

[napi21]

14. Central Pa. has always been very RW. As far as this new legislation goes,

It won't make much diff. to those folks. My FIL was from there and he & all his relatives were hunters and avid guncollectors. They taught their kids and everyone they encountered about gun safety as well, and that's a good thing. I remember him always saying if someone tries to break into your hose, shoot him, then make sure that body is inside your house! All this new law would do is stop them from moving the body.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. That was VERY BAD ADVICE.

I hear that garbage a lot. So called, "If they fall outside drag them inside." DON'T DO IT. Leave them where they fall. It is a felony to tamper with the evidence. You will be an amateur at arranging evidence up against professionals at detecting tampering with the evidence. The blood trail will make it obvious that you moved the body. Once you arrange the scene to suit you and it is discovered then the cops won't believe a thing you say. Why should they? You have already lied to them.

Don't move the body. Don't tamper with the evidence. Call a lawyer or ask for one to be appointed. Make only a minimum basic statement, then take the 5th.

[spin]

36. I agree. I told my daughter to never drag the body inside ...

and that advice saved an intruders life.

She walked into the kitchen one night and encounter an individual who was forcing the sliding glass door open and was halfway into the house. She pointed a large .45 caliber revolver at him and he ran.

When I asked her, "Why didn't you shoot him?" she told me that I had always told her to never shoot anyone unless they were all the way inside our home.

[napi21]

42. I know that! My FIL died 1984 s he was from the "old school".

My only point was that was the thinking in central Pa.!

[gejohnston]

16. so the 20 something had a shitty education, and you are being a snob

There are bigots and there are bigots that pretend to be open minded liberals. But then, you are making an opinion on a subject you know nothing about, so how does that make you better than the waitress? FWIW, MSNBC is not different than Fox, different propaganda.
That is the reason rural and blue collar people vote GOP, not clinging to "guns and religion"
Or are you one of those who think that a civilized person runs out the back door (because in duty to flee, you can be prosecuted for not going out the back door.) or allows themselves be raped or robbed without resisting?

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Yeah, so lets start more wars and continue to defund education.

Call me a bigot and a snob all you like, but I would prefer to see an educated Gen X Y Z than a bunch of people who don't grasp the concept of statehood being told that they can shoot a CCW in a public place (not the home, this bill extends that) without impunity.

You fight your battles and I'll fight mine and I'll see you at the finish line. :)

[gejohnston]

24. I am all for your causes too, but you are ill informed.

If you don't get that, please explain to me how are they mutually exclusive? That is the problem of people watching opinion channels that reinforce their view and think they are informed. Both sides think they know everything and neither one knows much.
My point that your remark told me more about her education and you more than it did about her or her politics. The same rules apply, threat to your life or another. Not because he looked at me funny or any other nonsense that the Republicans at Brady tell you. It is to protect the would be victim from malicious prosecution and the robber or rapist or their family from suing you. That is all it does.
Yes they are all Republicans. At least MAIG has a few token Dems.

[PavePusher]

31. Again you prove your own ignorance.

No "impunity" involved. No matter what the circumstances, there's going to be a pretty thourough investigation.

[ileus]

19. watriss.....probably not a republican....generalize much?

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Waitress, and no - I was just describing the situation.

I tended bar and waited tables for 20 years and loved every minute of it as I love interacting with the public. I miss that.

So, generalize much?

[Bold Lib]

39. You did not "just" describe the situation.

You pontificated and generalized (wrongfully) about the new law going into affect. You also showed your ignorance of the issue.

[rl6214]

29. So open minded you are.

[PavePusher]

30. I've sadly met plenty of "liberals" who were that dumb/ignorant.

It's not a trait confined in any way to one side of politics.

[petronius]

38. I've met one or two people (politics unknown) who thought Alaska was an

island like Hawaii - after all, they both often appear as inset maps in school texts and atlases. And the 'Hawaii: state or island?' confusion has popped up as well (and don't get me started on the 'Africa: country or continent?' conundrum)...

[PavePusher]

40. I had the benefit of traveling a lot internationally while growing up.

Geography is one of my favorite subjects.

[TheWraith]

10. If Rendell had pulled his head out of the sand, he could have signed this in a victory for Dems.

Just like it's a victory for the large majority of Dems in the PA legislature who've been pushing this. Despite what you may believe, and what Republicans would like others to believe, most Democrats are NOT in favor of people being required to be helpless victims of violent criminals.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. A 45-5 vote means a *lot* of Dems voted for this.

A fact seemingly lost on the "Better to have 100% of nothing than 80% of what you want" crowd...

[TheWraith]

15. 20 Dems in the PA State Senate, so a minimum of 3/4 of the conference voted yes. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

7. Guns r people too. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Not really, You do realize that 'deadly force' doesn't always = 'use a gun', right?

Or are you, too, another unfortunate victim of BIGF? (Bigotry Impaired Google Fu)

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. How am I being bigoted and WTF is Google Fu?

[gejohnston]

25. Have you ever heard of dog whistle politics?

A recent example is Neil Bortz's stunt. What I and Ed Schultz heard was a racist inciting violence marked by the word "yo". He got a call from a guy in rural Utah that did not hear the whistle and did not understand why Ed would be opposed to legitimate self defense, because the caller heard Bortz saying that Atlanta became a scene from Mad Max. How did that happen? If you are from Vernal, Utah or Lyman, Wyoming, you know nothing about hip hop. Your understanding of African Americans are Bill Cosby and the first family. My knowledge was expanded by being in a unit where I was only one of two white guys. The other white guy was the only Republican.

It works unintentionally too. You said what you thought you meant. To a working class or a rural person, regardless of race or party, hears something different. I heard an an closed minded urban elites making value judgments. The Republicans figured that out a long time ago. That is where "God, Guns, and Gays" show up. The liberals are open minded and tolerant of to people other than me. With guns, both sides are run by Republicans, be it Ted Nugent or Paul Helmke, and they play both sides against the middle.

[gejohnston]

32. from Urban Dictionary

268 up, 47 down
buy google-fu mugs, tshirts and magnets
google-fu

Function: noun
Etymology: google.com (search website) gOngfu skill, art
Date: 2003

: the ability to quickly answer any given question using internet resources, such as a search engine

Example: "My google-fu is strong this morning." (#insub IRC log, twid and others, circa 2003)
by twid Mar 8, 2003 share this
2. google-fu 187 up, 27 down
buy google-fu mugs, tshirts and magnets
The ability to use Google with zen like prowess.
You couldn't find it on the web? Dude....your google-fu is weak.
knowledge omniscience zen uberness internet
by Chris Weidner Jan 4, 2007 share this
3. google-fu 159 up, 37 down
buy google-fu mugs, tshirts and magnets
a measure of one's level of skill in using the Google search engine in order to find needed (usually worthless) information
"My Google-Fu is better than your Google-Fu."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. I hear the sound of many single hands unrecing n/t

[qazplm]

8. not sure how to react

the idea of retreating seems counter-intuitive to a situation where someone is likely to feel trapped/threatened enough to feel the need to use deadly force, then again, I have no confidence that some folks will get to the point where they actually do objectively need to use deadly force before using it. It's one thing in the home, I'm down with that, outside the home, it's not so clear.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. This doesn't "legalize murder", but defines when use of deadly force may be justified....

....whatever other opinions might be offered.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. Thank you - this is what I was unsuccessfully trying to convey. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

27. You are on the right track.

The problem with "must retreat" laws is that they force a single tactic for all situations regardless of whether that tactic is a good one or not.

By removing the "must retreat" laws, the victim gets to decide what the best tactics are for ending the attack based on the specific situation. Sometimes retreating is a good option, sometimes it is not.

[PavePusher]

33. How is a threat of harm in the home....

different from a threat outside the home?

If someone is trying to harm you, location doesn't matter.

[spin]

37. Assume a thug walks up to you and pulls a firearm or a knife ...

and calmly asks you to give him your wallet. You have a legally concealed firearm. What do you do?

Many experts will tell you that your best choice is to hand over your wallet. You can always replace your money, driver's license and credit cards but you can't always replace your health or if you end up dead you don't get to come back to life like in video games. You give him your wallet and make a promise to yourself to be more aware of your surroundings and not to walk around with your cell phone glued to your ear.

Now let's assume that the bad guy appears extremely unstable and you realize that he probably will try to hurt or kill you even if you simply give up your wallet. If you run he could simply shoot you in the back and if he had a knife and was faster then you he might catch you and slash your throat.

So, realizing that you have absolutely nothing to lose, you draw your firearm and shoot him. There are no guarantees at this point that you will survive or walk away uninjured. Handguns are not the extremely lethal weapons that you see portrayed in the movies or on TV.

But let's assume that you survive the encounter (hopefully without injury). An extremely zealous prosecuting attorney decides to charge you because you didn't attempt to retreat. You pay for an attorney and the jury decides whether you are innocent or guilty. You then face a lawsuit from the criminal or his family and have more legal expenses to deal with. You end up broke with enormous legal expenses or in jail or both.

The "stand your ground" laws will protect you from many of the legal hassles if you are in the right. You don't have a requirement to retreat. The police will investigate to determine if you provoked the attack or are simply lying about the situation. If you are not being totally honest and you were not as innocent as you claim (for example you were involved in a drug deal that went bad) you may still end up in jail.

While there may be some very debatable circumstances that occur the overwhelming percentage of situations will involve a totally innocent victim using legitimate self defense against a very dangerous criminal.

None of the states that have passed "stand your ground" castle defense laws have had such serious problems that led to the law being revoked.

[ileus]

17. Congrats to our friends in PA no more fears of being arrested for defending yourself.

I hope it also took the civil suit out of the equation.

[ManiacJoe]

28. Link to the bill:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=1038

Update as needed if this is not the current version.

[petronius]

41. Thank you, that should clear up some of the discussion here

One thing that strikes me is the definition of a vehicle is very broad - seems like it includes bicycles, skateboards, scooters. Makes me wonder how they define a assailant 'attempting to enter' one of those vehicles, and it also strikes me as a bit unfair to pedestrians...