Pro and Con on Pennsylvania's "Stand Your Ground" law ...

[spin]

Background

Pa. House Votes To Extend Self-Defense Protections
Sunday, October 10, 2010

The state House of Representatives voted last Tuesday for a bill to expand the legal use of deadly force in self-defense of individuals and their property.

The so-called “Castle Doctrine” - H.B. 40 - would expand current state law to allow individuals to use deadly force against an intruder, even if the intruder does not first threaten bodily harm to the individual. The bill passed with large bipartisan support, 158-39, and is headed to the state Senate for consideration.

***snip***

Under current state law, individuals are allowed to use deadly force in self-defense if they are threatened with death, serious bodily harm, or kidnapping. They are also allowed to use deadly force to protect other individuals from the same risks.

Current law also requires an individual to retreat from the threat before using deadly force if the individual is in a public place.

Mr. Perry’s bill would remove that requirement, allowing an individual to use deadly force if the individual has a right to be in the place where he is attacked and if the individual has a reasonable suspicion the attacker intends to commit serious bodily harm.

***snip***

If the Senate does not pass H.B. 40 next week - the final scheduled session days for the Senate this year - it would be up to the next governor to sign or veto the bill. Senate Republicans’ spokesperson Erik Arneson said the voting schedule for next week is not set, but the fact that the House passed the bill without amendments increases the chances the Senate will consider it.
http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2010/10/10/top_stories/doc4cb21c4040b41435043672.txt

Pro

Legislative Position Paper & Support Request—HB 40

Castle Doctrine -Stand Your Ground

As you know, criminals are becoming bolder; home invasions are becoming more common and our law enforcement officers are being murdered on our urban streets by recidivist offenders. Law abiding citizens are forced to defend their family and themselves with baseball bats, golf clubs, or whatever they have available to them at the moment of attack. With the downturn in the economy, many local police departments are being downsized while other police departments are being eliminated all together, due to the deterioration of their community’s tax base. State police resources are stretched as evidenced by recent moves to charge policing fees to communities believed able to afford them.

To add insult to injury, if a constituent is fortunate or lucky enough to successfully defend themselves and in the process causes injury to a law breaker, that law abiding citizen could easily become the target of a civil lawsuit! From whom? The criminal! Yes, a citizen – maybe even you! – could become a victim again, paying attorney fees to defend yourself once again, except this time, you’ll have to defend yourself against the very government that currently denies needed legal protections and is not legally obligated to protect you! You may be forced to “pay restitution” to the attacker for alleged “diminished capacity to earn a (dis)honest living”. How equitable is that! If you or someone in your family is ever attacked by a criminal HB 40 would afford immunity from civil suits regarding yours or your loved one’s use of force to protect oneself.

Under HB 40 citizens would have no legal duty to retreat when confronted by criminals. Under HB 40 citizen’s can protect their family and property in a life or death situation, without fear of being prosecuted in court for using force to stop criminal acts. Note that HB 40 has been specifically crafted so there are no allowances for criminal intent. Any illegal activity on the part of the property owner or legal resident would nullify any legal defense. Also included, is a provision that does not allow for challenging the legal authority of law enforcement, nor does it allow “a shoot first ask questions later mentality”. It grants citizens the authority to stop a crime when it is occurring in front of them that places them in danger of serious bodily harm or death. HB 40 also gives notice to repeat violent criminals that crime will no longer be tolerated by citizens who refuse to be their victims.
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/54399-castle-doctrine-hb-40-09-does-anyone-really-want-passed-if-so-please-read.html

Con

Gun god: The House pays homage by blessing a lethal bill
Monday, October 11, 2010 05:00 AM

If you believe Pennsylvania needs more encouragement for gun violence, House Bill 40 is the legislation for you. It supposedly better protects law-abiding gun owners who use lethal force to defend their property. What it really does is open a can of deadly worms.

The legislation seeks to expand the "castle doctrine," an ancient principle of common law asserting that a person's house is his castle and can be defended against intruders. Pennsylvania law holds that a person threatened must in certain circumstances retreat before using potentially deadly force to defend himself -- a common-sense provision detestable to those who think that gun rights trump all other considerations.

In this bill, that castle is more than a house -- it is also a garage, a porch or deck, a driveway, a backyard or frontyard and a personal vehicle (which doesn't have to be motorized, so presumably it could be a bicycle or skateboard). In this free-fire zone, the person who feels threatened by someone intent on committing a crime -- someone armed with a weapon but not necessarily a gun -- can stand his ground with the right to be judge, jury and executioner. This is an invitation to trouble and it holds life cheaper than current law.

***snip***

So why change a law that is working and has the support of law enforcement groups? According to the bill's sponsors, gun owners risk being sued by criminals if they exercise their right of self-defense. What worries the district attorneys is the reverse. They fear that the legislation "is a ready-made defense for violent criminals -- a defense which their attorneys will exploit in court." As for gun owners being sued by criminals in Pennsylvania, where are all the news stories recounting all those legal cases?

***snip***

If this bill reaches Gov. Ed Rendell's desk, he should take a pro-people stand and veto it because empowering itchy trigger fingers is more about encouraging violence than standing up for self-defense.
http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/a-fine-point/22230-gun-god-the-house-pays-homage-by-blessing-a-lethal-bill?cmpid=bcpanel6

[oneshooter]

1. BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS!!! not n/t

[spin]

2. It always amazes me when some states think that it is entirely logical to require retreat...

before an individual can be allowed to defend himself against a lethal attack.

Obviously a home invasion is a situation where it's logical to assume that the intruders mean to harm you until proved otherwise. It's easy to determine if a person is home. If a person breaks into my home when I am not there and steals my stuff, I will be upset. If a person breaks into my home while I am present, I will be in fear for my life. That doesn't mean that I will shot first and ask questions later. It does mean that if I encounter the intruder and I order him to, "stop, don't move!", and he instead turns his back to me - I will suspect that he is going for a weapon. He better start running for the door.

On the street, each situation and every person are different. I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry, which puts me in a different situation than most people (who are unarmed). Faced with an attacker armed with a knife or a gun, it may indeed be the best choice for an unarmed person to run like the wind.

If I found myself in a bad situation on the street and I had the opportunity to retreat, I would take it. On the other hand, that could be a foolish mistake. I could easily be shot or stabbed in the back as I turned to run. (In my personal case this is quite likely as I have a bad hip and back problems that make running almost impossible. I can limp fast, that's it.)

But I remember a martial arts instructor whose classes I attended years ago. He advocated looking into the eyes of the person who accosted you, as the eyes, "are the mirror of the soul". If the person looked rational he recommended giving them your wallet as you can always replace everything inside it but you can't replace your life. He also had no problem with running away from the situation if possible. He mentioned you might feel like a coward and others might view you as one, but you may live to fight another day.

If you realized that you were going to be severely hurt or killed no matter how hard you tried to comply with the mugger’s wishes, he recommended that you EXPLODE and attack! He would demonstrate his technique which included the fiercest and loudest yell I have ever heard from anyone. If the mugger was armed, my instructor had techniques to disarm him followed by a series of moves and blows that could quickly disable and possible severely injure the attacker.

Technically, using his techniques in a state without a "stand your ground" law might lead to prosecution. After all, you attacked rather than retreated. It would take a prosecuting attorney who was an asshole to do this, but ambitious prosecutors hoping to become wealthy politicians do exist.

If you have training in judo, jujitsu or karate and overcome an armed opponent intent on robbing you, chances are you will face no problems. If however, you are in the exactly same situation and you are legally armed and you use your firearm for self defense, the situation often is often viewed differently.

Judo good, guns bad.

That's why I support Castle Doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

[backwoodsbob]

3. yep

it's simple here in SW Virginia...you break into a house that's occupied..chances are good you will die.That's why we don't see a lot of break ins

[spin]

5. Which is the way it should be. Darwin's Law...

the stupid don't survive. Therefore they don't produce as many offspring. Evolution is good.

The smart burglar makes sure that the armed homeowner is not home.

[jazzhound]

4. It's always struck me as incredibly immoral to demand

that a homeowner has a duty to retreat in his own home. Doing so could easily mean that the homeowner surrenders the tactical advantage to the criminal, as dictated by circumstance and the layout of the home.

[spin]

6. The best plan when someone invades your home ...

is to stay in your bedroom with a 12 gauge shotgun pointed at your door and you on the line with the police.

If some fool breaks your door down, you make sure that he is not your drunk next door neighbor and you simply blow him away.

That works if there are only you and your wife in the home (and you sleep in the same bedroom). In my case there are, at at a minimum, my daughter and son in law and two grandsons. Often there are numerous teenagers staying over night or a roomer and his friends in the house. (We all live in a large old building that used to be a hotel rather than a yellow submarine.)

Odd noses that alert me at night are worth checking out. I'm the old fart. I wake up quickly. If anyone has to play Wyatt Earp (a really bad idea) it's me.

I wander out casually with a S&W .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in my front pants pocket. If I encounter someone who has a reason to be in the house, I don't scare the shit out of them. Far better than meeting them while carrying a 12 gauge coach gun. So far I have never encountered an intruder. I hope I never do.

[jazzhound]

7. "The best plan when someone invades your home.......

is to stay in your bedroom with a 12 gauge shotgun pointed at your door and you on the line with the police."

Couldn't agree more........and that's (almost) exactly the plan I'd execute if a home invasion occurred in the dead of night while I was sleeping. The only strategy I've added (since my bed is elevated for storage beneath it) is to keep a powerful wide-beam flashlight handy. It could be used to blind/distract someone busting down the door by placing it on the end of the bed and aiming it at the door. But it would take a battering ram to get into the master bedroom with the ultra-secure door.

I wander out casually with a S&W .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in my front pants pocket. If I encounter someone who has a reason to be in the house, I don't scare the shit out of them. Far better than meeting them while carrying a 12 gauge coach gun. So far I have never encountered an intruder. I hope I never do.

Clearly, we think alike. I have an AirLite .357 which completely disappears in the deep pockets of my cargo shorts.

On an occasion when a very large, mentally compromised homeless cat entered my backyard I retreated to the master bedroom and called the police. It was a balmy spring day and I had the sliding glass door leading to the yard open. On that occasion I didn't feel the need to pull the 12 gauge out of the safe since I had a .40 cal at the ready. Under different circumstances I could have been in big trouble, as he could have entered by opening the screen door and I would have been trapped in the kitchen. I had my head down washing dishes when I was alerted to his presence through his conversation with my lemon tree and a hummingbird --- and I am hearing impaired.

[AlinPA]

8. This law won't change things much. Except I do have questions about

a land owner who doesn't want trespassers or neighbors in his/her yard and blows someone's head off and then claims they were going to attack him even if they were not a violent threat. I guess that can happen with or without the new law.

[Euromutt]

9. Castle Doctrine typically applies only INSIDE one's domicile

The underlying idea being that, while you can accidentally wander onto someone's land, it stretches credulity to claim that you accidentally wandered into someone's house.

[AlinPA]

12. Of course; but I referred to trespassers on private property. One can claim the trespasser

(who would be dead) was threatening bodily harm. So the law won't change anything in this scenario.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. Well, the new law only shifts the burden of proof... that is all.

If the DA feels, in a situation like you described, that the homeowner may have culpability then they have to show some possibility or evidence before endictment or pressing charges against the homeowner. Prior to castle doctrine, there almost certainly would have been an investigation placing the homeowner on the defensive having to justify thier own innocence and self defense.

This is what alot of castle doctrine opponents don't understand... Castle Doctrine is not a talisman that wrongdoers can hide behind. It merely shifts the burden of proof to the state prosocution. But if the state proves culpability, castle doctrine will not protect a shooter regardless of whose land/house it occurred on.

[spin]

11. Some argue that the law makes prosecution harder...

Stand your ground' makes it tougher to prosecute assailants
In Print: Thursday, September 30, 2010

It took Hillsborough County deputies two days to arrest Trevor Dooley, the school bus driver accused of shooting and killing a Valrico Air Force veteran on a basketball court. The arrest on manslaughter charges may have been complicated by the state's "stand your ground" law, which allows the use of lethal force if a person feels threatened by another with great bodily harm. The law makes it more difficult to make arrests and prosecute assailants when there has been a fight.

It has been five years since the Florida Legislature disregarded the advice of prosecutors and law enforcement and passed the controversial "stand your ground" law at the behest of the powerful National Rifle Association. Under the law, a person has no duty to attempt to retreat from a threat of violence even if that is a safe option.

Florida has not become a "Wild West" with gunfights in the streets as many feared, but the law has interfered with prosecutions. In numerous cases, serious charges were not pursued because it appeared that the killer might technically be protected by the "stand your ground" law. In one Miami case last year, occupants of two cars exchanged gunfire during a high-speed chase and one man was killed. The gunman received a three-year sentence in a plea agreement. Prosecutors worried about potential "stand your ground" immunity.

In Dooley's case in Hillsborough, the Sheriff's Department says he carried a gun as he confronted a boy riding a skateboard on a basketball court. The episode ended with 41-year-old David James shot dead. He had been playing basketball with his 8-year-old daughter when he and Dooley argued over the skateboarding.

In responding to the incident, the Sheriff's Office had to follow state law that forbids police from detaining a suspect who acts in self-defense. Deputies had to exclude the likelihood that Dooley was standing his ground under Florida law before they could legally arrest him. And the "stand your ground" law is so broad and vague that as long as a person is doing nothing illegal, he can kill another person if he is reasonably put in fear of great bodily harm — even if the victim is unarmed.
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/stand-your-ground-makes-it-tougher-to-prosecute-assailants/1124957

[PavePusher]

13. This:

"And the "stand your ground" law is so broad and vague that as long as a person is doing nothing illegal, he can kill another person if he is reasonably put in fear of great bodily harm — even if the victim is unarmed."


Why do so many people seem to equate "unarmed" with "harmless"? Morons at play, methinks.

[benEzra]

14. "if he is reasonably put in fear of great bodily harm" is the operative standard for self-defense

in almost every state. Has this guy never studied self-defense law? Or does he just not realize the meaning of the legal term "reasonable fear"?

"Morons at play", indeed.

[spin]

15. The St. Petersburg Times is EXTREMELY opposed to RKBA ...

many gun owners in St. Petersburg subscribe to the Tampa Tribune.