PA: House Judiciary Committee to Consider "Castle Doctrine" and "No Retreat" Bills, Nov 19.

[GreenStormCloud]

On Thursday, November 19, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee will consider House Bill 40.


HB40, sponsored by State Representative Scott Perry (R-92), would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. It is clearly stated that there would be no “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground to protect themselves and their family. HB40 would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Does PA have an existing duty to retreat?

Some states do. Wondering why this needs to be specifically addressed for that state.

I like 'no duty to retreat' but some recent shootings of questionable justification make me wonder if Castle Doctrine is a good idea or not...

My state, Washington, has no express duty to retreat, and significant case history of the burden of proof being on the invader/attacker, not the defender/victim. We lack Castle Doctrine, but if some goblin breaks into my house in the night, I would have legal protection if I defended my family.

[pipoman]

11. The real benefit of these types of bills IMO

is the limit of civil recourse by the intruder or on the intruder's behalf. They also put the burden of proof more squarely on prosecutors if a prosecutor is inclined to charge a person who lawfully defends herself.

[slackmaster]

2. Which would bring PA into step with just about every other state including California

Good for them.

[T Wolf]

3. Does this mean I get to stand in my yard and take potshots at schoolkids who walk across it?

Actually, if I can use deadly force in "any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be" then I can blow people away even if they aren't on my property.

Oh, goodie.

[benEzra]

4. Nope.

It does mean that if someone outside your home tries to kill or maim you, you don't have to try to outrun them before you can defend yourself with a weapon.

[safeinOhio]

23. What if those damn kids are stealing my lawn mower?

They are on my property, in my yard. No, if they come in my door to steal my lawn mower? I hope this is worded better than presented here. What if I yell at the kid that broke in, told him to lie down or I'll shoot and then shoot him while he is laying on the floor? No civil suit? Ok, my wife that just filed for divorce, sneaks in the house late at night. I hear the noise and yell "who is it", no answer, can I shoot her? Save a bunch on lawyers. Can I shoot some one going out the door with my shit? Cops have a no-knock warrant for the house next door. Whoops wrong house. Can I open up with my assault "like" rifle and mow em all down with no arrest or law suits? If some one is breaking into my car parked in the driveway, can I sneak up behind him and shoot him in the ass? Can I shoot the mail man if he kicks my dog? Ok, how about if he kicks my kid? If he kicks my wife I'll just fire a warning shot.

[Katya Mullethov]

30. The best way to avoid the hammer

Is dont be a nail . I wouldnt be expanding into the killing my wife business if I were you .

We have a lot of freedom as far as defending our lives and livelyhoods in Texas . And it comes with the understanding that it is a serious responsibility . Whatever you do decide to do , know that you will see your day in court , so you damned well better know what you are doing . You have no idea what you are doing .

[safeinOhio]

31. I know what I'm doing.

I have secure locks and hinges on doors. Stops on windows. Alarms. If some one comes in, I'll know it and retreat to my safe room which has a gun safe with lots of guns and lots and lots of amo. Also a cell phone. I'll call 911 and tell them what is going on. I'll tell them what I have in my safe room and if the intruder gets thru the first locked door to the next one, I'll be firing with lots of fire power. So, get some one out here now.

My point is there will be no question as to my choice to use deadly force. I do not want to shoot any one and they are welcome to all I own as I pay a lot of insurance. The judge and jury will have a very easy time because after the intruder has gone thru my alarms, locks and fortified doors, I'll have no other choice. There will be no legal question.

[safeinOhio]

34. as for the wife thing

I moved out of state during my divorce on advice of the sheriff, her boss and my lawyer. Both told me she was a danger to my life.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. Then proceed to shoot the mailman Einstein

Post pics .

[safeinOhio]

38. Not if he kicks my wife.

Once you catch on I'll buy you a star so folks will think you care.

[jeepnstein]

40. That's very nice for you.

You can afford good locks, a safe room, the whole nine yards. Does that mean a person living on a whole lot less than you can't use self defense unless they can afford the same protective measures you can? A safe room is good planning. It's also just not something that many people can afford. I'm very glad you have such high hopes for a fast 911 response. What's the average response time in your community?

Ohio has had a castle doctrine law on the books for a while. There hasn't been a rash of convenient murders such as you are imagining.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2009/04/castle-doctrine-self-defense-in-the-home/

[safeinOhio]

46. My safe room cost me $110.00

A lot less than my 870 or my Glock. Do a little research. Home security has become affordable for every one. A box of 8X10 screws to secure door locks and hinges is less than 10 bucks. A drill and some dowel to secure windows. Real cheap no wire alarms on the web, cameras and motion detectors too. Here is just one site to check out for door alarms http://www.robaughproducts.com/ google home alarms.

I'm not counting on a fast response. Last time I called it was over an hour. Thing is, LE gets their chance to show up. I've done my part to inform them and keep the bad guy out. When kicking in my reinforced closet door, where I am, there will be no excuse or defense in court for the bad guy and his family when I unload my 870. I will have done every thing possible to avoid lethal self defense.

I do not want to shoot anyone. As a last resort, I will.

[slackmaster]

36. Relax. We've had a Castle Doctrine in California for several decades.

It's working just fine.

[benEzra]

39. Then deadly force is not authorized, BUT you could use a pepper spray or other appropriate force.

The Castle Doctrine allows you to use potentially lethal force to stop an illegal violent entry to your occupied home; it does NOT authorize the use of potentially lethal force to protect property, and if you shoot someone running out of your house with your lawnmower or TV then you are probably looking at a charge of second-degree murder, which the DA *might* plead down to voluntary manslaughter if you got lucky. You're going to prison either way.

If your wife has the legal right to be in the house and you shoot her, then that's murder, too, whether she's "sneaking in" or not. However, if a couple divorces, and the vengeful ex-husband comes back and kicks in the door even though he is not legally allowed to enter the house, then yes, she could legally shoot to stop the illegal home invasion, and the Castle Doctrine would protect her in that circumstance.

Nor do no-duty-to-retreat laws allow you to shoot somebody for anything other than threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony. You cannot initiate lethal force, you can only defend against it; your example of going up and shooting a car thief in your yard would also land you in prison for murder.

[PavePusher]

42. Some people already know this...

and are just trying to create a tempest in a tea-kettle.

They need to look up the definition of the word "absurdity".

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Are the kids in your neighborhood committing violent attacks on the way to and from school?

If not,then NO, you cannot fire away at the little snowflakes. Not unless they are attacking you at the time.

And if the schoolkids in your neighborhood are in the habit of doing that sort of thing, you need to move!

[eqfan592]

6. Nope, not even close.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/liberty_couple_indicted_for_murder_in_boy_s_shooting_death_06-05-2009.html

These folks tried to get away with something similar in Texas. Now they'll stand trial for murder.

[slackmaster]

8. If you were to actually read the bill you would find that you have to have a reasonabe fear

Of death or injury before you can use deadly force.

I'm just taking a wild guess here.

[T Wolf]

10. I tell you, I'm terrible asceered of them kids walking across my lawn, or even next door. I damn

well better be able to take a few potshots at the little varmints. After all, I don't know what is going on in their devious little minds. They could be planning some mischief.

[slackmaster]

12. That would not pass a test of reasonableness

Think about that, and do read the bill. Terms like "reasonable" are actually defined in the text.

[T Wolf]

13. As a social scientist, I worry every time we humans start to define terms that "everyone just

knows what they mean." I see constantly how the most inane, simplest term or phrase can be interpreted to mean the opposite of its intent.

A reasonable definition of reasonable. More likely an arbitrary definition of reasonable.

[slackmaster]

15. You think that's hard? Try explaining the DUer known as "Recursion"

To understand Recursion, you must understand Recursion.

But seriously, I have served on trial juries. I have some actual experience dealing in real-life with "reasonable person" issues in the law by way of instructions given to a jury by a judge. I am pleased to report that most of the time juries get it right. It's really not that hard when a group of people take a rational look at evidence.

A jury is where the ultimate judgement of reasonable or not reasonable occurs. Leaving that kind of decision in the hands of any particular induhvidual presents a risk for sure. That's why juries are made up of several people. (In California it's 12 people.)

BTW, I just skimmed the bill under discussion. Sections of it are copied almost verbatim from the California Penal Code section that deals with justifiable use of deadly force. That has been in effect here for many decades, and it works pretty well.

[T Wolf]

16. Does this law apply to the incident where the man killed two burglars LEAVING his

neighbor's house? I seem to remember that guy walking off scot-free.

I can see defending yourself if you are inside your own home. But being able to shot at anyone who "threatens your castle" seems pretty midevil (misspelling intentional).

It does seem as if we are moving back to the wild west days when the answer is to shoot first and don't even bother asking any god-damned questions. I would prefer something that explicitly allows deadly force in specifically-defined occasions. The parallel is to opt-in versus opt-out, sort of. In order for it to be a "righteous shoot" - certain specific factors must be present. Then, the burden would be on the shooter to make the decision before he shoots rather than justifying it after the fact.

[eqfan592]

17. Too bad you don't "seem to remember" the details of the case at hand.

The man in question confronted the two burglars and ordered them to stop. They then made an aggressive move towards this man which is when he shot them. The shooter gave them a chance to walk away without their loot, but instead they chose to try and go after him directly. They were in his yard, in fact, when they were shot.

Honestly, if you are a social sciences teacher, you should really try to be more accurate when it comes to the facts of cases like this if you're going to try and pass judgment on them. If you scroll up a little ways to another post of mine, you'll see an article I posted about two people who are going on trial for murder for shooting unarmed people just outside their property. This is in the same state where the other incident took place; Texas.

Also, you make use of a reference to "The Wild west," obviously attempting to bring forward the mental imagery of a lawless time where people were shot on a regular basis. If you had actually taken the time to study the Wild or Old West, you'd see that this image is the creation of Hollywood and not of reality.

[PavePusher]

21. And it was all legal in the State it occured in.

Don't like it? Change the laws.

[eqfan592]

22. Yeah, I totally forgot to mention that part of it.

Thanks, PavePusher :)

[safeinOhio]

26. This is America, we have the best justice system one can buy.

No need to change a law, just get a better lawyer than the other guy. OJ?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. He was no-billed by a grand jury because he was acting in self defense.

They were on his property, and made an aggressive move toward him, after he warned them to stop. This was verified by an officer that was arriving on scene and witnessed the shooting.

His braggadocio on the phone to 911 about going out to stop them cast him in a very negative light personally, but what he did was legal.


So since you can see defending yourself if you are inside your home, you are on-board with the castle doctrine. You just don't like the term. Put succinctly, if someone invades your home, you may defend yourself with deadly force, without fear of legal repercussion. That's all it is. It saves you from becoming a victim of the courts, after being a victim of violent crime. That's all.

The wild west wasn't what you seem to think it was.


And castle doctrin is opt-in. Goblin must be in your home, you feel threatened. Beyond that, the burden of proof is on the DA to prove you did anything wrong. So, it is what you seem to be asking for.

[safeinOhio]

27. So, it's only legal if you have a cop see it?

I knew law school was the ticket.

[slackmaster]

33. The standard is not "everyone just knows"

The standard is what a jury would decide a reasonable person would think or do.

[safeinOhio]

25. reasonable is not a black and white word, it is gray and open to argument.

Lawyer make a good living on those gray words.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Too bad you'd go to jail in a Castle Doctrine state, if that was your justification.

[PavePusher]

43. Disrupting disruptors disrupt... poorly. n/t

[safeinOhio]

24. I never have a reasonable fear

holding my 870. So, I can't shoot?

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Dorothy, your strawman is lacking in brains. N/T

[PavePusher]

20. You really need to stop playing the fool.

Oh wait... you're not playing.

[safeinOhio]

28. Your argument was going good until you just had to attack your opponent

instead of his logic. FAIL

[slackmaster]

32. No.

Read up on the subject.

[PavePusher]

41. Try not to sound stupid.

Try hard....

[PavePusher]

44. Aargh, another necro-thread.

I've got to start checking dates on these things.

My apologies and please disregard the above post.

[ManiacJoe]

7. Link to the text of the bill:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=0032

[rrneck]

9. If we're going to let

people carry firearms then it follows that we will have to establish some legal framework to take that mobility into consideration. Obviously, if someone has to defend themselves with deadly force it's not fair to allow them to be sued into oblivion by the estate of their aggressor.

But there may be a camel with it's nose under the tent here.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2009&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=40

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following exist:
(i) The person against whom the protective force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the protective force was used had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
(ii) The actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forceful entry or act was occurring or had occurred.
(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does not apply if:
(i) the person against whom the protective force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee;

The point at which deadly force is justified has been moved from a reason to believe that a person is about to be harmed to a reason to believe that property has been damaged. Now, who do we know that has no actual body but whose existence is defined by property?

This law is a large step forward for private gun owners, but it's a great leap forward for corporate personhood. If there is anything approaching the kind of labor strife we had around the turn of the last century it won't take many tragedies perpetrated by corporate goons to be thrown out of court to send the message that labor has no protection under the law. If you're "not where you're supposed to be" and you damage company property even accidently that might be enough to get you shot. Good luck trying to get restitution from the rent a cop that shot you, much less the company he works for. And there's no way the multinational corporation that they sub contracted to will ever see the inside of civil court. A corporation has no body to send to jail and no soul to send to hell.

At least that's the way it looks to me. The trend toward these kinds of laws is a good idea, but it seems they could be better written.

[safeinOhio]

29. I see enough holes to drive a tank thru.

It ends up being what the jury or judge think.

[slackmaster]

35. I think you should

It ends up being what the jury or judge think.

Just like EVERYTHING ELSE in our criminal justice system.

Judges interpret the law.

Juries determine facts.

That's how it's been for a long, long time.

[safeinOhio]

47. I spent a lot of time in court 2 years ago

Justice depends on your being able to afford the best defense. I fired several lawyers to find the ones that got me justice.

[Euromutt]

45. You missed a minor detail

This law is a large step forward for private gun owners, but it's a great leap forward for corporate personhood. If there is anything approaching the kind of labor strife we had around the turn of the last century it won't take many tragedies perpetrated by corporate goons to be thrown out of court to send the message that labor has no protection under the law. If you're "not where you're supposed to be" and you damage company property even accidently that might be enough to get you shot.

That would only apply if the corporate property in question is "a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle." Any commercial properties--office buildings, warehouses, industrial facilities, retail space, what have you--are not dwellings or residences.

[rrneck]

48. Sure did.

Something made me come up with that, I'll have another look at it when I get time.

Of course my suspicions regarding corporations border on tin foil hat stuff, so whatever I come up with might be fulla shit.

Wouldn't be the first time. :D