PA State Senate Committee Approves Expanded "Castle Doctrine" Bill

[RamboLiberal]

HARRISBURG, DAUPHIN COUNTY — A Pennsylvania senate committee overwhelmingly approved SB 273, the Castle Doctrine bill Tuesday afternoon. The bill if it becomes law would allow law abiding individuals to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders. The bill expands that right of self protection to anywhere a person is threatened not just inside their home. The bill also provides legal protection for those who use lethal force to protect themselves.

http://www.fox43.com/news/wpmt-castle-doctrine-passes,0,6696374.story

Rendell vetoed this last fall. May be one of the few good things that come out of a Repub gov & legislature. Sure didn't help Onorato that Rendell vetoed & Onorato supported that veto.

[MyrnaLoy]

1. It's like

Democratic Underground has become Gunocratic Underground.

[RamboLiberal]

2. One little forum - and you begrudge that

BTW I participate in a number of DU forums.

[MyrnaLoy]

4. Is there a

way to block entire forums?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Don't click on it?

Surely you have that much willpower?

Can't those of us that care about ALL of our civil liberties be banished to the cellar in peace without you coming in here and yelling that we're too loud, people might hear us and know we exist?

[MyrnaLoy]

7. Well

I do have to praise a post you made recently, it showed common sense and an understanding of the consequences. The repeal of the 1968 Act post. It is suggestions like that that can draw in those who favor common sense laws. I myself have a concealed weapons permit. I've never carried a concealed weapon and I only got it to make purchasing easier. I'm not adverse to common sense, it's the crazy I worry about. Can we agree that there is a little "crazy" in here sometimes?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Agreed, the discourse in here is sub-par

compared even to the Environmental forum, which has the Anti-Carbon Pro-Nuke crowd battling against the Anti-Carbon Pro-Solar/Wind Anti-Nuke crowd.

A passionate argument, and it's not always 'clean', but it's much better than in here.

[Lasher]

20. Are you kidding? Duck into the I/P forum a time or two.

You'll feel like the Gungeon is a love fest.

[MyrnaLoy]

27. I'm trying

to be better and not argue online anymore, it really the biggest waste of time. I like the discussion but hate the anger which always seems to happen.

[PavePusher]

26. "A little 'crazy'" goes hand-in-hand with freedom and liberty.

How could it be otherwise?

[beevul]

35. Its ten times better than it used to be.

You should have been here circa 2003/2004, it was ten times worse than it is now.

Look in the archives some time.

Don't say I didn't warn you first though.


LOL.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Easy. Don't click. There are several forums I never look at. N/T

[beevul]

34. Hes become?

We pro-gunners have been arguing the issue and more than not, winning the debate here, since before this was changed from the Justice/Public Safety forum, to the Guns forum.


Which it ceased to be a few years ago.

So what exactly do you mean by "has become"?

In what context?

[uberblonde]

3. So let me understand this.

If I'm walking down the street and some big guy gives me the stinkeye, I get to execute him?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Not unless you want to go to jail.

You don't seriously think the law would be that open ended, do you?

[MyrnaLoy]

8. is it

ok to shoot someone who id carrying your neighbor's tv out of their house? This has happened recently in Texas and the shooter barely knew his neighbor and didn't know those carrying the TV. What if it was a family member picking up the TV?

[guruoo]

9. Guy shot two unarmed suspects in the back, claimed self-defense under castle doctrine and walked.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1



Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars
'Castle Doctrine' Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders

Horn ignored the dispatcher's pleas not to open fire.

Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"
Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."
Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."
Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"
Dispatcher: "That's alright."
Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."
Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.

The call to 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE

[MyrnaLoy]

10. that's

the guy

[Callisto32]

12. And that situation was bullshit.

He should be in prison for a very, very long time. Anybody who would kill someone over theft/larceny, as opposed to robbery displays dangerously poor judgment and a tendency toward violence.

[PavePusher]

13. I'm not sure I agree.

Theives might be less prevalent if they were under more threat to their safety...

Just sayin'....

[Callisto32]

15. Aye, there might be a deterrent effect.

But that is not a principle I am willing to sacrifice. Initiation of force, I believe, is wrong. To escalate the level of violence is initiation of force, hence wrong.

ETA: There is also the issue that deterrence theories presume rational self interest on the part of the would be criminal. Many of the criminal class seem to be incapable of such calculus, limiting its effect. Its like the death penalty. If there really is a deterrent effect to it, why does TX have so many people to execute? It seems to be that the people that commit these kinds of crimes are not thinking about the consequences. This could be for any number of reasons. Stupidity, "heat of the moment" decisions, and generally poor impulse control come to mind.

[MyrnaLoy]

28. if we are to believe that

then wouldn't the death penalty deter crime?

[chibajoe]

14. While I agree that the Joe Horn situation was a "bad shoot"

The fact remains that you are allowed to use deadly force to protect property in Texas after sundown. If you don't want to get shot, you should probably not go around trying to steal people's stuff, at least not after dark, anyway.

[Callisto32]

16. I do not care what is and is not legal, generally.

I am more concerned with what is right. Escalating violence against property into violence against people is wrong. Period.

No, you should not go around stealing people's stuff. However, a crime against property does not justify harming a person. If the thieves had been robbers, the situation would be different.

Yes, you have a right to defend your property, but only to the level of force that the perpetrator initiated against it. For example, taking the items back and ejecting from the property would be justified. If the thief attempted to harm you in the process, it would be appropriate to use equal force back against him, otherwise, you are harming people over stuff. Do I believe thieves should be punished? Yes, through restitution with interest.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I will disagree.

It was widely reported that he shot them in the back. Until I see the autopsies myself, Eric Wallace of the County Medical Examiners office did not confirm that they were shot in the back. Only that they were shot (Ortiz) in the neck and torso, and Torres died of shotgun wounds to his torso and upper left extremity.


The officer that witnessed the shooting did indicate Torres was shot in the back, while fleeing, but that Ortiz continued to approach Horn after the initial confrontation, and after being warned to stop. (Unnamed plainclothes detective, according to Capt. A.H. Corbett.)

Edit: If I had to guess, I would say, based on the officer's testimony, Ortiz was justifiable, Torres not so much. I would not shoot a fleeing suspect that posed me, or anyone nearby, no immediate danger.

[Callisto32]

19. If that is the situation, I agree with you.

I was under the impression that he shot fleeing people in the back, and that this was confirmed. I know that "Shot in the back" on its own does not mean an attack was not taking place, as a person can swivel 180 degrees in a fraction of a second, probably the amount of time it takes to present a weapon and fire.

I was speaking in generalities above, not to this particular incident.

If he went out armed and told them to stop, I would approve of that, so long as the weapon is not to shoot them over property. If they turned and began advancing on a man with a gun, and got themselves shot, they are now robbers that got shot by a would-be victim, not thieves that were murdered absconding with loot.

[MyrnaLoy]

30. without the report

we really don't know but let's inject some human instinct. How many here would walk unarmed towards a man with a shotgun? Now, how many here would turn and run away from a man with a shotgun? How many would stand and give up? Common sense and instinct tells me he shot them in the back.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. The police officer that witnessed it stated that Ortiz approached Horn.

I am inclined to believe him. The officer was none too appreciative of the situation, and doesn't seem to be 'on' Horn's side. He was actually afraid Horn might shoot him for suspecting him of being a getaway driver.

[MyrnaLoy]

32. aren't

coroner's reports part of public record? Why didn't the police, if he witnessed it order the suspect to halt? Shouldn't the police officer have taken control of the situation and how did he know if the shooter was a good guy or a bad guy? So many holes in this story.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. The officer was in plainclothes, and still in his car, having just pulled up.

Events unfolded quickly.

I suspect he knew Horn wasn't a 'bad guy' (technically, he did shoot one man while fleeing after all, according to the officer) because the 911 guys were frantically relaying Horn's actions to the responding officers. They knew he was going outside, with a shotgun.

Horn is actually lucky he didn't get shot by the police.

Edit: I have not seen the actual coroner report. I don't think it's been made public. It should be, and I am interested in reading it, if anyone can link it.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Equal force?

I am a senior citizen with a disability. I am long past the time when I could trade punches with someone. If I am attacked, or threatened, I have no way of knowing if he will stop after he has knocked me down. I can't meet equal with equal. So I have a gun and will use it to defend myself if I have to.

[RamboLiberal]

23. +1 Female & getting in to senior years

I was determined never to be that woman and/or elderly person you too often read about murdered, beaten, robbed or raped just for the hell of it by some scumbag(s).

[Callisto32]

24. Equal force does not mean exactly equal force.

Pound for pound/ft pound for ft pound.

If the attack places YOU in danger of grievous bodily harm, you would be justified in doing the same. An attack that would not threaten grievous bodily injury to ME, an able bodied, 25 year old, 235 pound male may place someone like YOU as described in your post in much greater danger.

ETA: I used a less than precise word, for the concept I intended to convey. By "equal force" I mean "an equal level of threat."

[PavePusher]

25. What if the criminal is stealing the means for my livelihood?

If they stealing my work tools, or transportation, even if ensured, I may well be out of a job long enough to ruin my life.

If it is "merely" random property, they are stealing something that it took time, sweat, and possibly blood to procure. In short, they are stealing the part of my life that was invested in obtaining that object. Sorry, but I don't owe thieves an easy time doing so. The choice is, ultimately, theirs.

Note that the rate of recovery for stolen goods is abysmal (really, how could it be otherwise...) and that insurance will likely net you less than 50% of replacement value (in my personal experience).

[Callisto32]

36. How does "killing people over stuff is wrong" translate to "give thieves an easy time?"

I didn't say you can't stop them from taking your stuff. I said you can't KILL them over JUST taking your stuff. ALL property represents labor, somehow, and labor represents your body, yes. BUT, obviously anything you have acquired is NOT equal to your LIFE. If it were, you would be dead. It is impossible for someone to threaten your LIFE by taking your STUFF. They can threaten your life WHILE taking your stuff, but that is a different issue entirely.

Well, I suppose that isn't entirely accurate. I suppose that a thief could threaten your life by taking your stuff, which would make him a robber, a different beast. Taking some kind of life-support equipment, for example, but I see that as doing more than "taking your stuff." For example, taking a respirator would be the moral equivalent of suffocation. Acting on the item would be the same as acting on the life, since the life directly requires the equipment.

Your example of your tools? Not so much. A mechanic whose tools are stolen may have to work at McDonald's long enough to buy new tools and start over, and that sucks, but it is NOT the equivalent of killing.

[PavePusher]

37. Example:

Many/most civilian aircraft and automotive mechanics have to provide their own common hand-tools. Think $5K-50K investment. Tools stolen, no work. No work, no paycheck for morgatage, car payments, health insurance. Insurance replacement? Don't make me laugh. Think "massive depreciation" for anything more than 10 minutes old.

Not to mention that as a current military aviation tech, I literally have paid in blood, both mine and my comrades', to earn my belongings.

Would I shoot someone in the back? Probably not. Tackle them? You betchya. Cause them physical injury and pain if they don't put my shit down and leave empty handed? Oh yeah. Whatever, they are not leaving with my stuff if I am concsious.

[Callisto32]

38. I don't think we disagree.

I think we are misunderstanding one another, maybe?

I would not take issue with the actions you describe.

At the core, all I am saying is that shooting a man who is not threatening bodily harm or death by his taking of property cannot rightly be met with lethal force. If he is taking something without which you or another will be killed or grievously injured, using deadly force would be warranted.

Edit (been doing a lot of these lately...): I do disagree with this part.

"Think $5K-50K investment. Tools stolen, no work. No work, no paycheck for morgatage, car payments, health insurance. Insurance replacement? Don't make me laugh. Think "massive depreciation" for anything more than 10 minutes old."

I do not accept that line of reasoning as justification of deadly force. Do another job for a while and replace your tools, don't kill someone over them.

I suppose this is a good place to talk about my remedy theory on this. Theft is, to me, an interesting thing in that the victims get victimized twice, once when stolen from, again when they have to pay to keep the thief in a jail. I would rather that thievery be punished by restitution, with interest, on the REPLACEMENT value of the property taken. I know you can't get blood from a stone, but the prospect of "the courts will go far to make this man restore me" would go far in dissuading the use of such force against theft.

[Callisto32]

11. Understanding fail.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[old mark]

39. GREAT! It is about time this passed. This is one reason we now have a GOP majority

in our legislature, and a GOP governor who is a crook and works for the gas drilling companies, but he will sign this bill.
Rendell was an asshole as goivernor, and as mayor of Philly.
From what I see of him on MSNBC, he still is.

mark