Corbett signs bill on right to use deadly force (Pennsylvania - More backlash)

[shadowrider]

Gov. Tom Corbett on Tuesday signed a bill to widen the right to use deadly force in self-defense.

The bill, enacted by the Senate last week, will expand the state's castle doctrine to allow the right to use a gun or other deadly force in self-defense in situations outside a person's home or business. Currently, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if the person can safely retreat, except when the threat is made inside his or her home or business.

The legislation, signed during a private ceremony in the Republican governor's office at the Capitol, also limits certain civil liability in some cases for people who act within the guidelines. It goes into effect in 60 days.

The National Rifle Association's executive director, Chris Cox, called it a way for "law-abiding citizens" to "protect themselves when criminals attack without fear of being second-guessed by an overzealous prosecutor."

http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=7258947

[MrSlayer]

1. Because of this I am going out and buying a gunbelt with twin Colt .45s.

And I'm going to walk around like Wild Bill Hickok. Anyone who even glances at me in a threatening manner is getting blasted.

[gejohnston]

2. I am guessing that

you lack the curiosity to look up the law or think about what it means. Judging from your profile, you contribute more to gang and gun violence than I do, unless you grow your own.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

14. unless you grow your own

you buy from a street dealer, who gets it from a wholesaler who uses the money you spent to get a gun from the black market to deal with business disputes. The combined effect is Mexico. That is what most gun violence is in the US, Canada and Europe. In other words, they typical bong owner contributes (indirectly mostly) more to gun and gang violence than 99.9 percent of all US and Canadian gun owners combined.

[shadowrider]

15. C'mon man

Don't you know someone sitting in their living room smokin a joint poses no threat and has never killed anyone?

:sarcasm:

[SteveW]

29. I follow local C of C advice: Buy Local! nt

[Taitertots]

3. And we will laugh at you as you rot in jail n/t

[DonP]

4. Then you'll want twin 1861 Navy Colts, cap and ball, carried butt forward

...if you want to follow in Wild Bill's footsteps. Just don't play poker with your back to any doors.

While you're shopping for those Colts can you cite a few examples of where open carry or a castle law has created blood running in the streets?

Or is this another one of those "it just stands to reason" posts?

[PavePusher]

6. Then you are going to end up on Death Row, and you've documented it publicly.

I'm sure you were intending to be sarcastic, amIrite?

[gejohnston]

8. IYDK, the Colt Navy revolvers in question were .36 caliber, not .45s

[krispos42]

9. The first two sentences are legal.

The activities described in the 3rd are not and never will be.

Have fun in prison, and becoming what you mock.

[ileus]

10. colt 1911's I hope

[slackmaster]

12. Auto-Ignore for glaring display of willful ignorance

:nuke:

I don't have time to read replies from people who obviously have no interest in a serious discussion.

[bbinacan]

5. I like it.

It replaces that duty to run away and get shot in the back nonsense.

[redgiant]

7. Not a license to kill

Opponents like to characterize these kinds of provisions as such, but they are not. Generically, they usually state the principle that as long as you are in a place you have a legal right to be, you don't have a "duty" to retreat if faced with a deadly threat. Self defense laws are very specific about the kinds of conditions that must be in place in order to be legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.

When faced with a serious threat, the prudent and wise course of action is still to retreat if you can *safely* do so. But, if you believe you cannot safely do so, this law protects you from overly-aggresive prosecutors that would try to maintain that you should have retreated from a threat.

[AlinPA]

16. I've read the doctrine descriptions including PA's and don't see how a person cannot

shoot a trespasser then claim that the person was an intruder and was threatening him. It's his word against a dead man's. With the doctrine law, it seems easier to get away with it.

[gejohnston]

17. still has to be an immediate threat. The evidence still has to show it

But if you support duty to retreat, must leave your home if you have a back door, even though studies done by criminologists show that the victim puts themselves in greater danger
You support that if a victims shoot in self defense, and it is shown as self defense, a DA can still charge you with unsafe storage, assault with a deadly weapon etc. If you resist without going out the back door, you committed a crime.
Then the robber or rapist can sue you for injuries caused by your resistance. So could the family of the criminal. A home invader gets killed why trying to rape someone, the rapist sister could file a wrongful death suit against the rape victim. By supporting duty to retreat, you support that.
I fail to see how that is civilized, progressive, liberal or anything else good. I see it as the opposite.

[AlinPA]

19. I don't support "duty to retreat". It just appears to me that it will be easier for a person

who kills a trespasser on his property to claim the castle doctrine law and get away with shooting someone who did not threaten him, but was just trespassing. Actually without the castle law it could end up the same way, especially if there are no witnesses. I'm not talking about them shooting girl scouts selling cookies or LDS/Jehovah's witnesses or kids playing in the yard.

[RSillsbee]

20. What about Jehova's Witnesses on LSD? NT

[AlinPA]

21. delete by author

[RSillsbee]

25. Oh c'mon man tell us how you REALLY feel NT

[AlinPA]

26. I'm laughing, but I shouldn't given the seriousness of the thread. You made me LOL.

[PavePusher]

18. You seem to imply that the moment a person claims "Self-Defense!"....

that everything is over and done with.

Except, of course, that it is not the it works. There will still be an investigation. The evidence still has to support the claim of lawful defense. That decision will still be made by the police and/or D.A.'s. And it may still end up in court before a Judge and/or Jury.

[AlinPA]

22. No, but it will make it tougher for prosecutors. That was one of the points made by

the proponents of the new law.

[PavePusher]

23. "tougher for the prosecutors" is a good thing.

They should require a very high standard of proof to convict, or even file charges against, someone involved in a claim of self-defense.

I see no problem with this.

[AlinPA]

24. Can't argue that at all. Just think it will be easier to get away with scenarios as I described.

[RSillsbee]

27. I'm completely OK w/ the reasonable doubt standard

Recently a 14 YO kid in FLA shot a 20YO kid in FLA for stealing a Ski-Do. WHen he was questioned the 14 YO claimed that the 20 YO had threatend him and told him he had a gun and that the 14 YO had better back off. The 20 YO's family went absolutely bat shit when that tidbit came out. Turns out the 20 YO was Deaf and had never learned to vocalize so he couldn't have said he had a gun. and never heard the 14 YO telling him to stop.

If I were the judge I'd fry the 14 YO

[X_Digger]

28. Yes, and prosecutors hate the exclusionary rule, too.

Dang that pesky fourth amendment!

Why should judges have to throw out evidence obtained without probable cause?

:sarcasm:

[ileus]

11. When the potential for judicial abuse is removed, it's always a good thing.