[BartSimpson]

http://monachuslex.com/?p=87

Quote:

June 28, 2011

Moments ago, in a private ceremony in his office, Governor Tom Corbett signed House Bill 40 into law, significantly expanding the self-defense rights of the law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

As this column recently reported, despite media characterization of the bill as simply an expansion of ‘Castle Doctrine’, this bill also contains a limited ‘Stand Your Ground’ provision as well as a long anticipated legal presumption of reasonableness in certain cases of self defense.

Citizens of Pennsylvania should take the time to thank Governor Corbett for signing this important piece of public safety legislation.

Also:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/C ... tskmA.cspx

Quote:

House Bill 40: The bill, known as the “Castle Doctrine” bill, amends 18 Pa.C.S. (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 Pa.C.S. (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) to expand and further define an individual’s right to use deadly force inside or outside of the individual’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. It eliminates an individual’s duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person is in a place the person has a right to be and believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

And this is a massive win for the people of Pennsylvania but especially important in Pittsburg and Philadelphia where the local police have near-consistently prosecuted people for defending themselves from attackers.

[andyt]

I support self-defense, but not this bill. You should have to retreat if that's an option. But the onus should be on the prosecution to show it was a viable option.

[Dragon-Dancer]

Violence should never be the first option explored if there is other options available.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

I support self-defense, but not this bill. You should have to retreat if that's an option. But the onus should be on the prosecution to show it was a viable option.

I disagree. Utterly.

No one in their own home or on their own property or at their place of business should have to retreat before a criminal. If criminals don't like that then maybe they need to find a different vocation. I hear Timmie's is hiring.

[BartSimpson]

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Violence should never be the first option explored if there is other options available.

When violence is already visited upon you then other options are not your choice, are they?

[raydan]

Do you think there is the possibility of people arming themselves and looking for situations where they might have to defend themselves? An example... I hate my neighbor so I get into a shouting match with him, hoping he makes a move that could be seen as menacing.


Just a thought... I wonder when a law will come on the table that will make it illegal to NOT defend yourself.

[BartSimpson]

raydan wrote:

Do you think there is the possibility of people arming themselves and looking for situations where they might have to defend themselves? An example... I hate my neighbor so I get into a shouting match with him, hoping he makes a move that could be seen as menacing.

If he makes a move that is menacing and he's on your property or, God forbid, in your home then he's terminally stupid and the world will probably be better off without him. I'm erring on your side here as your good sense in being a member of this forum speaks highly of you!

raydan wrote:

Just a thought... I wonder when a law will come on the table that will make it illegal to NOT defend yourself.

Unlikely. What is happening (at least in the USA) is as liberal cities cut police department budgets more and more legislatures and courts are saying that the old arguments against self defense are not valid.

Saying that you should call the police is not a valid argument when the best police response some people can hope for - even during an armed robbery - can be measured not in minutes but in hours.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13248 ... to-respond

Quote:

When you call the police, you want an officer there as quickly as possible.

But, in the city of Nashville, it's now taking Metro police longer than ever to answer your calls for help. That's the latest Truth About Crime uncovered by NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

Metro police brass say the response times to the most serious calls still aren't bad, but that's little consolation to all the people left waiting for help.

"If you can't get them to come the one time in your life that you need them, I don't think we're safe," said Dale Hemmerly Miller, who explained that a relative's boyfriend was outside his Inglewood house last weekend threatening to kill him.

Quote:

Miller locked himself in his house and called for police, but it took more than two hours for officers to arrive.

In fact, our NewsChannel 5 investigation discovered that, every night on the streets of Nashville, it's the same story. Police radios crackle with the sounds of patrol officers struggling to find time to take crime reports.

With more officers assigned to make traffic stops and work specialized units, new figures show that Metro's average response time for all calls jumped dramatically -- from 18.7 minutes in 2003 to more than 30 minutes last year.

[andyt]

Thanos wrote:

they'd hardly stop laughing at you at all, except for maybe to stub out their $1000-per-cigar Havanas right on your forehead.

Pseudonym wrote:

If they try that in Pennsylvania, they'll have to deal with concealed carry + no obligation to retreat. Rights are rights, regardless of one's wealth.

See my point?

I have a different attitude to someone that enters your house. You shouldn't be allowed to just blast away at anybody in your house, but the onus should not be too severe to show self-defense. It's different in my mind in your yard or in your car if retreat is an option, including just driving away.

[PluggyRug]

In England, I was so tired of my house and workshop being broken into, we made a sign and screwed it to the workshop door.......TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT

Guess what, the breakins ceased, totally. The sign was there for two years before we moved to Canada.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt wrote:

Thanos wrote:

they'd hardly stop laughing at you at all, except for maybe to stub out their $1000-per-cigar Havanas right on your forehead.

Pseudonym wrote:

If they try that in Pennsylvania, they'll have to deal with concealed carry + no obligation to retreat. Rights are rights, regardless of one's wealth.

See my point?

I have a different attitude to someone that enters your house. You shouldn't be allowed to just blast away at anybody in your house,

I disagree. When it's 3:30AM and you hear the smash of glass(and realize it's your window), checking to see if the intruder is armed is one way to find out the hard way.
Inside one's home is the one place a person should be permitted to use ANY force they deem necessary to eliminate the threat.
I mean let's face it, you can't get shot breaking into someone's home if you're not breaking into someone's home. And the sooner the law makers and justice system in Canada realize that you cannot be a victim if you are in the process of committing a crime, the better!

[ShepherdsDog]

In Winnipeg we had a hybrid-electronic burglar alarm....the windows and doors had electronic sensors and inside the house I had two wolf husky hybrids.....who really hated anyone that reeked of alcohol and tobacco. They gave me plenty of time to assess the situation further....should I call the cops or the ambulance first.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

andyt wrote:

I have a different attitude to someone that enters your house. You shouldn't be allowed to just blast away at anybody in your house,

I disagree. When it's 3:30AM and you hear the smash of glass(and realize it's your window), checking to see if the intruder is armed is one way to find out the hard way.
Inside one's home is the one place a person should be permitted to use ANY force they deem necessary to eliminate the threat.
I mean let's face it, you can't get shot breaking into someone's home if you're not breaking into someone's home. And the sooner the law makers and justice system in Canada realize that you cannot be a victim if you are in the process of committing a crime, the better!

So the 14yr old breaking in as a prank, the drunk that's got the wrong house, you'd feel no remorse for killing? I think the same standard should apply as to cops - if it looks like a gun in their had you can shoot.

[Regina]

Retreat should never be an option unless it's to reload or get a bigger stick.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[andyt]

Regina wrote:

Retreat should never be an option unless it's to reload or get a bigger stick.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If you're going to get a bigger stick against a guy who's got a gun, that's not too brilliant, is it? If you're reloading to put more bullets in a guy with no gun, that will certainly cause you problems in Canada. Don't know if even Pennsylvania allows you to just shoot a guy who is unarmed. Although if he's in your house and coming for you, ie doesn't stop when you show him your gun, you should be able to do just that.

[raydan]

andyt wrote:

So the 14yr old breaking in as a prank, the drunk that's got the wrong house, you'd feel no remorse for killing? I think the same standard should apply as to cops - if it looks like a gun in their had you can shoot.

Problem is, unless you are trained in handling these kinds of situations (police, military...), you don't know how you'll react until you are IN the situation. You might run out the back door, call the police on your cell or go to a neighbor, hide under the bed, scream like a little girl, bring out the baseball bat/gun, or just turn on the lights and confront him face-to-face.

In the case that you do get your gun and shoot though, should you have to face the law in this situation... I don't think so.

I've got to say that even though a lot of people say that they would shoot him, I don't think that the percentage of people (even if they had access to a gun), would be very high.