U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:06 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,215,329 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post
The law is actually quite muddy, here is part of the actual law as it stands . . . . Then in the next section it completely contradicts itself.
It didn't contradict itself, it just carved out an exception to the duty to retreat for your home (or place of work). That is actually why it was originally called the "castle doctrine"--in public spaces you had a duty to retreat instead of use deadly force if you could retreat safely, but on the theory that "your home is your castle", you had no such duty to retreat in your home.

The new law is going way beyond the original castle doctrine, and in fact is greatly complicating things with the new section I quoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:07 PM
 
Location: ɥbɹnqsʇʇıd
4,387 posts, read 3,012,761 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Pennsylvania already had the traditional "castle doctrine".
See my post above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
So if someone tries to unlawfully and forcefully enter your dwelling (including your deck or patio)--blammo!, you can now shoot them, no questions asked.
No questions asked? Way to sensationalize. Also if someone is breaking into to your place of residence (whether is be through a porch or patio) they have crossed several lines and there intent is obviously ill. Please explain how having legal protection against someone breaking into your home is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
That's the "let's make bar fights fatal" provision.
More sensationalism. You really think that defending your self from death, serious bodily harm, or rape is a bad thing? If so then I don't know what to say honestly.

The bottom line is this: this law gives people more rights legally from to protect themselves from harm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:19 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,215,329 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post
See my post above.
Already responded. What you see in the old law is just the traditional castle doctrine.

Quote:
No questions asked? Way to sensationalize.
Sorry, your honor, I was under the impression this was an Internet forum and not a court of law.

Quote:
Also if someone is breaking into to your place of residence (whether is be through a porch or patio) they have crossed several lines and there intent is obviously ill.
Yeah. Like they might want to steal something off your porch. Or they are drunk or confused and have the wrong house.

Quote:
Please explain how having legal protection against someone breaking into your home is bad.
You could call the cops. Or yell at them to go away.

I don't think it is unreasonable to require that before you use deadly force, you actually believe it is necessary to do so.

Quote:
More sensationalism. You really think that defending your self from death, serious bodily harm, or rape is a bad thing? If so then I don't know what to say honestly.
Lots of hypocrisy packed into that little paragraph--who is sensationalizing now?

What I actually think, if you are truly interested, is that under some circumstances people are in fact entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves. However, I also know that in a lot of situations, serious bodily injury or death could be avoided entirely if the people involved backed away from an altercation instead of escalating it. I also think in a lot of those situations, multiple relevant parties can believe they are the ones being unlawfully threatened, rather than doing the unlawful threatening.

So I don't think we should be encouraging people to "stand their ground" and use deadly force when it would be possible to safely back off instead. And I think the existing law did a good job of appropriate balancing these issues, and the new law does a much worse job.

Quote:
The bottom line is this: this law gives people more rights legally from harm.
And more rights to harm others. That's the problem in this area of the law--you can't treat it simplistically.

Last edited by BrianTH; 06-29-2011 at 01:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:20 PM
 
250 posts, read 137,833 times
Reputation: 183
Default Pennsyltucky

The difference is that in most other states you must actually have some proof that your life was in imminent danger, not just "hey, I thought he was going to kill me just 'cause!"

No, the streets will not run red with blood, but there will be plenty of "accidental" incidents where some hick puts a hole in someone who gets too close to their car, or someone whips out a gun in a bar and starts blasting away. Just wait. You'll see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,314 posts, read 853,552 times
Reputation: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post

No questions asked? Way to sensationalize. Also if someone is breaking into to your place of residence (whether is be through a porch or patio) they have crossed several lines and there intent is obviously ill. Please explain how having legal protection against someone breaking into your home is bad.

More sensationalism. You really think that defending your self from death, serious bodily harm, or rape is a bad thing? If so then I don't know what to say honestly.

The bottom line is this: this law gives people more rights legally from to protect themselves from harm.
We already have many legal protections against people breaking into our homes, I'm not sure the current doctrine was broken.

Understand what this is. This isn't making gun ownership easier or in any way improves a homeowners ability to shoot an armed intruder.

What this does is limit the ability of a jury of his peers to determine that the armed homeowner or citizen now acted irresponsibly in utilizing the tremendous power that owning a firearm gave to him and punish him for his poor judgment accordingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:24 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,215,329 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post
Yes, because that's exactly what happens in all the other states with the Castle Doctrine.
Again, PA already had the traditional Castle Doctrine in place. This goes significantly beyond the traditional Castle Doctrine, in multiple ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:26 PM
 
3,514 posts, read 2,070,351 times
Reputation: 1966
Nice to see a PA bill passed with widespread bipartison support for a change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:31 PM
 
250 posts, read 137,833 times
Reputation: 183
Honestly, the most frightening thing I see here is that the law takes away the concept of actual danger and leaves it up to the "victim" to determine whether deadly force was required. So it doesnt matter what the facts are, they only need to "believe" that their life was in danger. So we're now leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves if killing someone is a good idea or not. It doesnt even specify what constitutes a weapon on behalf of the "intruder".

So it seems I can get shot for standing on someone's front porch with a set of car keys. Wonderful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,314 posts, read 853,552 times
Reputation: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKyank View Post
Nice to see a PA bill passed with widespread bipartison support for a change.

Doesn't have a lot of implications on a yearly basis, so no reason to allow the NRA to run ads against you painting you "soft" on crime or "pro-criminal". Pretty safe vote for, even if you think it's a bad idea.

My concern is more akin to this:
"We'll probably not be caused much difficulty by it in Bucks County," said Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler. "But I think in an urban environment, where there are lots of people carrying firearms on the street, it may well mean that some people who should be convicted of murder end up walking."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: ɥbɹnqsʇʇıd
4,387 posts, read 3,012,761 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Already responded. What you see in the old law is just the traditional castle doctrine.
Yet you're ignoring the part I bolded. Nice!

Quote:
Sorry, your honor, I was under the impression this was an Internet forum and not a court of law.
Nice way to dance around the fact that you think no questions will be asked by police, prosecutors, or judges. This law is passed and it's like magic!

Quote:
Yeah. Like they might want to steal something off your porch. Or they are drunk or confused and have the wrong house.
Yeah, or they might be going in through a window to rape your wife who's home alone. I guess we should just put on a happy face and pretend someone breaking into your home has happy thoughts!

Quote:
You could call the cops. Or yell at them to go away.
Calling the police is always the first thing to do. However, when seconds count police are always minutes away.


Quote:
Lots of hypocrisy packed into that little paragraph--who is sensationalizing now?
I quoted things right from the part of the new law that was passed. You actually posted that first....

Quote:
What I actually think, if you are truly interested, is that under some circumstances people are in fact entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves. However, I also know that in a lot of situations in public places, serious bodily injury or death could be avoided if the people involved backed away from an altercation instead of escalating it. I also think in a lot of those situations, multiple relevant parties can believe they are the ones being threatened, not the other guy.
Are familiar with the CCW culture? The first thing we do in a bad situation is deescalate, deescalate, deescalate. Pulling a firearm (or whatever else) is the absolute last thing to do. This isn't the wild west man. However, if things turn from bad to worse people will have more protection from legal hell. This is all this is, but like I said people will blow it out of proportion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top