Castle Doctrine signed into law, good for Cobett (Penn: gated, live)

[UKyank]

I don't think most people will lose too much sleep if someone is killed while in the process of committing a crime; I do think, however, most people would be concerned if someone who was doing nothing wrong was killed and the killer was then not prosecuted.
We're not talking about the state taking a life after a long trial, weighing all the facts, we are talking about someone making a split second decision as to whether their life is possibly in danger. If the latter results in the death of someone committing a criminal activity that would not otherwise be a death penalty offense I guess they should have thought of that before choosing to commit said activity. I for one could care less that they end up 6 feet under.
If an innocent person was killed because of the law, I would be the first against it, but that does seem to be the case.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

I know Pennsylvania is after the film business, but do we really have to give actors so many special rights?

[stburr91]

As was stated earlier in the thread, other states have similar laws, and the streets have yet to run red with blood. This new law hardly gives people blanket immunity to kill, one still has to act reasonably.

[pman]

Originally Posted by stburr91

As was stated earlier in the thread, other states have similar laws, and the streets have yet to run red with blood. This new law hardly gives people blanket immunity to kill, one still has to act reasonably.

but now that we've legalized four hour happy hours up to 14 hours a week all hell could break loose soon!!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I don't think most people will lose too much sleep if someone is killed while in the process of committing a crime

Then why don't we have the death penalty for every crime? And why all this mumbo-jumbo about people protecting themselves against threats of death, injury, or rape?

We're not talking about the state taking a life after a long trial, weighing all the facts, we are talking about someone making a split second decision as to whether their life is possibly in danger.

So which is it? Is it OK for a private citizen to kill someone just because they are committing a crime, or is it only OK for a private citizen to kill someone if they are threatening death and such?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stburr91

As was stated earlier in the thread, other states have similar laws, and the streets have yet to run red with blood.

You know, a lot of people are in fact killed or injured in things like bar fights. It is going to be very hard to prove empirically what role self-defense laws are playing in the outcome of bar fights and such, but it is not like they never happen.

This new law hardly gives people blanket immunity to kill, one still has to act reasonably.

But that is the precise issue we have been discussing.

For some cases under the new law, you won't actually have to be acting reasonably, because you will be entitled to a legal presumption that you were acting reasonably. It was the old law that required you to actually be acting reasonably.

For other cases, the new law says that if the other person is displaying a weapon, including a firearm, that eliminates your duty to retreat as a matter of law. Remember, the duty to retreat only applies if you could retreat with complete safety. So now, even if you could retreat with complete safety, you don't have to if the other person is displaying a weapon.

Again, I honestly don't see why pro-gun people think that change is a great idea. They are subjecting themselves to a greater risk of being killed in an altercation than people who don't carry guns.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Then why don't we have the death penalty for every crime? And why all this mumbo-jumbo about people protecting themselves against threats of death, injury, or rape?

You won't get the death penalty for raping someone; so in your view if someone breaks into another person's home, and intending only to rape the victim, and announces said intent upon entering just so its clear that only rape is on the table, the victim should probably just let them do it rather than kill the perp if the chance is there since the death penalty doesnt cover that crime.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So which is it? Is it OK for a private citizen to kill someone just because they are committing a crime, or is it only OK for a private citizen to kill someone if they are threatening death and such?

Its both; it is ok for a private citizen to kill someone who is committing a crime that someone feels could potentially result in their death. This could be a simple breaking and entering as you have no idea what the person is actually up to. Why anyone would find sympathy for someone killed for 'merely' breaking into another's home, regardless of actual violent intent, is beyond me.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

You won't get the death penalty for raping someone; so in your view if someone breaks into another person's home, and intending only to rape the victim, and announces said intent upon entering just so its clear that only rape is on the table, the victim should probably just let them do it rather than kill the perp if the chance is there since the death penalty doesnt cover that crime.



Its both; it is ok for a private citizen to kill someone who is committing a crime that someone feels could potentially result in their death. This could be a simple breaking and entering as you have no idea what the person is actually up to. Why anyone would find sympathy for someone killed for 'merely' breaking into another's home, regardless of actual violent intent, is beyond me.

The problem with both of these instances is that the existing law already permitted the shooting that everybody so eagerly seems to want to happen.

The necessity and rationale behind these new changes are what I question.

The Pope might be on to something with his warning on the "culture of death".

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You know, a lot of people are in fact killed or injured in things like bar fights. It is going to be very hard to prove empirically what role self-defense laws are playing in the outcome of bar fights and such, but it is not like they never happen.



But that is the precise issue we have been discussing.

For some cases under the new law, you won't actually have to be acting reasonably, because you will be entitled to a legal presumption that you were acting reasonably. It was the old law that required you to actually be acting reasonably.

Yes, but one can't be engaging in any illegal active, or instigate the altercation, and still be justified in using lethal force under the new law. So, one still needs to be actually acting reasonably.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

For other cases, the new law says that if the other person is displaying a weapon, including a firearm, that eliminates your duty to retreat as a matter of law. Remember, the duty to retreat only applies if you could retreat with complete safety. So now, even if you could retreat with complete safety, you don't have to if the other person is displaying a weapon.

The new law recognizes the fact that once a weapon capable of inflicting lethal force has been introduced into an altercation, the ability to safely retreat is greatly reduced, and therefore removes the duty to do so. The law also recognizes that once a lethal weapon has been introduced, the situation has become so dangerous that lethal force should be justified.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, I honestly don't see why pro-gun people think that change is a great idea. They are subjecting themselves to a greater risk of being killed in an altercation than people who don't carry guns.

I don't agree with you on that, but even if it were true, I would be happy to take my chances.

I don't see why anti-gun people would be against this (or anyone else), as I believe that people would rather not use lethal force against another person, even if it is legally justified.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So would you favor the death penalty for property crimes?

I said you don't **** with people on their own property. If you kick in somebody's door, then it's reasonable to assume that you have malicious intent, so if you get shot, then I have no sympathy for you. You kicked in the door and somebody was home, so you paid the price.

I don't think anybody should be put to death for property crimes, but I do think arson should punished more severely than it is since it's attempted murder, and it also ruins everything that people have worked for.