Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Another thing I will give Corbett and the state legislature that isn't related to this is that they all finally passed a budget on time for the first time in nine years.
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.
No, because I have the traditional view on self-defense, which is that it is permissible when the person is actually defending themselves from violence, including rape. Hence the name "self-defense". That's not about punishing crimes, it is about people actually protecting themselves.
You are the one implying it is also OK to kill people even if it wasn't really self-defense, as long as the person who was killed was committing a crime. That's the view that makes no sense to me unless you believe in a universal death penalty.
Quote:
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.
I don't think you can make any blanket statement like that. For example, I think in many circumstances, it could be pretty darn obvious the person in question was unlawfully entering to steal something, not hurt anyone. But in any event, the point many of us have been making in this thread is that the old law was more than adequate to deal with legitimate cases of self-defense.
Quote:
Why anyone would find sympathy for someone killed for 'merely' breaking into another's home, regardless of actual violent intent, is beyond me.
It is beyond me why you don't get this distinction. If someone is legitimately trying to defend themselves, fine, we should analyze it under traditional self-defense laws. But you are saying it is OK to kill people "regardless of actual violent intent", so it seems clear to me you are endorsing extreme vigilantism. Whether you "sympathize" with the people killed by vigilantes is not really the issue--it is bad public policy to encourage people to think they have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of other people. Again, cases of legitimate self-defense are an important exception to that principle, but if you are only talking about those cases, you can't say "regardless of actual violent intent".
What about situations where someone enters your home for reasons other than to commit a crime. Rare, yes, but it happens. When I was a kid, there was a deaf teenager with mental disabilities who would occasionally enter our house and scare the crap out of my mom. He meant no harm, he was probably just confused as to where he was. Maybe there is an elderly person suffering from dementia or someone else with a medical situation. If someone like this is shot, would it be justified under the new law? Again, I know such cases are rare, but they do happen.
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.
Again, we need to distinguish the two different sorts of cases.
With respect to the new law for dwellings and vehicles, the problem is you don't actually have to believe you are being threatened with violence, because you get a legal presumption to that effect. I don't think your response addresses that problem--if you don't have an actual belief you are being threatened with violence, using deadly force is unreasonable, no matter whether or not you are otherwise doing anything illegal or instigated the altercation.
With respect to the new law for altercations in public places, I'd point out that often in such cases, both sides think the other side is doing the instigating, and that they are not doing anything illegal. Now maybe as a point of fact and law one or both sides is wrong about that, but part of the point of the general duty of retreat is to deescalate these issues such that you don't have to look into what happened over a dead body. Or as my mother would say, "I don't care who started it, you should both just stop!"
Quote:
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.
Again, I don't think a blanket rule to that effect makes sense. For example, aside from guns, the predicate weapon under the law could be something with no range. I don't see how you can presume that in all such cases the duty to retreat would no longer be applicable--and the existing rule applied where retreat wouldn't be "completely safe", so it wasn't like it was an ungenerous rule to begin with.
And I think gun owners in particular should be disturbed by the new law. Note it doesn't say they have to actually be using the gun or threatening with the gun. The gun just has to be "displayed". Are gun owners really happy with a rule that says if their gun is "displayed" in any altercation, everyone else can assume they are about to use their gun to harm someone?
Quote:
I don't agree with you on that, but even if it were true, I would be happy to take my chances.
That seems foolish to me. Maybe the other side has more people. Maybe your gun isn't in your hand. Do you really want to give people a blank check to attack you because you are "happy to take your chances"?
In fact, put aside being killed. You as a gunowner get into an altercation with someone without a gun or another weapon. Maybe you believe it is his fault, but he thinks it is your fault. Under the new law, because he has no weapon, you are still subject to the duty to retreat. But if your gun is "displayed", he doesn't have a duty to retreat, and instead can just go ahead and attack you.
Even if he just punches you in the face as a result, are you really happy with a law like that?
Quote:
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.
I agree "anti-gun people" wouldn't necessarily be against this law, since it actually discriminates against people with guns.
But despite some wild accusations above, I am not "anti-gun". But I do think your belief is overly simplistic--people get into altercations, and altercations can escalate as both sides perceive themselves as merely protecting themselves, while perceiving the other side as increasingly threatening them without cause. Part of the point of the duty to retreat is to cut off this cycle before it results in the use of violence, if possible. On the other hand, I recognize you can't have an absolute duty to retreat, because sometimes that wouldn't be safe, and it isn't reasonable to ask people to retreat out of their home.
I just don't think the existing law struck a bad balance in light of all those considerations. And I do think the new law will encourage people to escalate situations unnecessarily. Again, none of that makes me "anti-gun", or "anti-self-defense".
Edit: Oh, and I also think the victims of property crimes sometimes get mad enough to want to kill someone. I similarly don't think we should be encouraging that behavior by giving such people a presumption that they were acting in legitimate self-defense even when in actuality they were not, and that the old law struck the right balance.
Again, we need to distinguish the two different sorts of cases.
With respect to the new law for dwellings and vehicles, the problem is you don't actually have to believe you are being threatened with violence, because you get a legal presumption to that effect. I don't think your response addresses that problem--if you don't have an actual belief you are being threatened with violence, using deadly force is unreasonable, no matter whether or not you are otherwise doing anything illegal or instigated the altercation.
I would agree that using deadly force if you didn't feel threatened would be unwise, and I highly doubt people will kill someone just because they can legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
With respect to the new law for altercations in public places, I'd point out that often in such cases, both sides think the other side is doing the instigating, and that they are not doing anything illegal. Now maybe as a point of fact and law one or both sides is wrong about that, but part of the point of the general duty of retreat is to deescalate these issues such that you don't have to look into what happened over a dead body. Or as my mother would say, "I don't care who started it, you should both just stop!"
I agree that this could be a problem, but I don't expect it to be much of one, we shall see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
And I think gun owners in particular should be disturbed by the new law. Note it doesn't say they have to actually be using the gun or threatening with the gun. The gun just has to be "displayed". Are gun owners really happy with a rule that says if their gun is "displayed" in any altercation, everyone else can assume they are about to use their gun to harm someone?
That seems foolish to me. Maybe the other side has more people. Maybe your gun isn't in your hand. Do you really want to give people a blank check to attack you because you are "happy to take your chances"?
I don't see the problem, as gun owners don't make a habit of displaying their guns in public unless their lives are in real danger.
As I don't carry a gun, but even if I didn't, I don't go to places, or engage in activities that would put me in undo risk, so I have no problem with the new law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
But despite some wild accusations above, I am not "anti-gun".
I just don't think the existing law struck a bad balance in light of all those considerations. And I do think the new law will encourage people to escalate situations unnecessarily. Again, none of that makes me "anti-gun", or "anti-self-defense".
I didn't call you anti-gun or anti-self-defense, so I'm not sure where that came from.
I didn't have a real problem with the old law, and I didn't push for this new law, but I think it will end up being good for law abiding citizens.
By the way, the bottomline for me is that I believe in being conservative about these issues. Unless there was a demonstrable real world problem with the old law that the new law is addressing, why make the change?
Well, I just do not believe that it would be my duty as a homeowner in anyways to show that I knew the mens rea of the criminal and have to go through any type of costly trial to show why I felt my life was threatened. Someone being on my property with some type of illegal intent no matter how non-imminent the danger to my life might look to someone sitting at a desk after the fact, is enough to justify whatever force is used against said criminal in my view, and now in Pennsylvania's view.
These doctrines have been around for many years in other states and innocent people are not finding themselves accidently killed so it really shouldnt worry anyone that now that PA passed the law suddenly the world will end.
I would agree that using deadly force if you didn't feel threatened would be unwise, and I highly doubt people will kill someone just because they can legally.
I think there are in fact some people who at least in moments of anger get into a vigilante mindset. But again, to be conservative about this issue, if the old law reflected what you think people should be doing, why change to a new law?
Quote:
I don't see the problem, as gun owners don't make a habit of displaying their guns in public unless their lives are in real danger.
Pennsylvania is an open carry state. People actually have a RIGHT to display (ie, not conceal) their firearms. And as I understand it, if you don't have a LTCF you are REQUIRED to display (not conceal) your firearm.
Quote:
As I don't carry a gun, but even if I didn't, I don't go to places, or engage in activities that would put me in undo risk, so I have no problem with the new law.
I don't carry a gun either, but I recognize that some people do, and that in fact they have a right to openly carry a firearm under PA law, and perhaps an obligation to do so. Generally, there are a lot of laws which I think it is a good guess will never affect me, but as a citizen of this state I believe I have an obligation to care about the merits and fairness of all of our laws.
Quote:
I didn't call you anti-gun or anti-self-defense, so I'm not sure where that came from.
I'm not saying you did, but other people in this thread have. That is what I meant by "wild accusations above" (meaning "above" your post in this thread).
Quote:
I didn't have a real problem with the old law, and I didn't push for this new law, but I think it will end up being good for law abiding citizens.
Again, the conservative thing to do is not change the laws unless you can identify an actual problem with the old laws which the new laws would address. Maybe it will be a non-event, as your are guessing, but why take the risk without some real-world cause?
Well, I just do not believe that it would be my duty as a homeowner in anyways to show that I knew the mens rea of the criminal and have to go through any type of costly trial to show why I felt my life was threatened. Someone being on my property with some type of illegal intent no matter how non-imminent the danger to my life might look to someone sitting at a desk after the fact, is enough to justify whatever force is used against said criminal in my view, and now in Pennsylvania's view.
As another poster noted above, this sort of argument largely depends on the belief that the criminal justice system is getting this issue wrong under the old law (i.e., that in legitimate cases of self-defense in homes, people are being subject to "costly trials" anyway). If you can show me that is true, then maybe we can consider if this is a proper remedy for that problem.
Absent evidence that such a problem actually exists, I don't think it is unreasonable for the law to require that you actually believed there was a threat before you engaged in self-defense. In other words, the default should be we write into law what we think the law should actually require, absent proof that such a straightforward approach isn't going to work.
Quote:
These doctrines have been around for many years in other states and innocent people are not finding themselves accidently killed so it really shouldnt worry anyone that now that PA passed the law suddenly the world will end.
Again, I don't know if it is true the same laws have actually been around in other states. But once more, the conservative thing to do is keep the same laws that have been working in our state, unless of course you can show us they haven't been working in PA.
In other words, the burden should be on those who want to change the laws to show that such a change is actually necessary.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
