Rep. Davidson takes some heat for comments about guns

[jpak]

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/04/14/news/doc4da73baf53263338387078.txt

State Rep. Margo Davidson, D-164, of Upper Darby, turned heads on the House floor Tuesday during a debate on expanding the “Castle Doctrine” of self defense to areas outside the home when she asked if current Pennsylvania law would protect her for dispatching a fellow legislator.

“If the gentleman from Butler County stood yelling, knowing that he’s a gun-toter, and I felt threatened, would I be protected under court law if I blew his brains out?” asked Davidson.

Her comment, about Republican state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, was one of a series of hypothetical scenarios Democrats posed during the debate on House Bill 40.

The bill would remove a requirement that victims try to retreat from a threat when outside their homes before resorting to deadly force. The state Senate previously passed a similar bill.

<more>

[rl6214]

1. Wait wait wait wait wait

Where's your NRA/GOP shtick?

[jpak]

2. Castle Doctrine = license to kill

and GOP/NRA suckage

better?

:D

[PavePusher]

3. Utterly false, as you well know. Schtick, indeed. n/t

[rl6214]

6. There ya go

much better.

[Logical]

23. The NRA and GOP do suck, but it has nothing to do with the right to protect yourself.....

I doubt you have even read what the Castle Doctrine law does. Have you?

[RamboLiberal]

4. I can understand her feelings about Metcalfe

He's actually introducing a Birther bill. Marty Griffin on KDKA radio Pittsburgh was razzing on that.

[rl6214]

7. Birther bill

:rofl:

[whoneedstickets]

5. Welcome to the deterrence model of social civility

Where fear replaces trust as the motive for interpersonal respect.

[PavePusher]

26. Huh? If someone is being "uncivil" to me....

i.e. trying to injure or kill me, outside of legal boundaries, what do you propose I do?

Why should I have any legal or moral obligation to not resist criminal actions?

[AndyTiedye]

8. Open Season on Minorities

"Feeling threatened" is a terribly weak criteria for killing someone.
A lot of people are gonna get away with murder.

[DonP]

9. Yes it is, that's why "feeling threatened" is not the standard

No one cares how threatened anyone feels. And what does this have to do with minorities anyway?

The legal standard in states that have a similar law is there must be a 1. real threat of harm, which typically requires the means, (gun, knife club etc.) 2. the proximity, within a reasonable distance where you can be harmed and must defend yourself and 3. the exhibited intent, as in running at you as opposed to across your lawn or down the alley.

The other way requires you to try and run away if your home is broken into. I'm all in favor of running if you can, but if you can't, some asshole shouldn't be able to hit you in the back of the head or have his family sue you if you have to shoot him because you didn't try to get away from him hard enough.

[jpak]

14. Texas Castle Doctrine = kill Latinos and get away with it

yup

Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html

A so-called "castle doctrine" law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property. However, a case in which a Houston-area man in his 70's killed two apparent burglars he observed breaking into his neighbor's house has raised new questions about how far that doctrine might extend.

The man called an emergency dispatcher when he first saw the alleged burglars, saying "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," replied the dispatcher. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? ... I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

"I understand that," the caller replied, "but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it."

<more>

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Four year oild story and already settled...is that the best you can do

[beevul]

29. Noteworthy though...

That hes sees a latino first, rather than a thief first in this story.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. That wasn't the "No Retreat" law.

Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property or a friend or neighbor's property. Bringing up that the burglars were Latinos is just your attempt to smear the law as racist. The were burglars, race doesn't matter.

[DWC]

24. Unrec. race-baiting at its worst. n/t

[Logical]

25. Most CC holders I know think that guy was an idiot. Including me. n-t

[PavePusher]

10. Obviously, you have not read the current or proposed laws....

or you would not (I hope) have posted such a foolish statement.

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Nor did Davidson , and neither are required to do so

And to expect otherwise would just be " mean " .

[PavePusher]

12. Requiring legislatists to be familiar with a proposal before opening their pie-holes is "mean"?

Damn, I'm screwed. I'll be working off that bad Karma for a thousand cycles....

[Katya Mullethov]

13. Yeah

They think tho .

[spin]

15. Castle doctrine laws exist in a good numberf of states ...

if people were getting away with murder frequently, as you suggest, wouldn't it be logical that at least one of the states would have had second thoughts and repealed the law?

Hasn't happened.

Relax, hyperventilating is bad for your health.

[PavePusher]

16. By the way, your projected bigotry is noted.

Though if you can cite to where it's been a problem, I will give you a pass....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. That is indeed what can happen with the current repressive, racist, and classist gun control laws

in places like NYC

[beevul]

28. The irony is strong in this one.

It was a minority taking heat for saying those words.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. "No Retreat" laws are working very well in the states that have them.

That is why they are spreading to other states. Florida lead the way.

[benEzra]

22. Not really; Florida's duty-to-retreat statute was an aberration to start with.

The no-duty-to-retreat statute merely brought Florida's laws in line with the self-defense laws of most other states.

However, extending long-established Castle Doctrine rules to apply to carjackings, and the civil immunity provisions (if a shooting is ruled justifiable self-defense, the attacker can't turn around and sue the would-be victim) were trend-setting, though.

[ManiacJoe]

21. A link to the bill:

... for those who have not read it.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=1038

[PavePusher]

27. A slightly different take on it:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/growls/Blow-His-Brains-Out.html

"Remember all of three months back when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head during an assassination attempt in Tuscon and the political world reacted with, oh, half an hour of deceny and reflection and urged a new level of respect and less fiery rhetoric during political debate?

Well, apparently, state Rep. Margo Davidson, D-Delco, does not.

During House debate yesterday on a bill to expand the "Castle Doctrine," a state law allowing lethal self-defense by an armed citizen who feels threatened, Davidson dragged her institution's already sagging reputation down a peg.

In fact she shot holes in the notion of reasoned civility and suggested once again that Pennsylvania politicians are far from role models for anyone thinking of elective office."


More at link.