Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ready, fire, aim: Why do legislators think Castle Doctrine bills are needed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 09:41 AM
Original message
Ready, fire, aim: Why do legislators think Castle Doctrine bills are needed?
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/04/ready_fire_aim_why_do_legislat.html

Lawmakers should not support the Castle Doctrine legislation. Two bills that expand the state’s so-called Castle Doctrine are ready to misfire in the General Assembly.

A bill that passed the House and another that passed the Senate recently have stirred much debate statewide and unfortunately caused some people to believe we can’t already legally protect ourselves in our homes and elsewhere. The truth is we can.

We have every right to use a gun or other weapon in our homes for protection. If a person is attacked or threatened with an attack elsewhere, they are required to try to retreat — if they can safely do so — otherwise deadly force is acceptable.

<snip>

Legislators and the governor should not support a bill encouraging deadly force at all cost. Innocent people are already protected when they defend themselves. This bill might end up giving criminals a potential defense when accused of killing someone.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. You don't understand. It's easier to do this stuff than to actually
solve real problems. It makes the legislators look busy and pleases some of their constituents. We have the same thing going on in Minnesota with the newly-Republican legislature. They can't get anything else done, so they do this and try to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Morons, each and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. It stops the family of scumbag criminals from suing a homeowner
Edited on Thu Apr-28-11 09:55 AM by DonP
That's probably the best reason for it, indemnifying the homeowner from a shitload of legal bills defending themselves.

They'll keep passing everywhere because most citizens are fed up with surviving criminals and their families taking the victims to court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Evidence please - and GOP/NRA fairy tales do not count
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. A number of the castle defense law updates now preclude civil suits unless criminal charges are
filed.

Recently there was a case where an Albany teacher was shot after he entered a residence. No criminal charges were filed against the occupants of the house. The widow filed a civil suit, though it was subsequently dropped. That is the kind of suit that would be stopped as a matter of law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Details please - so how did this Albany teacher enter a house and get shot?
Was he/she burglarizing?

Terrorizing?

or wuz it a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If that teacher was not engage in criminal activity, the widow had every right to sue.

wrongful death is wrongful death

and Castle Laws legalize gun killings

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I am surprised you do not remember the case...you posted about it.
Google for details, but the homeowner was cleared and the civil suit dropped. http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/your_news/capital_region/530322/widow-of-albany-school-teacher-drops-lawsuit-against-homeowner/

Park came in through a door that was normally locked. Refused to leave and was coming up the stairs towards the armed homeowner and his family. Afterward it was determined that he was intoxicated and had been attending a party next door. Teacher was from Albany but the incident happened in Amherst. Grand Jury concluded the homeowner was in reasonable fear of his life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. You want a cite?
:rofl:

Do you even know what one is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chibajoe Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. Here is your evidence
http://www.wisn.com/news/9950016/detail.html">Burglar sues homeowner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1409975">Robber sues victim
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-virginia-beach/only-america-burglar-sues-victim-from-jail">Thief sues victim
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8145770">Burgler's family sues victim

Took 5 minutes with google; there's more if you want to look for yourself... it really isn't that hard, and I know you have figured out how to use google. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. Go into any B&N or even many other stores
Edited on Thu Apr-28-11 03:44 PM by RamboLiberal
Look for a magazine called Combat Handguns. Read Massad Ayoob's column. He's a police officer & lawful use of a gun instructor and also testifies as an expert witness to those unjustly on trial with what should be a lawful use of a gun in self-defense or who have run afoul of some regional stupid gun law.

There's been many a innocent person put on trial & even convicted in what should have been a lawful self-defense situation.

He also has interesting columns in other gun magazines.

You don't have to buy the magazine - just read in store and start educating yourself why many of us want Castle Doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's spelled G.U.N. L.O.B.B.Y. they write the law and get
a 'willing' legislator to "author" it and enter it into the legislative process.

In return the willing legislator gets the support of the Gun Lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. These bills passed both houses with bi-partisan support...sounds more like the will of the people
than special interest lobbying efforts.

Bear in mind that gun rights are civil rights and private ownership of firearms is a progressive value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. +1
Bear in mind that gun rights are civil rights and private ownership of firearms is a progressive value. :applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. +1 again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Sounds like every Lobby.
What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Did you forget
That it still needs to be voted on and passed into law? It just doesn't become law because your "willing" legislator "author"s the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. No I didn't. The OP asked why Castle Laws legislation keeps coming.
If it became law everywhere, there would be no point to having the legislation repeatedly put forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
7. how about GOP/Brady fairy tales?
Does the editorial writer know what he is talking about or just blowing smoke? My experience with editorials are the latter, that is why they are in the opinion section with letters to the editor. Can you explain to me how being expected to retreat from your home, if you have a back door, is a progressive value or the mark of a civilized society? Sorry, duty to retreat sounds more like something that Ayn Rand would praise in one of her love letters for a serial killer.


You do realize most of these laws you are defending were written by right wingers to suppress minorities and the labor movement? That is why Vermont had the laxest gun laws until Arizona and Alaska jumped on the band wagon. Vermont, did not have any racial or labor issues in the 19th or early 20 centuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Cite to evidence, or cease throwing the race card. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. If a person who you don't know enters your home without your permission ...
while you are home you have a right to feel threatened.

The race of the intruder is irrelevant, any person who enters an occupied home is potentially dangerous. That doesn't mean that you have to shoot the intruder. If you are armed and encounter a home invader and he follows your instructions to the letter and attempts no sudden movements and does not attack you, you can hold him until the police arrive.

If a situation can be resolved without shooting it's a win. You only shoot another person when there is no other choice and you or your family face serious injury or death.

Before the castle doctrine and the "stand your ground" law passed in Florida the common advice was that if if you did shoot an intruder it was best to kill him so he wouldn't sue you. Something that is rarely pointed out is that the castle doctrine law in Florida prevents a criminal or his family from suing you if you do legitimately shoot them.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
24.  Castle Law in Texas
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2)
<(3)> when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used .

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY . A defendant who uses force or<, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using> deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9
, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable .

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. CRS 18-1-704.5 one of the better laws
Edited on Thu Apr-28-11 11:40 AM by RSillsbee
18-1-704.5 - Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.



I believe paragraph one answers your question yipe yipe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. The Texas Castle Moran got away with shooting 2 Latinos in his neighbor's yard
wasn't even his "Castle"

so yeah

open season on minorities

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Wasn't done under any Castle law.
You've been told this repeatedly.

Stop repeating your lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. All the news account called it a Castle Law - no matter how many times the NRA sez it ain't
and it's legalized murder

give it up

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
25.  The "News" don't always get it right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The Castle Doctrine Apologist Squad get it wrong ALL the time
Edited on Thu Apr-28-11 02:48 PM by jpak
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. You have been corrected on the Horn case several times.
Why don't you retire this canard. It doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. I don't live in Texas, I live in Colorado
Joe Horn went overboard, that doesn't mean I should give up my rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
18. So you want to have to tell at least one jury why you killed the guy in your house?
Really?

You're so worried that the intruder you kill in your house might be innocent that you welcome the intruder's family dragging you into a courtroom? Even if the police investigation convinced the state's attorney that no crime was committed when you killed him?

You're cool with that? With the family of the intruder costing you $400 per lawyer-hour of work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
27. A: they are required to try to retreat — if they can safely do so
silly op-ed....you answered your own question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
28. Not true at all, but I agree with you.
First up, the not true part:

"We have every right to use a gun or other weapon in our homes for protection. If a person is attacked or threatened with an attack elsewhere, they are required to try to retreat — if they can safely do so — otherwise deadly force is acceptable."

Not every state has that duty to retreat requirement.

Where I agree with you, is that not every state needs a castle doctrine either. Washington has neither duty to retreat, nor castle doctrine and I like it just fine. Our bar is simple:

You must have credible reason to fear for your life, or the life of someone you are representing or protecting to employ deadly force.

That's it. No castle doctrine. No duty to retreat. Much mo' better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
29. Because nobody should be required by law to retreat in their own home.
Thats why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC