The Pennsylvania Senate last week approved legislation to expand the Castle Doctrine in Pennsylvania and a similar proposal in now before the State House of Representatives..
The Castle Doctrine says, in essence, that in your home, you're legally protected if you should have to use deadly force to defend yourself from a violent attacker. The legislation would remove a clause in Pennsylvania's law which says you have a "duty to retreat" when threatened by that attacker anywhere else.
The bill is designed to provide protections against criminal prosecution or civil litigation, but with that clause removed, does it now put too much power in the hands of gun owners, who would be able to use deadly force most anywhere, provided they believe they're being seriously threatened?
We'll talk it over with Representative Scott Perry, who's sponsoring the measure in the Pennsylvania House, and Max Nacheman, Executive Director of Cease Fire PA.
Listen to the program:
comments
When there is a shooting, an investigation will occur whether the Castle Doctrine is changed or not. Even under the new bill, an investigation will occur to assess "the resonableness" of the shooter's belief, as even Representative Perry admits. So selling this law as getting the government off gun owners backs is a fallacy. When there is a shooting there will still be an investigation-no doubt. So if this is the main reason for Representative Perry's argument, why revise the law? Do Pennsylvanians really want there to be no investigation when there is a deadly shooting? Does Representative Perry really want there to be no investigation for deadly shootings?
Enacting legislation enabling individuals to use deadly force is irresponsible without requiring that the gun owner at least knows how to use a gun. We require training for police officers before they can go out in public carrying a gun, where is the training for the individuals who are being emboldended by Represntative Perry's law?
Regardless of the wording of the law, I think that if a person believes they are going to be killed or seriously hurt they will defend themselves appropriately and let the law sort out if they were right or wrong. This new change would not effect the police officers need to investigate the situation. The only reason that a person, as the Representative has said, would have to go up to the point of prosecution is if the situation did not appear on the up and up.
First, contrary to stereotype, the vast majority of violence in the home is not committed by strangers, against whom innocent residents must stand their groundand shoot to defend themselves. Rather, the overwhelming majority of violence in the home—the locus of the “Castle Doctrine”—is committed by dangerously violent abusers who have an established family or household relationship with their victims, most commonly as a current or former intimate partner.
The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined (156 victims) in single victim/singleoffender incidents in 2007.
The bottom line is that when thinking of the persons against whom lethal force in the home is used, the image of the scary stranger breaking in a window must be replaced with that of persons whom victims know and have relationships with, for they are the ones who commit most of the violence occurring in our “castles.”
Second, contrary to stereotype once again, firearms are rarely used to effectively protect one’s self against attack. While many presume that having a gun in the home will protect one’s self against attack, quite the opposite is true.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are an average of about 108,000 defensive uses of guns each year, compared to about 1.3 million crimes committed with guns.
In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.
Epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that,people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.[
In the particular context of homes affected by domestic violence, promoting the use of firearms by domestic violence victims against their perpetrators—as expanding the Castle Doctrine necessarily does—in fact increases the risk that incidents of domestic violence will result in homicide. Family and intimate assaults involving firearms are twelve times more likely to result in death than non-firearm-related assaults.
If this expansion of the Castle Doctrine is purported to be a measure to strengthen crime victims’ rights to use deadlyforce for self-protection, then lawmakers must be aware that it simply does not reflect the reality that most lethal violence in the home is committed by thecurrent and former intimate partners of victims. The myth that arming yourself will protect you againstviolent attack must give way to this reality.
http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/rep-scott-perry-follow-up-on-castle-doctrine
- Craig
2nd many other states including florida have self defense laws outside of the home and there is not a "wild west" issue. It just amazes me at the general ignorense in the general public regarding the 2nd amendment and common sense. I will live and so will my family inside my house or at Starbucks regardless of any laws any where in the world.
RSS feed for comments to this post