• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Looks like Castle Doctrine is off the table...

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
For now.

Rendell is a dirt bag.

Gov. Rendell vetoes three bills | Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/28/2010

Gov. Rendell on Saturday vetoed three bills, including a measure that would have expanded a person's right to use lethal force against a perceived threat.


The so-called castle doctrine already protects residents' right to defend themselves inside their homes, or "castles." The bill would have extended that right beyond the home and removed a person's "duty to retreat" to avoid a potentially violent confrontation.


"The bill as passed encourages the use of deadly force, even when safe retreat is available, and advances a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality," Rendell said in a statement issued Saturday afternoon. "I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves."


His veto of the expanded castle doctrine was a victory for law enforcement agencies that opposed the bill, arguing that it would increase gun violence.
But the win probably won't last long. Gov.-elect Tom Corbett, who will replace Rendell in January, supports the measure. And the House and Senate passed the bill this year with overwhelming support.


"The governor is really out of step with literally all of Pennsylvania," said State Rep. Scott Perry (R., York), the prime sponsor of the castle doctrine element of the bill. "This had strong bipartisan support. . . . It's not about protecting your home. It's about protecting yourself or your family against attack."


Perry said the bill will be reintroduced in 2011.
Basically he vetoed a bill that would allow 'Castle Doctrine' in Pennsylvania. It passed with overwhelming support in both the house and senate, and is supported overwhelmingly by a majority of Pennsylvanians.

Luckily next year, the house plans to pass it again, the only difference is we will have Tom Corbett as Governor who does support it and said he will sign it into law.

Do you think it was right of Rendell to veto this bill even though it passed the house and senate overwhelmingly? Also is it right of him to ignore the will of the people of PA?

Discuss...
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Do you think it was right of Rendell to veto this bill even though it passed the house and senate overwhelmingly? Also is it right of him to ignore the will of the people of PA?

Discuss...
That's a tough question to answer. I am 100% for the Castle Doctrine, we passed it here in Texas a few years ago and I support it. I think the right to defend yourself and home is one of the most fundamental rights we have.

That question is tough to answer because it depends on what you mean about it being right. I think he's wrong to veto it because of the reasons I stated above. However, he is the governor and just because it passed overwhelmingly he doesn't have to sign it and has the right to veto it if he wants. The way to correct that is at the ballot box.

I don't know his reasons for vetoing it but it's safe to assume, based on my feelings on the subject, I would disagree with his reasoning. I do however respect the office enough to argue he has a right to veto the bill, and the electorate has a right to vote him out of office.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
The article and your explanation of the article are saying two different things. As I understand it, he vetoed an expansion of a law that is already in place. Quoting the article:

The so-called castle doctrine already protects residents' right to defend themselves inside their homes, or "castles." The bill would have extended that right beyond the home and removed a person's "duty to retreat" to avoid a potentially violent confrontation.
I'm wondering what is meant by "beyond the home".

For the record, I do not disagree with the right to defend yourself with force within your own home.
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
I would like to know what "beyond the home" means too. For example, if somebody is stealing your car and is fleeing while still on your property, would this law allow you to shoot them, if you could come up with a reason to "fear for your safety?"

Expanding castle doctrine laws could lead to people defending their property and not just their family. There are some technicalities that would need to be more clearly defined.

Also, being able to defend yourself even when you can safely retreat without risk of injury could be abused too. The term "vigilante" comes to mind.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Third'd.

I want to know what "beyond the home" would mean. Not that I'm against people defending themselves, but giving people the unlimited ability to react violently to a situation where they feel threatened in this country with the paranoid citizens we have . . . eh, it's just kind of discomforting.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
My understanding, and this may be wrong, is that in public you first have a duty to retreat before resorting to violence in return. If for example in public, in some jusrisdictions, if you could have retreated and did not do so, acting in self defense would not be a viable defense. My understanding is they want to extend the castle doctrine in public, if you are attacked in public you can react in kind, regardless of whether you could have retreated or not.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Who determines whether you reasonably could have retreated and how do they determine it?
------
at any rate, my original point was, does this truly mean that Castle Doctrine is off the table, or is it just being limited to within one's own home.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Who determines whether you reasonably could have retreated and how do they determine it?
------
at any rate, my original point was, does this truly mean that Castle Doctrine is off the table, or is it just being limited to within one's own home.
A jury does. Or a DA or grand jury if they decide to indict. Each case is different. If during a police investigation they find you could not have retreated and had to resort to deadly conduct then of course the affirmative defense is self-defense, and charges will probably not be brought. If during a police or DA's investigation they came to the conclusion you could have retreated and did not do so the DA takes it to a grand jury and if they decide to indict a jury will decide whether you could have or not.
 

EXQEX9

Yep.
Who determines whether you reasonably could have retreated and how do they determine it?
------
at any rate, my original point was, does this truly mean that Castle Doctrine is off the table, or is it just being limited to within one's own home.
I don't understand this "duty to retreat" thing. Do I have a duty to retreat if someone is actively threatening my life, or only if I think someone MIGHT threaten my life.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
Right now in Pennsylvania you have a right to stand your ground in your home only. If you are on your porch, you have a duty to retreat if you can in complete safety. This new law would remove the duty to retreat outside your home (and allow you to stand your ground in all public places and on your property outside your home). You would have no duty to retreat anywhere you can legally be if you are forcefully attacked. This law does not allow deadly force for stopping a crime (unless it will stop injury or death i.e. armed robbery, rape etc..)

It also protects you from civil liability if you injure an attacker while they were in a commission of a crime. They would not be able to sue you.

It got vetoed this time around.... but early next year, the legislature will pass it again as a free floating bill and stronger then the one now. Our then Governor Tom Corbett supports the castle doctrine 100% and said he will sign it into law. It's simply not getting passed this year, but we will have it early next year.
 
Last edited:
Top