LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCurrent law: No duty to retreat inside your home.
Proposed law would expand this to other places besides the home.
Vetoed by the guvner.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun...astle-doctrine
This is a discussion on PA maintains "duty to retreat" within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Current law: No duty to retreat inside your home. Proposed law would expand this to other places besides the home. Vetoed by the guvner. http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun...astle-doctrine...
Array
Current law: No duty to retreat inside your home.
Proposed law would expand this to other places besides the home.
Vetoed by the guvner.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun...astle-doctrine
Array
Makes me wonder what he was thinking.
Don't do things you don't want to explain to the Paramedics!
Stupidity should be painful.
Array
The idea of retreating is doodie.
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
cafepress.com/bgstudios
Array
I find it interesting that Castle Doctrine 'allows' a person to use deadly force.Strange.Perhaps castle doctrine gives a better legal position for an individual.I read this statement in many news articles,does this mean if you are not 'allowed',you must stand at attention and be murdered?
Array
Although it might seem foolhardy and cowardly, I would consider retreating, even in my own home, if that were possible. Of course, this depends entirely on circumstances. If I had access to an outside door, and the weather was not bad, and also assuming that no family members were around (generally the case), then I would go outside (armed), and call the police.
Of course, I would take a defensive stance if forced to, but I have a much better chance of surviving the ordeal by *not* engaging the BG. Also, the legal ramifications look so much better to a jury if it appears I tried everything in my power *not* to shoot first. Self defense looks much more plausible if there was truly no choice.
Besides, here in NY, the law is very clear. One must be in imminent danger of bodily harm before lethal force is warranted.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Well, Governor Rendell now has a Duty To Retreat. The citizens of Pennsylvania Vetoed him & he lost as Governor and PA will now have a Republican taking over his job.
Array
He might just want to give back because he has to leave.
"The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"
Actually the law reads that you need to "reasonably believe" that you are in imminent danger, or if you are preventing arson, rape, robbery or burglary.Originally Posted by JonInNY
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Array
Yes, you are correct. I would just not want to be the one to have to defend the word "reasonable." My definition, and the DA's definition I'm sure would be totally different from each other.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
I agree not a theory I want to test, I'll do whatever I can to avoid going down that road.
Array
You're right, it is foolhardy and cowardly. When the BG comes outside where are you going to retreat to next? When do you stop retreating? Just trying to get my head around this...
You also need to consider that maybe the BG has an accomplice outside waiting.
Array
Well, as I mentioned, I would retreat first, if possible. If the BG follows outside, then I have no choice but to defend myself. I would just try and take all non-lethal actions first!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Array
Yes, this is true too. I'm just saying I would consider these options first.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Array
Here in the good ol' Sunshine State, there is no duty to retreat. I wouldn't take any additional risks to not run away in a home threat situation, but I would not retreat. That's just me. I refuse to be a slave to an aggressor in my own castle. He/she chose to start this; I must now end it. I have no obligation to him, and he is an immediate, deadly threat (IMO). If he wanted to live, he should not have committed an act of severe violence against my home, my family, and myself.
However, if I lived in a state like NY, I would do everything I could to retreat. No respect for citizens in states like that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
