Kind of Thought Larry Hicks Would Get it.

[tes151]

Out of all the big city liberal wannabes at the York paper, I would have thought that Larry Hicks would have better sense. Guess not.
http://www.inyork.com/ci_12237328?IA...www.inyork.com

In my castle, retreat is always the best option
By LARRY A. HICKS The York Dispatch
Posted: 04/27/2009 11:26:08 AM EDT

I m one of those people who believes my home is my castle.

I'm also one of those people who believes I should be able to defend my castle and all that is held within it if someone is on my private property or inside my home without good reason or without invitation.

Still, I'm not looking to shoot anyone for infringing upon my space. And I don't walk around my home with a six-shooter strapped to my side, just waiting for someone to do something stupid.

If I discovered you inside my home or on my property illegally -- say at 2 a.m. when I'm sleeping and you're looking for something to steal -- I'd call the police.

But if -- and this is a huge "if" -- I felt threatened at any time, I'd do whatever I had to do to protect myself and my interests.

And the first thing I'd do is what my granddaughter was taught in her karate class -- I'd raise both hands, palms facing forward, and while backing up I'd say, "I don't want any trouble."

That said, I've always liked the notion that a person should be expected to retreat -- in fact, had a duty to retreat -- before shooting someone. Even in the commission of a crime.

Here in York County, that probably puts me in the minority.

If that makes me an old softie, then so be it.

I'm not going to kill someone for trying to steal my Johnny Cash CDs.

So I guess I'm a little reluctant to get behind a new bill -- now a work in progress -- that would give folks the right to use lethal force if they're threatened at home or
Advertisement
in their vehicles.

I just don't care much for the idea of people running around shooting people without a really good reason. And the only good reason I can think of is the threat of violence.

But as I said, that's most likely a minority opinion in these parts.

And elsewhere, too, I suspect.

State Sen. Richard Alloway, R-Franklin County, wants to change Pennsylvania Title 18, which states a citizen has a "duty to retreat" if possible, instead of using force against an attacker.

In its place, Alloway would like to establish the Castle Doctrine in this state. Basically, the Castle Doctrine protects homeowners, vehicle owners (and gun owners) who act in self-defense from being criminally prosecuted or sued in civil court. Current law might protect a gun owner from criminal prosecution, but it doesn't necessarily protect homeowners from being sued in civil court.

Alloway is quick to point out that 23 other states already have the Castle Doctrine in effect.

Even under the Castle Doctrine, however, a person would be required to prove that they believed they were in imminent danger before they used lethal force.

I'm not sure what proof one would have to provide -- it seems to me a simple statement to the effect you felt your life was in danger would more than satisfy that requirement: "I thought he was going to hit me with a baseball bat." "I thought he was going to shoot me." "I thought she was going to stab me with her knife." "I thought he was going to punch me in the face."

Any of those statements would do nicely, I'm thinking, even if they weren't true.

Then fire away.

Nah! Too easy. Way too easy.

Hey, I wish we lived in a world where none of us needed to bear arms. But we don't. The world's a little crazy these days. Strange people doing nasty things. And some of those strange people are gun owners (some legally, some illegally) looking for trouble.

So it makes sense that people should be permitted to keep and bear arms. I have no problem with that as long as it's done legally.

And intelligently.

As long as we're not saying it's OK to shoot the first thing that moves just because someone happens to be on your property or gets a little too close to your car.

If I have an avenue of retreat, that's always going to be my first option.

Just because it's my castle doesn't mean I'm shooting first and asking questions later.

Certain circumstances might call for that action.

Most do not.

Columns by Larry A. Hicks, Dispatch columnist, run Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail: lhicks@yorkdispatch.com.

[ImminentDanger]

And my posted response follows:


YOU seem to think that BadGuys, that show up outside/inside your house at 2:00am, are actually nice people who happen to be doing a bad thing... and if YOU don't interfere with their actions, but simply back away and leave them to their work (until the police arrive), you are perfectly safe.

But your willingness to put your life in the no-harm-intended hands of a BadGuy or even in the we'll-arrive-as-soon-as-possible hands of the police is misplaced.

The police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

And most BadGuys are NOT simply good guys that happen to be doing something bad... THEY ARE EVIL PEOPLE doing what comes naturally to them - BAD THINGS!! Have you done any research on recidivism lately?

When a BadGuy shows up on YOUR PROPERTY or WITHIN YOUR HOUSE, and demonstrates a willingness to take from you by force what you have a right to keep, only YOU stand between the BadGuy and your family's safety.

No one should advocate taking a life unnecessarily. But, since NO ONE ELSE is responsible for your own or your family's safety, including the police, YOU must make a decision.

The BadGuy has WILLFULLY violated your property/home and he has FORCED YOU to confront the possibility that he is willing to violate you and your family, physically, personally. The evaluation of his intentions has been FORCED UPON YOU BY HIS CHOICES, with only the evidence in your face to evaluate.

If a homeowner is FORCED BY THE BADGUY TO MAKE THIS DECISION, they certainly should not be subjected to civil or criminal penalties by Monday-Morning Legal-Quarterbacks who were not there when YOU and your family needed them most!

THAT is what 'Castle Doctrine' is about...

... Be Safe ...
ID

[Philbert]

I don't get the argument, there is already no duty to retreat in one's home.

[ImminentDanger]

I don't get the argument, there is already no duty to retreat in one's home.

Well.... as this thread points out, it's possible to articulate both a Castle-Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground legislation, but it often is co-mingled in some conjoined aspects.....

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ease-read.html

In spite of the criminal protections of the existing PA Castle-Doctrine provisions, one is still exposed to possible civil suits.

Basically, both Castle-Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground provisions (which cover somewhat different venues) are being pursued to eliminate the after-the-fact continued assault (through criminal or civil suits) on law-abiding citizens who are willing and able to protect themselves and their family from any kind of assault by a BadGuy.

... Stay Safe ...
ID

[camper]

If I were a criminal who read this article, I suspect I would have just found my weekend gig.

camper