Breaking News DA.s oppose your rights to self defense

[WhiteFeather]

These are the elected individuals who are entrusted to dispense justice, ensure that everyone gets a fair trial and oversee our constitutional freedoms.

We have 23 states that already have this and yet these individuals trot out the same old tired lyrics.

Can you imagine how you, the average gun owner, will be treated in their court and by their underlings, assistant DA's, if THEY cannot even understand just one piece of legislation???

Is it ANY wonder why police and citizens are dying at the hands of violent criminals out walking the streets?

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON HOUSE BILL 40

PRESENTED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2009 BY ED MARSICO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY AND PRESIDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
2929 NORTH FRONT STREET
HARRISBURG, PA 17110
717-238-5416

Good morning Chairmen Caltagirone and Marsico and other members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for having us here today to testify. My name is Edward Marsico and I am President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. I am here today to offer testimony on behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys concerning House Bill 40, the proposed Amendments to Pennsylvania’s “castle doctrine” statute. As a representative of the District Attorneys, I recognize and respect the right of all citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms and defend themselves and their homes. At the same time, District Attorneys of the Commonwealth are entrusted with the duty of ensuring the public safety of all residents. Because Pennsylvania’s current law has demonstrably protected residents in their use of force in self-defense and because House Bill 40 provides an overbroad, vague, and dangerous expansion for the use of deadly force on the streets of our state, we oppose this piece of legislation.

The principal purpose of House Bill 40 is to eliminate the duty to retreat from Pennsylvania’s statutory provisions regulating the use of force in public spaces in self-defense and in the defense of others. These changes are unprompted, a solution without a problem. HB 40 does nothing to strengthen the rights of an individual to defend his or her home. In fact, the proposed amendments eliminate any special importance in the law of the right to protect one’s home or “castle.” Instead, the new subsections open the door for increased violence on the streets and highways of our state by providing a “Shoot First” defense, an alarmingly expansive and ambiguous right of self-defense anywhere a resident’s presence is lawful.

Under current Pennsylvania law, a resident never has the duty to retreat when threatened inside of his or her home or place of work, regardless of whether a retreat can be safely made. This law has never failed to adequately protect a citizen’s right to guard their own home. Outside of home or work, a resident has a duty to retreat only if they know they can retreat with complete safety. The current law affords great protection to residents threatened by deadly force, while also balancing the need to reduce violent physical confrontations and the associated threat to public safety. Pennsylvania’s current right to self-defense only excludes a resident who engages in wholly avoidable and unnecessary taking of another human life. It is not unreasonable to expect a person in a public area who can walk away with complete safety to be required by law to avoid the use of life-threatening violence. The proposed amendments will only serve to make it easier for violent actors, especially those who frequently engage in confrontations on the street, to escape prosecution after using deadly force.

The largest impact of House Bill 40 will be to provide gang killers in the Commonwealth with a ready defense for the use of violence against one another. One of the greatest threats to the safety of residents in the Commonwealth is street violence, particularly from drug- and gang- related activities. Many homicides occur when one gang member encounters a member of another gang on the street and gunfire exchange ensues. The probability of a successful prosecution under current law remains high because the duty to retreat negates the availability of self-defense claims. With the proposed “Shoot First” provisions of HB 40, gang killers will have a legitimate claim of self-defense, even though the shooting could have been avoided altogether.

Street violence impacts more than just gang members. Often times, innocent bystanders are struck and killed in the exchange of gunfire. House Bill 40 would provide protection for the use of deadly violence on the streets whether the victim is a rival gang member or an innocent victim. The killers of a 10-year-old school boy in Philadelphia, Faheem Thomas-Childs, asserted self-defense to justify their shooting at rival gang members. The veteran homicide prosecutor who tried Faheem’s killers, Mark Gilson, has indicated that, had House Bill 40 been in place at the time that young Faheem was killed in the crossfire, Faheem’s killers may well have been acquitted and back on the streets today. To quote Mr. Gilson, if the duty to retreat “is removed, then many violent ruthless killers will be permitted to get away with murder.” This is quite literally true in Florida, where prosecutors were unable to convict Damon Darling on a murder charge for the death of 9-year-old Sherdavia Jenkin because of Florida’s no duty to retreat law. Sherdavia was killed while playing with her dolls in the courtyard of her housing community when Darling exchanged gunfire with a rival.

Another impact of HB 40 is to encourage overly aggressive behavior, especially road rage associated violence. Many road rage killings occur when tempers flare and irate, hot-tempered motorists threaten and menace each other. If one driver is larger than the other, or has a tire iron in his hand, for example, the other feels he is facing a potentially life-threatening situation. However, violence in such situations can be avoided by the threatened driver simply putting his foot on the gas pedal and driving away. House Bill 40 eliminates that duty to retreat and encourages and protects the resident who undertakes an entirely unnecessary killing.
Further, the provisions of this bill would substantially expand the use of deadly force to instances where no threat of deadly force was made against the actor or where the use of deadly force was unnecessary. HB 40 accomplishes this by the use of presumptions, a practice the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has generally disfavored in criminal statutes. Under the new provisions of HB 40, a resident has the benefit of a presumption of reasonable fear of deadly force if the resident knew or had reason to believe an intruder has unlawfully entered or attempted to enter the resident’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. Any person who unlawfully and forcefully enters or attempts to enter any of these locations, is presumed to do so with the intent to commit an act involving violence or force. Such presumptions would allow a resident the use of deadly force even when an unarmed thief is fleeing from the resident’s home, essentially expanding the right to kill solely in defense of property.

There is no doubt that HB 40 will encourage residents to take the law into their own hands, even when not threatened with deadly force. In Texas, this sentiment led to what is best characterized as an execution of two burglars by a neighboring homeowner. Joe Horn shot and killed two men who he had seen breaking into his next door neighbor’s home, even after the 911 operator advised him that police would soon be on hand. An officer had already reached the scene as Mr. Horn shot the two men from the rear because, he alleges, the two men were coming into his front yard. Mr. Horn was cleared by the grand jury of any crime.

Incidents of lethal shootings of unarmed and fleeing suspects are proliferating in states where presumptions of reasonable fear are available. There is no necessity for such force, especially when the “suspect” is a neighborhood kid who drunkenly tries to open the door of the wrong house, as was the case when William Kuch, 23, was shot outside of Gregory Stewart’s Florida home. Kuch had wandered onto the property looking for a party. Stewart, 6-feet and 250 pounds, told the 5-foot-9, 160 pound unarmed Kuch to leave his property. When he didn’t leave right away, Stewart shot him in the chest. Stewart will not be prosecuted.

The effects and problems with the “Shoot First” provisions of self-defense are well-documented and numerous. A 2008 University of Miami Law Review article studied the consequences of Florida’s 2005 enactment of the “Shoot First” defense, examining the problems law enforcement and prosecution have faced. Among the problems cited are the difficulties prosecutors now face in charging violent crimes, particularly the ability to prosecute or to bring full charges against individuals using deadly force. Within eight months of enactment, a Duval County State Attorney cited at least five cases where the law had influenced the State Attorney office’s decisions in filing charges, including two road rage incidents, one where a woman was stabbed to death by another woman.

“Shoot First” statutes in other states are riddled with problems in interpretation and application, and the language of House Bill 40 will have similar problems. In Florida, a circuit split exists as to the availability of the use of force under “Shoot First” when it appears an attacker or intruder is retreating. In Kentucky, prosecutors offered a plea deal to a man accused of murder because the law was too difficult to explain to a jury. Courts also differ on how and when to determine if the defense applies. There are persistent questions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts as to what constitutes being engaged in “criminal activity,” an interpretation that can drastically expand when the law’s protections would apply. In House Bill 40, terms like “public officer” and “peace officer” are used interchangeably and are left undefined.

House Bill 40 is an unwieldy expansion of self-defense that provides gang members and road rage killers with valid defenses and that encourages disproportional and aggressive behavior by homeowners and vehicle occupants. The bill also includes conclusive presumptions disregarding the need for an actual fear of bodily harm before the use of force. The language in the statute allows for conflicting interpretations and applications of self-defense, which will lead to variable and inconsistent charges and convictions. We recognize that there are other proposed amendments in House Bill 40 that we have not addressed today, such as civil immunity, but we have chosen to focus on the most problematic issues within the bill. As a whole, we oppose this legislation as an unnecessary and dangerous addition to self-defense law in Pennsylvania.

Thank you for giving PDAA the opportunity to give our input on this critical legislation. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them for you.

[WhiteFeather]

NOTE in the above PDAA conflicts it self

Here is Kim Stolfer's testimony on Nov 19, 2009


Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Kim Stolfer, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and Vice-Chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

The right of citizens to protect themselves is critically important to our society. It is a right, enshrined in many state constitutions, that needs to be zealously protected by all, especially elected representatives. If this right becomes uncertain, murky, or counter-intuitive, citizens will be, and in some cases already are, reluctant to take action to protect themselves and others for fear of criminal prosecution. That fear, and the consequent passivity, will “lead to the alienation of people from one another, an alienation encapsulated by the incomprehensible Genovese New York incident. The fear of ‘involvement’ and of injury to oneself if one answered a call for help would be added to the fear of possible criminal prosecution.” [Com. v. Martin, 369 Mass. 640, 649, 341 N.E.2d 885 (1976). This case refers to the brutal murder of Catherine Genovese in Queens, New York, in 1964, where 38 neighbors ignored her cries for help while being attacked.]

It is an indisputable fact that law enforcement officers cannot protect citizens at all times and, in fact, have no legal duty to do so. It is also a fact that the PA District Attorneys Association (PDAA) is well aware of the failings of our current justice system in holding accountable the most violent in our society. The quote below by U.S. Attorney Kubo, illustrates this point:In focusing on his past criminal behavior, there is a general conclusion that our present system, which allows repeat offenders to be sentenced to either probation or given early parole, is not working. The track record clearly indicates that continuously giving these individuals breaks only enforces future bad behavior, because they are taught that there are minimum consequences for what they do.
We in the law enforcement community serve you with all our hearts and our souls. We have taken an oath to protect the public from harm. Yet, when we see a habitual criminal offender back out on the streets before we finish our arrest reports; or when we see habitual criminal offenders released on probation or parole without any repentance, we can predict that there will be another victim living in our community who will be harmed.. U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo, 3/6/2003 -- Mourning the Loss of HPD Officer Glen Gaspar

Here in Pennsylvania we share this same environment. Police Officers Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, Mariano Santiago, Gary Skerski, Trooper Pokorny and too many other fallen officers all share one common element; they would ‘all’ be alive today if not for being murdered by criminals who ‘should have been’ in prison for committing crimes they were not held accountable for. Any criminal with the temerity to attack and murder police officers is not going to recognize and abide by a ‘citizens duty to retreat’. Anyone believing this is hopelessly locked in fantasy land and yet the PDAA is conspicuously silent on the failure of the justice system to keep these recidivist violent criminals behind bars.

HB 40 basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home (already current PA Law and was also opposed by the PDAA) or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It modifies the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also provides for ‘civil immunity’ against unfounded frivolous lawsuits filed by criminals and/or their families for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them, including police officers.

The legislation - HB 40 - does not eliminate the duty to retreat and neither does it eliminate Pennsylvania Use of Force laws despite the deceptive protestations of the PDAA and other anti-self defense organizations. Section (2) (ii) still provides the use of deadly force is not justifiable if "the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using [deadly] force with complete safety by retreating." Citizens in Pennsylvania have, for many years, had the defense of justification (self-defense) available where deadly force was used "on the street," provided the citizen reasonably believed such force was necessary to prevent imminent, serious bodily injury or death to themselves or another human being (which includes kidnapping or forcible rape), the citizen did not provoke the incident, the citizen was not the initial aggressor, the person against whom the force is being used is not a public official performing his duty, and one could not safely avoid the problem by retreating or surrendering a possession to one who claimed it was his.

It is important to understand the concept of ‘retreating in complete safety’ and how it impacts citizens who have been attacked and why retreat is often times not practical or why the actor was unaware of an escape route. Courts, and prosecutors, sometimes offer odd ideas about possible avenues of retreat in the unrealistic sterilized setting of the courtroom distant from the elements of the incident. Reasonable retreat for a young, healthy person will, most likely, not be the same for someone who is overweight, injured, or disabled. Unless there is a well established presumption of ‘right to self defense that protects the law abiding citizen and establishes that the individual has ‘no duty to retreat and the right to stand his or her ground’, the possibility of interpretation and prejudice have the distinct likelihood of devastating the victim of a violent crime twice. The mere fact of arguable interpretation of what the actor knew, or should have known, about a possible avenue of retreat or whether the avenue of retreat was even a viable option can devastate the citizen.

HB40 does contain the following language:
"(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity and who is attacked in any place where the actor has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use protective force, including deadly force, if the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or [forcible rape]."

What this language does do, in this regard, is to raise a presumption that a person's belief that deadly force was necessary and was "reasonable," under certain conditions. If the individual to which lethal force was applied was "unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle," for example, there will now be a presumption the actor reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself against death ...etc.

These laws, Castle Doctrine, have been enacted in 23 states and in virtually each instance the media and anti-self defense groups loudly proclaimed that the sky was falling and that there would be blood in the streets, Dirty Harry vigilantes, irrational mass murders, mythologies, lies and claims that the new law will turn Pennsylvania into the Wild West and are an insult to intelligent people. Take for example the follow up comments of Indiana Lawmakers who supported and opposed this law in 2006 who said they had not heard of any problems in its application. [When deadly force is justified--www.indystar.com] Indeed, Colorado law holds that, if the defendant is not the initial aggressor or engaged in mutual combat, he “is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose; and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life.”(Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419-1896)

Lethal Force and Unarmed Aggressors
As noted above in the review of ‘retreating with complete safety’, in numerous cases circumstances may arise wherein threatening behavior and actions lead to the use of lethal force on unarmed aggressors. Law enforcement wrestles with this scenario every day and many factors exist to complicate the decision making process. If the aggressor tries to close in on the actor, the actor is justified in firing before the parties begin wrestling over the firearm. Many police officers are killed with their own firearms. Officers are trained in specific retention techniques to avoid having their service firearms taken away and used against them; an actor will rarely have the benefit of this training. Police use-of-force doctrine also allows officers to shoot unarmed aggressors running towards them. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted: “[The officer] had no time for the calm, thoughtful deliberation typical of an academic setting.” Similar logic should apply to citizens as well. [Carswell v. Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 243 (3rd Cir. 2004). The Carswell court also noted that “we must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.”]

Justification for Castle Doctrine Protections
The record of gun owner experiences in self defense cases are filled with being victimized by some of the very prosecutors who bemoan this legislation. Take for example the case of Eraldo Iannitelli of Langeloth, PA who stopped two teenagers, wearing masks and carrying baseball bats and one carrying a BB gun, from robbing him for the second time. Mr. Iannitelli was arrested on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person after shooting one of the boys in the back early Saturday (September 1, 2007). Ironically ‘all’ charges were later dropped against the 16 year old teenager who was shot.

The above treatment is not an isolated case and is emblematic of a justice system that has lost its focus on the most important role of this system in society. To protect the innocent and aggressively prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.

PDAA – Selective Enforcement of Commonwealth Law
Examples abound of how rhetoric is obscuring PDAA actions; Brad Foulk, PDAA President stated (06/02/2009) that “Whether in the courtroom arguing a case. . . .one role of district attorneys is to ensure that the victims of crime aren't victimized again, especially by the criminal justice system. Pennsylvania prosecutors are committed to ensuring the victims of crime are never lost in the process or the larger debate.” Yet this is exactly what is happening across Pennsylvania to gun owners. Where were the members of the PDAA when Jack Noble was arrested, and later found not guilty, for lawfully carrying a firearm in public? They were prosecuting him!! Where were the charges for illegal arrest and detention and unlawful seizure of Mr. Noble’s property? Where was the public outrage when honorably discharged Marine Corps veteran Robert Russell was stopped for a traffic citation (August/2007) in Chester County that escalated into seizure of his lawfully owned firearms because local police could not find them in the PA State Police Record of Sale database ‘and’ contacted the wrong county to verify his License to Carry a Firearm? When the County District Attorney fails to protect Mr. Russell’s rights who then becomes his advocate?

In another PDAA press release (09/02/2009) Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said, “District attorneys are bound by the law as it is currently written” and yet the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing report on the enforcement of the Uniform Firearms Act (Title 18) reveals the lackluster enforcement of PA Gun Laws. From Straw Purchase prosecutions to Theft of Firearms to Mandatory Sentencing for the Use of a Gun in a Crime, virtually every PA Firearms Law has been ignored, rendered useless or plea bargained away by a significant number of prosecutors within Pennsylvania.

One of the most outrageous examples of selective enforcement of PA Law is Title 18 Section 6120, pre-emption of local firearms laws. Since 1994 local communities, townships, boroughs and counties have engaged in a systematic rejection of authority and civil disobedience by enacting local firearms laws in defiance of state pre-emption law without the objection of a single District Attorney in this Commonwealth.

In many areas of the Commonwealth overzealous law-enforcement is turning the lives upside down of the average individual who owns firearms. These enforcement actions originate almost entirely within the offices of the District Attorney. These are very real cases of prejudice and unfairness that reflect poorly on the traditions that we all hold dear. Some in the legislature are calling for ‘responsible gun ownership’ all the while ignoring the importance of ‘responsible and fair government’. The PDAA has chosen a path, not uniformly supported by its own members, of selective enforcement of laws and a dim view of constitutional freedoms as well as refusing accountability for their own actions.

Closing Remarks:

On behalf of the organizations I represent I thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee members, for the opportunity to testify here today. We beseech you to set aside the unsupported allegations and innuendo of those opposed to HB 40 and we ask each of you for your support for this measure. Pennsylvania citizens deserve the right to choose self defense over victimization at the hands of criminals and their own government.





The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League is a non-profit educational organization representing 45 sportsmen clubs, and is the voice of over 100,000 sportsmen in and around Allegheny County. Founded in 1921 the ACSL is dedicated to the preservation of our natural wildlife resources through hunting and fishing. The ACSL also teams with other pro-gun organization and works to preserve the fundamental Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms as protected under Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution's "Declaration of Rights" and the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The smoking gun part of Kim Testimony is in PDF incorparted LOTS of your thoughts supplied by PAFOA members to discredit the PDAA

PLEASE read attached document

PAFOA members help requested for passage of HB 40 & SB 842:
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...-sb-842-a.html


this part is only 13 pages of Kim Stolfer written its a total 59 pages long that was submitted.

[WhiteFeather]

The other part of Kim Stolfer's testimony that he didn't read that illustrates what the lawyers (PDAA) were trying to pull as fast one, by leaving out the inconvient facts surrounding their examples they cited

Analysis & Review: Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association Press Release (12/7/2009) on HB 641 (current session – HB 40)
Philadelphia District Attorney's Association: PDAA opposes House Bill 641 and urges public hearings.

1st Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:
"The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association urges the House Judiciary Committee to hold public hearings before voting on House Bill 641 in a hastily scheduled meeting on Monday, December 10. This bill would increase handgun violence in Pennsylvania by encouraging people with firearms to shoot their victims more quickly by removing the duty to retreat from our self-defense statute. A recent case in Pasadena, Texas is testing the limits of a similar law that Texas just enacted, where a neighbor who was in no danger shot and killed two alleged burglars in his neighbor's yard as police were arriving. We don't need any more incentives to shoot people in our state."

**1- What the PDAA conveniently leaves out is that the Pasadena police initially identified the dead men in 61 year old Joseph Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...te_note-Report They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Columbia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...te_note-NYTHor Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three ID cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999. At the time of this incident, involving Ortiz and Torres, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.

Also a much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in during 2007 in Pasadena.

**2 - Quote from PDAA, "where a neighbor who was in no danger shot and killed two alleged burglars in his neighbor's yard as police were arriving."

• Again, what the PDAA failed to inform legislators of in the Joe Horn situation is that a plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...te_note-Report
• His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...te_note-NYTHor

Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

This police report appears to contradict what has been stated as fact by the PDAA. If a plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting then how could the suspects have been shot before the police arrived?

**3 - The PDAA also stated that, "a neighbor (Mr. Horn) who was in no danger shot and killed two alleged burglars in his neighbor's yard". Yet, Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated, "one of the suspects ran towards (61 year old) Joe Horn." Let's define danger.

Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition
Danger. (13c)
1. Peril; exposure to harm, loss, pain, or other negative result.
2. A cause of peril; a menace.

It seems that the PDAA has their own version of the definition of danger that contradicts the one in a dictionary that has been approved and utilized by our Supreme Court for decades.

**4 - Another interesting fact is that the PDAA stated as truth that Mr. Horn, "shot and killed two alleged burglars in his neighbor's yard". The PDAA seems to have an alternate reality view of the events that transpired with Mr. Horn in 2007. Considering that the Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Mr. Horns front yard. This makes the action taken by Mr. Horn legal in accordance with Texas statutes. And considering that the perpetrators were found with a sack containing more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from Mr. Horns neighbors home, there is no "alleged" as to whether Torres or Ortiz were burglars, it's a confirmed fact.

**5- The PDAA stated, "We don't need any more incentives to shoot people in our state."
For as much as it is a tragedy to take a human life, the real crime lies within giving a person no other choice but to take a human life for the greater good in defense of self and others. After all, is dealing cocaine not an act that threatens or takes human life? As well as assault leading to death? Which could have happened to Mr. Horn if he didn't make the tough judgment call that he did in the absence of the officer at the scene intervening.

If deported illegal aliens that deal coke and run stolen guns to felons would just simply stop burglarizing homes and advancing towards concerned elderly neighbors, this would not be much of an issue. If any and all career criminals would just give up their unlawful activities and commit to doing the right thing the world would be a much better place. It's a shame that will never happen. Where the problem lies is in the fact that many criminals won't and have not ceased their behavior. It would seem that their rehabilitation leaves something to be desired by the public.

**References:

• Houston Chronicle -- Pasadena police present DA with report on Horn Cindy Horswell: Staff Tue 12/18/2007 Houston Chronicle, Section B, Page 3, 3 STAR Edition
• Houston Chronicle -- THE MAN BEHIND THE GUN / He's been praised as a hero and condemned as a vigilante. But JOE HORN, cast by friends as a quiet Everyman, says fame has caused `untold grief.' / Shots still echoing Cindy Horswell, Ruth Rendon: Staff Sun 12/16/2007 Houston Chronicle, Section A, Page 1, 4 STAR Edition
• CBS News -- Man Kills Suspects While On Phone With 911 Two Men Shot In Texas By Joe Horn Who Saw Suspects Leaving Neighbor's House Nov. 17, 2007

2nd Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:

"House Bill 641, misnamed "the castle doctrine" legislation, has been introduced to legalize alleged self-defense killing even when the killer knows that the killing is unnecessary to save a life. This bill eliminates Pennsylvania's centuries-old "duty to retreat" that states that if someone whose life is threatened can safely do so, they must retreat and avoid the unnecessary taking of human life. The PDAA urges the General Assembly to vigorously oppose this legislation."

This legislation - HB 40 (and its predecessor – HB 641) - does not eliminate the duty to retreat and neither does it eliminate Pennsylvania Use of Force laws despite the deceptive protestations of the PDAA. Section (2) (ii) still provides the use of deadly force is not justifiable if "the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using [deadly] force with complete safety by retreating."

1- Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition

Castle doctrine. (1892) Criminal Law. An exception to the retreat rule allowing the use of deadly force by a person who is protecting his or her home and it's inhabitants from attack, esp. from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily harm. ---- Also termed dwelling defense; defense of habitation. See RETREAT RULE. [Cases: Homicide.]

Question: How is "House Bill 641, misnamed "the castle doctrine" when the very definition is the crux of the subject in House Bill 641 (precursor to House Bill 40)? This subject being nothing more than a nearly mirroring form of the castle doctrine, modified to suit today's applications. Subject being as follows:

An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms.

The General Assembly finds that:
(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(2) The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.

"Dwelling." Any building or structure, including any attached porch, deck or patio, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the home or place of lodging of the actor.

"Residence." A dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or visits as an invited guest.

2- The statute and the section therein, petitioned to be amended, reads as follows:

Title 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION
§505(b)(2)(ii) Use of force in self-protection.
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

3- In general, 18 Pa. C.S. § 505 stipulates that a person being victimized on their own property must yield their possessions to the aggressor if it will prevent the victims own death or harm. While this may be well and good for some, who ever knows what is going through the mind of a criminal?

Whether a person agrees to forfeit their property to a criminal or not, what is stopping the actor from killing the wittiness via a weapon concealed about the actor’s person? To determine this out come, one would have to posses a non-fictitious and functioning crystal ball, or have the power to read minds. In theory, this one section of this law [§ 505(b)(2)(ii)] law provides a victimizer with protection to create victims in their wake.
Victims of theft or even murder. The question is, would anyone want their spouse, Mother/Father, Son/Daughter, or Brother/Sister to be burglarized legally bound to die because the actor had a box cutter in their pocket all the while? Is saving a criminal life worth the life of your spouse, Mother/Father, Son/Daughter, or Brother/Sister?

Resources:
www.legis.state.pa.us
HOUSE BILL No. 641 PN 702 (Session of 2007)

3rd Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:

"The true "castle doctrine," (not HB 641) which relieves residents of the duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect their homes from intruders, is current law. See 18 Pa.C.S. 506(b)(2)(ii)(A)("the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the original aggressor ... "). Advocates for House Bill 641 cannot point to a single case where current law failed to adequately protect a Pennsylvania resident's right to defend his or her home. Our current statute safeguarding that right is strong, and this bill does nothing to further strengthen it; instead, the bill produces several disastrous consequences making the streets and highways of our state more dangerous than ever."

1-Quote of PDAA, "See 18 Pa.C.S. 506(b)(2)(ii)(A)("the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the original aggressor ... ")."

Incorrect: The actual consolidated statute is under 18 Pa. C.S. 505 not section 506, of the same chapter.

18 Pa. C.S. 505 Use of force in self-protection (b) (2) (ii) (A) reads as follows:
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

The PDAA was, at the least, correct in citing, "the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor". What they subverted from your information was that section 505 clearly stipulates:

"The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if: the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person."

In essence, the PDAA cites the part that does indeed state that the victim doesn't have to retreat. And they fail to point out and clarify the part of the written law that they did indirectly cite [505(b) (2) (ii)] and skipped to directly citing part (A). Parts (b) (2) (ii) renders a victim legally incapacitated from defense of property, self or rights if the aggressor has a weapon concealed on their person, or not, unless the aggressor initiates sexual assault or a simple assault.

Furthermore, Section 505(b) (2) (ii) exists in erroneous contradiction of a citizens right to make an arrest or utilize force to do so pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 9135 in concurrence with 18 Pa. C.S. § 508. Which reads as follows:

TITLE 42- JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
CHAPTER 91-DETAINERS AND EXTRADITION
SUBCHAPTER B- EXTRADITION OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME
§9135. Arrest without a warrant.
The arrest of a person may be lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person without a warrant upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested the accused must be taken before a judge or issuing authority with all practicable speed, and complaint must be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in section 9134 (relating to arrest prior to requisition), and thereafter his answer shall be heard as if he had been arrested on a warrant.

TITLE 18-CRIMES AND OFFENSES
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
CHAPTER 5- GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION
§508(b)(1)(i) Use of force in law enforcement
(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--
(1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.
(i) he believes the arrest is lawful;

§508(b)(3)(i)(ii) Use of force in law enforcement
(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--
(3) A private person who assists another private person in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned, assists a peace officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, if:
(i) he believes the arrest is lawful;
(ii) the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as he believes them to be.

§508(d)(1) Use of force in law enforcement
(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace,

And supported by the following case laws:
• Commonwealth v. Corley, 316 Pa. Super. 327, 462 A.2d 1374, 1379 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("we hold that a citizen's arrest can be made for a breach of the peace that is personally observed by the arrestor.")
• Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), (we reiterated that "a private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified.")

Let us again review the essence of the "Castle Law":

"An exception to the retreat rule allowing the use of deadly force by a person who is protecting his or her home and it's inhabitants from attack, esp. from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony".

2- Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition

home, (bef.12c) A dwelling place. See FAMILY HOME
dwelling-house. (15c) 3. Criminal law. A building, a part of a building, a tent, a mobile home, or another enclosed space that is used or intended for use as a human habitation.
inhabit, vb. (14c) To dwell in; to occupy permanently or habitually as a residence.

3- Streets and highways do not constitute "Homes" or a "Dwelling-House" and inhabitants therein are not subject to the protection of The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which stipulates the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nor eminent domain laws apply, as they would fall under the definition of vagrant and vagrancy. Furthermore, in terms of being secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; no where does it say in The Fourth Amendment that it exclusively applies to the conduct of law enforcement officials only.



PLEASE READ attachments of submitted testimony by anti-gun groups

[WhiteFeather]

Kim's written testimony cont

It clearly states that the right of the people to be secure in their possessions from unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. This applies to vandals, thieves, etc. It applies to all citizens unless they are an employee of a law enforcement agency acting appropriately under the color of law

4- It is actually a criminal act to enforce a statute [being 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 505(b)(2)(ii)] in defiance of The Fourth Amendment of The US Constitution

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
UNITED STATES CODE
PART I—CRIMES

CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS
§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

TITLE 18-CRIMES AND OFFENSES
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
CHAPTER 53-ABUSE OF OFFICE
§5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity

4th Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:

It has been one of the highest principles of civilized society that the use of deadly force on our streets should be the choice of last resort; killing another human being should never be the first option when it is entirely possible to avoid the situation in complete safety. It is not unreasonable to require a person to try and avoid the taking of a life before we as a society will condone and excuse a killing as an act of self-defense. The days of the "Wild West" where two armed gunman could face off on the street at high noon and the winner would walk away under a claim of self-defense should remain a distant memory of a more barbaric time in this country's history

1-"killing another human being should never be the first option when it is entirely possible to avoid the situation in complete safety."

Agreed. However, was 61 year old Joseph Horn of Pasadena, TX in complete safety? If he drew the blinds and did nothing, would his house be the next target? And what of his neighbors? More over, turning a blind eye and avoiding the situation not only would have made matters worse by aiding and abetting Hernando Riascos Torres and Miguel Antonio DeJesus in their robbery and escape; it would have also caused potential death or bodily harm to citizens by allowing them to carry on in their disbursement of illicit narcotics and running stolen firearms to felons

2-"The days of the "Wild West" where two armed gunman could face off on the street at high noon and the winner would walk away under a claim of self-defense should remain a distant memory of a more barbaric time in this country's history."

Sounds reminiscent of so many street gang shoot outs. In the "Wild West" a "show down" was not titled as self defense. What the PDAA erroneously refers to as "self-defense" is in reality a duel. There is a difference between the two as a duel is a barbaric, conscience decision of two engaging parties to resolve conflict on a issue through violent means

Self-defense is a unforeseen act of self preservation from violence or threats of violence through force, not limited to defending ones property (home and contents) or neighbor (member of the community)

Brief History of Dueling in the United States

Dueling began to fall out of favor in America in the 18th century.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin> Benjamin Franklin denounced the practice as uselessly violent, and George Washington encouraged his officers to refuse challenges during the American Revolutionary War because he believed that the death by dueling of officers would have threatened the success of the war effort

By the end of the 19th century, legalized dueling was almost extinct in most of the world. As shown below, some U.S. states do not have any statute or constitutional provision prohibiting dueling, though the party causing injury in a duel may be prosecuted under the applicable laws relating to bodily harm or manslaughter

Several states have very high-level bans laid against dueling, with stiff penalties for violation. Several United States state constitutions ban the practice, the most common penalty being disenfranchisement and/or disqualification from all offices. As well, Article 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 USC) makes dueling by a member of the armed forces a military crime

References:

• Cramer, Clayton. Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform
• Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001; paperback ed., 2002)
• Schwartz, Warren F., Keith Baxter and David Ryan. "The Duel: Can these Gentlemen be Acting Efficiently?." The Journal of Legal Studies 13 (June 1984): 321–355

[B]5th Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:[/B]

This bill will protect gang killers from prosecution. The largest impact of House Bill 641 will be to provide most gang killers in this Commonwealth with a ready-made defense that will be very difficult for the Commonwealth to defeat. Many homicides occur when one gang encounters a rival gang on the street - or even when one drug gang member encounters a member of another gang. When fatal shootings occur, our prospects of successfully prosecuting the gang killers are reasonable because current law's duty to retreat negates the killers' inevitable self-defense claims. Without the duty to retreat, gang killers will have a potent, often-winning courtroom argument that they had to shoot the rival gang members in order to defend themselves, even though the shooting could have been avoided altogether

1-"This bill will protect gang killers from prosecution."

Question: How so? How is this bill able to be exploited to evade prosecution of gang shootings. Further more, I challenge the PDAA to provide evidence where amending § 505(b)(2)(ii) in the proposed bill could be utilized by defense attorneys to harbor, aid, abet a criminal client. Below is the law proposed in the bill for amending as well as the outline of the bill

Title 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION
§505(b) (2) (ii) (A) Use of force in self-protection.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

House Bill 641

An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing, in general principles of justification, for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for sentences for offenses committed with firearms

2- "Many homicides occur when one gang encounters a rival gang on the street - or even when one drug gang member encounters a member of another gang."

In general, when you are dealing with individuals that harbor no respect for the law, these homicides will be inevitable. In terms of prosecuting gang members for shootings, most of them possess illicit weapons or narcotics. Prosecuting them for their defiance of the law especially with their high rate of recidivism would not be a problem if they were aggressively prosecuted by District Attorneys

Actors involved in gang or narcotics-related homicides and assaults generally have a criminal record for violent offenses; illegally carrying a weapon; a history of problems with the victim (making it difficult to sort out who was the aggressor); fled from police; discarding weapons; and making incriminating statements when questioned. The fact that, in the vast majority of cases, these individuals are ‘already’ prohibited from legally possessing weapons of any kind should be the deciding factor in the legality of any claim to self defense. These situations also raise the question as to why a prohibited individual is on the street with a weapon in the first place and not behind bars for their previous crimes

Blacks Law Dictionary Ninth Edition

prosecute, vb. (15c) 1. To commence and carry out a legal action
2. To institute and pursue a criminal action against (a person)
3. To engage in; carry on

6th Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:

Please remember that these gang killers are often not good shots. House Bill 641's Dodge City protections for gang killers apply with equal force whether the ultimate victim is a rival gang member or an innocent 10-year-old school child a block away. The killers of the young boy, Faheem Thomas-Childs, asserted self-defense to justify their shooting at rival gang members. The veteran homicide prosecutor who tried Faheem's killers, Mark Gilson, has indicated that, had House Bill 641 been in place at the time that young schoolboy was killed, Faheem's killers may well have been acquitted and back on the streets today. To quote Mr. Gilson, if the duty to retreat "is removed, then many violent ruthless killers will be permitted to get away with murder."

1- "The killers of the young boy, Faheem Thomas-Childs, asserted self-defense to justify their shooting at rival gang members."

Interesting how asserting self defense proved frivolous in the defense of murderers Kareem Johnson and Kennell Spady. Again, the PDAA, as well as Assistant District Attorney Mark Gilson, have failed to inform the public of the complete situation

In February 2004, at least four men exchanged gunfire in front of a North Philly elementary school, and a 10-year-old boy was shot and killed. The subsequent media circus surrounding the case focused entirely on the way the witnesses, one after another, began recanting their statements to police as the trial progressed. The D.A.'s office actually prosecuted one man for instructing his daughter to lie on the stand. The editorial pages responded with sentimental palaver about how the streets will never be safe until ordinary citizens "step up and speak up."

No one even tried to point out that if the justice system had been working properly, the four men on trial would have been behind bars on the day of Faheem Thomas-Childs's murder. They all had prior criminal records filled with gun possession and drug arrests. Most communities would have put away these sociopaths in a state penitentiary long ago. But as you go over the lurid details of their Philadelphia criminal records, you see the cops repeatedly catching them red-_handed, only to have the D.A. withdraw charges, or reduce them in exchange for guilty pleas. Then the judges — when they aren't quashing or dismissing the cases on disputes over _evidence — reward the defendants' guilty pleas with either brief stays in county jail, or years of meaningless supervision by overworked probation officers

Witnesses to the Faheem Thomas-Childs murder knew very well that some of these guys would be back on the streets pretty soon, and that no testimony in court could help little Faheem anyway. The system had already failed Faheem. Testifying against his killers would only raise one's chances of joining him in the hereafter

Despite an atmosphere of intimidation that caused six prosecution witnesses to recant in court, two North Philadelphia gang members yesterday were unable to overcome their street reputations, the recovery of weapons, and a statement one made to police

Kareem Johnson, 21, and Kennell Spady, 22, were convicted of first-degree murder and face life in prison without parole in the Feb. 11, 2004, shoot-out with rival drug lords that left 10-year-old Faheem Thomas-Childs dying in front of his elementary school and school crossing guard Debra Smith wounded and disabled

“You were armed and ready for a fight; you had set your positions. This was not a self-defense situation,” Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan said in announcing her decision in the nonjury trial

References:

• Philadelphia Magazine [Don't Start Snitchin'] by Noel Weyrich
• The Philadelphia Inquirer -- Guilty for Faheem Thomas-Childs murder defendants March 2006, by Mitch Lipka
• The Philadelphia Inquirer -- Two Convicted, Face Life in School Killing <http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14117999.htm> By Mitch Lipka and Joseph A. Slobodzian, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writers

7th – 9th Paragraph of 12/07/2007 PDAA Press Release:

Protecting road rage killers from prosecution. The disconcerting increase in road rage killings potentially affects every community in our Commonwealth. Many road rage killings occur when tempers flare and irate, hot-tempered motorists threaten and menace each other. If one driver is larger than the other, or has a tire iron in his hand for example, the other feels he's facing a potentially life-threatening situation. However, an unnecessary killing in such situations often can be avoided by the threatened driver simply putting his foot on the gas pedal and driving away

But House Bill 641 provides the driver - who could have safely driven away from the scene - another, entirely legal alternative: grab the handgun and shoot the other driver in the head. With the duty to retreat taken away, our ability to prosecute these entirely unnecessary killings will be substantially hindered. This is not the time to be throwing fuel on the fire of deadly road rage. The responsibility of government is to make our highways safer, not to provide new legal protections to road rage killers

The bottom line is this: House Bill 641 will give potent new legal weapons for gang killers and road rage killers to avoid responsibility for the taking of human life. Again, I urge you to oppose this legislation, which will without a doubt make Pennsylvania a more dangerous place for all our citizens, or at the very least, convene public hearings to enlighten and inform the legislators and the public about this critical public safety risk

1- The prototype for the proposed amendment is very thorough and concise. For the most part, no stone is left unturned. It's a travesty that the PDAA evidently refuses to give it a fair chance by reading it. For the objective of the bill is not to work against the PDAA or empower vigilante justice (as the PDAA intimates), but to lower crime rates in the face of a under funded and staffed law enforcement community

Excerpt of the actual proposed bill reads as follows:

HOUSE BILL 641: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor BELIEVES that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating [or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take], except [that:
(A)] the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling [or place of work,] unless he was the initial aggressor [or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed].
(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following exist:
(i) The person against whom the protective force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcefully en continued

There is more sections of law won't fit due to size 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 look them up UR self

PLEASE READ attachments of submitted testimony by pro gun people that are for HB 40

[mojo]

Thanks for the update on this. Keep us posted!

btw ... I want to thank everyone for going to represent our community.

[Nic]

Thank you for the update

[rocco22]

"Joe Horn shot and killed two men who he had seen breaking into his next door neighbor’s home. Mr. Horn was cleared by the grand jury of any crime."

Well, I guess those men will not be breaking into any homes in the near future..

[Whitehorse73]

Thank you WhiteFeather, for posting the PDAA testimony opposing HB 40 and for posting the testimony of Kim Stolfer who supports HB 40.

I hope everyone who visits this thread will read these two testimonies, carefully, and understand why it is so important to make our voices be heard.

We all must fight the good fight and visit our representatives in Harrisburg as often as possible, or risk losing our fundamental rights.

[Celt]

What can you expect from the Liars guild? Their business is lawbreakers, we're breaking their rice bowl.
I called most of the democrats to ask for their support of this bill.
Does anyone out there know how the vote went?

[fingers80002]

What can you expect from the Liars guild? Their business is lawbreakers, we're breaking their rice bowl.
I called most of the democrats to ask for their support of this bill.
Does anyone out there know how the vote went?

It is still in committee.....