[PAFOA Alert] Judiciary Committe Action: HB 641 (Castle Doctrine)

[demeyers]

Dear Members and Friends ,
Upon reading HB641--now attached to a Senate Bill , and discussion with Rep Cappellis' Office..today at 9:40 a.m , it is now duly noted that explicit wording is devoid ,and may be the cause for the recall of the Bill.
Under State and Federal Law-- all protection and self defense claims are reviewed for the intent of the actors involved. THINK LIKE A PROSECUTOR. Are Police Officers not subjected to an internal review for a shooting ? Notice that, in HB641 the duty to retreat is the matter to consider. But, one must first look at the rules under crimes that are committed under a " Heat of Passion". I'll return to this later. Garner vs Tenn is not involved--that is solely for Police and is ignored in Pa. and N.Y. because Federal Law superceeds and dictates to stop a fleeing felon--even in a moving vehicle.
Notice : HB641 ONLY mentions the HOME , patio porch or dwelling. The explicit language to use in this case is "Residential HOME PROPERTY " and all places of Abode and Businesses. This is the language used from the "Castle Doctrine " and other States. I speak from many years of experience --and can post my resume if needed.
This rewording would cover any location where one might be , if , and when force is required for self or for that of a third person.
***Homes, Houses, Barns/ Farm buildings , Hotels Malls , Apartment Buildings Businesses etc etc.***

However... as HB641 is presented, once you flee to the safety of your HOME or auto and are safely within it , then the use of force can only be used to stop an attacker from pursuing you inside that home or car with the intent to do harm. A good law clerk would argue in a lawsuit for a claimant : You were inside your car and could have safely driven away, yet you chose to shoot from a car? Was it moving ? Or, In your house--you call the Police . This is the mindset that needs to be educated.
No where does HB641 afford protection to apartment dwellers .They are not homeowners per se. So, if this Bill is passed as written--does the armed HOMEOWNER need to ask the pursuing the suspect --Excuse me, are you intending to harm me where I reside ? This debate was covered extensively on the Glen Beck radio show from Phila about three weeks ago . Beck, presented this to the audience and officials.
Beck asked - Are you to stand at the top of your stairs as some a-hole is ravishing your house and you ask--are you going to hurt my kids ,wife or me ? Not one of the Officials answered the question--not one. Get the transcript of the show .
However, if the actor(s) are simply taking property--let them--it's insured. But, you start walking up those stairs or down my dark hallway-- I will shoot you.
However, that now constitutes terroristic threats--not a warning but a threat. So, how are we to know the intent of the actor ? This Bill must be worded exactly to defray any gray areas.
Such as, Entering any home or established business etc etc for no lawfull purpose at any time .... equal or greater force , including deadly force CAN and WILL be used to repel or terminate any attacker or intruder . Terminate is the exact word to use. Terminate = Stopped..
This Bill as drafted does not allow any person to use such force in a parking lot, driveway, public road , or even on thier front lawn .See Propelling Missiles and Projectiles under Pa title 18 and the uniform Omnibus Crime Act. . It does however , cover actions of a third person coming to the aide of the attacked .
.
FACT: Pa. Law--unless you have "GrandFather Rights for hunting and other game laws-, you better not ever shoot from a porch , patio or window , --or a car for any reason or you will be arrested. If you think this all Bull-Shi* , I suggest you contact the Pa. Game Commission because this is covered under thier LAWS --not Title 18 . Shooting from any automobile--unless permitted as a Handicapped hunter is illegal.
So you can toss out -shooting from inside the car idea.

Fact :Our former Game Warden / Educational Specialist came to my home / farm on a complaint in 1998. He was forced to file it as founded , but lawfully permitted activity, due to inherrant rights under my Deed. Yet, my neighbor-- a township official , built his home in 1998 and is NOT covered under these RIGHTS. I defer to Excedrin Headache number14, 645.
However, since that jerk filed the complaint --it back fired on him . I have now imposed a Federal Safety Zone and Pa. Safe Hunting Zones for my property since I am a Federally licensed farm. . Therefore , jerkboy can use less than 2 of his entire 24 acres of land to hunt upon. However that acreage is in the middle of a Federal protected wetland. So, he can no longer hunt. If he discharges any firearms or fireworks and the GSR appears upon my property or within my streams--he goes to jail for violating Act 401 U.S. Federal Clean Waters Act and the Pa. Clean Streams Act...since GSR is a pollutant.
We must also contend with the Laws of the Pa Fish Commission.,Pa DEP and
DNR , federal and state laws of the Chesepeak Bay Watershed and more.

These Philly folks are slicker than Owl crap and know all these laws.

Under Phila.. York , Lancaster, Hazleton, Pittsburgh, Erie City Ordinances-- you posses or discharge any type of firearm outside the scope of the Hunting provisions a lawful permitting to carry. you will be arrested by any Peace Officer who is within as little as a 3rd Class County. You will be arrested by local police or Zoning Officers for discharging a firearm in the city limits. See how intricate this becomes. City Ordinances can superceed State Law.

Now, let's return to the duty to retreat crap.

I have suggested to Rep Cappellis' staff to tweak the wording of this bill.
My suggestion was
"force--including deadly force shall be used to prevent and / or detain a perpetrator who is actively engaged in any crime that WILL or has caused any physical harm irregardless of the degree to that of another human being while on or about : #1 thier private residential property or the property of others , #2 places of abode and businesses, #3 in or near thier automobile #4 or , anywhere in the Commonwealth of Pa. to save a life or stop a crime and this Government will not question.
I also considered invoking the wording "STOP you are under citizens Arrest." --but hold that in reserve. Most folks do not know that Citizens can affect an arrest. So, be prepared to see this come along too.

Also , the duty to retreat must be fully repealed and discarded throughout all of Pa Title 18 . We are a Commonwealth--not a State. The Good of the People shall be preserved at all times.
The use of the word --IN , must deleted. "IN" is the culprit . Once you are inside ---the game is over ..no more heat of passion exists and can not be used as a defense.
Therefore-- thinking as a Prosecutor--- if you flee to the "safety in your home , and obtain a weapon and exit that HOME -- that this activity or action , now becomes Intentional with Attempt . THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. Your actions are now classifed under the scope of Willfull, Knowledge and INTENT. Therefore it will be classifed as Recklessly, willfully , knowingly --- Endangering . This is exactly the wording that Adams County D.A Shawn Wagner used in the criminal charges against my son , who had exited our house on our
private property / farm at night , with a rifle, as a vehicle was destroying 2 acres of our freshly planted crops used for research. --Ag Terroism -A Felony Offense and Ag Vandalism 3rd Degree Felony / Misdemaneor 1 .
He cited this under the charges of Attempted Criminal homicide --2 counts and 12 other counts, that were all finally reduced to a 3rd class misdemeanor for which the Police D.A. and Judges will now be sued . Testimony was never presented by the child, only a written statement of events--which was ruled as NOT being a confession . The boy exited his house with a rifle at night due to safety concerns for his father. He was only acting as an armed witness to the events that led to the driver of a car--failing to follow the instructions of the landowner (his Father ) to present valid I.D. His presence, although never observed by either the father , or the duo in the car --COULD have legally acted as a deterrant had he been visible. The boy openly admits -but not under oath--, that he only fired at the the tire of the car in order to stop it from killing or dragging his father, as he was no longer visible as the car sped off. The driver then testified that he "revved the engine, slapped it into gear and took off in fear f being prosecuted. Mr Meyers testified that he was nearly struck by the car while legally upon his property and within the scope of the law. Had he not slipped on the wet grass at the time while clad in socks, and was able to slip away and out of the path of the car as he had no place to retreat to and risked serious harm or death. The actions involved protected his father but may have been reckless --especially at night and the safety of his Dad was and is the question . The rifle was never admtted into evidence --because it was siezed illegally. The Judge at that point had the duty to rearrest my son but choose no to. The ADA was forced to accept a plea by our lawyer which the idiot accepted and now the Police D.A. ADA and both Judges can and will be sued for false arrests. No evidence of a shooting or criminal act on our parts was ever presented,.nothing but our written statments and the rifle. The rifle and alleged car were never accepted into evidence due to misbehavior of the police.
The D.A. will be sued personally --since he is a lawyer and choose to act as a representative of Pa. government . Once he questioned OUR use of a firearm and nothing else ,he violated our entire constitutional rights as well as those of this Commonwealth. Then he allowed his Asst D.A. to submit false and slanderous statements to the media. Simply to bolster his re-election efforts. The Superior Court was presented findings by our acquired CSI Team and were promissed by that Court that the results would not be questioned. .nor pursued in this matter, before it went to trial . Intent was never established, yet the D.A. badgered on
see Comm vs Meyers 2006
Until Pa Title 18 is totally revised-- specific gun legislation will take a back seat unless it is piggy-backed onto an existing Senate Bill on the floor as is being the case at present. This is the game, so play it well or the folks will go home with the Game Ball as cited .
The Court of Dan now rests.

[CCinPA]

This was found on http://www.legis.state.pa.us/





It has already passed through the senate and was passed without anyone against it. I would imagine this is why Capelli chose this bill for his bill to ride with. SB436 is one that everyone wants through. So attach the HB to it and it rides right through...or should.

So what you show is it was referred to the House Appropriations Committee.
So as far a I can see it was still in Committee as of the start of today unless I am missing something.

[ChamberedRound]

demeyers - please take this as constructive criticism: you really need to turn this stream-of-consciousness post into something which does a better job of getting your point across. After reading your post, I have no idea what your opinion is on the current status of SB436, why you're suggesting changes be made, or how your suggestions would improve the bill.

[demeyers]

read my new post

[demeyers]

read my new post HB436 is not HB641---perse.. I support both...read on please..

[soberbyker]

I'm with you brother; you would think that at least in your home/or car you might be given an absolute advantage over an intruder. They aren't breaking your door down to give you a hug.

I wish I could quote those famous words from "Dirty Harry".

Which one?

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Harry Callahan: Where's the girl?
The Killer: You tried to kill me!
Harry Callahan: If I tried to do that your head would be splattered all over this field - now where's the girl?

[Harry Callahan has to explain why he shot a man]
Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

Harry Callahan: Say Jaffe, is that Tan Ford still parked in front of the bank?
Mr. Jaffe: Tan ford...
[checks]
Mr. Jaffe: Yep. Tan Ford
Harry Callahan: Engine running?
Mr. Jaffe: I don't know. How can I tell?
Harry Callahan: Exhaust fumes coming from the tailpipe.
Mr. Jaffe: Oh, my God. That is awful. Look at all that pollution.
Harry Callahan: [Harry turns to see] Yeah. Do me a favor.
[gives him slip of paper]
Harry Callahan: Call this number.
Mr. Jaffe: Police department?
Harry Callahan: Yeah. Tell them Inspector Callahan thinks there's a 211 in progress at the bank. Be sure and tell them that's IN progress.
Mr. Jaffe: In progress. Yes sir.
[goes to phone and starts dialing up]
Harry Callahan: Now, if they'll just wait for the cavalry to arrive.
[suddenly a gun shot goes off and an alarm bell follows immediately]
Harry Callahan: Ah, shit.

[doug]

read my new post HB436 is not HB641---perse.. I support both...read on please..

SB436, rather. It's a senate bill which HB641 was amended to.

[billamj]

read my new post HB436 is not HB641---perse.. I support both...read on please..

To be completely honest, I can't. While I'm sure you have several very valid points to make your writing style makes them incomprehensible to me.

[CCinPA]

I spoke with the Capitol Hill office of Rep. Capelli moments ago and I was told SB436 was amended 12-10-2007 but the House Appropriations Committee didn't do anything with SB436 today, also today was their last session until next year. She there is sits still in Committee.

[dmg1969]

The positive response I received from my State Rep.

"Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support of HB641. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents as it is your voices that help guide me while I am in Harrisburg.

You are correct in stating that this Bill will be added as an amendment, but it will be to Senate Bill 436, not House Bill 436. That being said, I will be supporting this amendment. Please be assured, as an avid hunter and gun owner, I will not be intimidated to vote for any amendment or bill that I feel is not for the good of my constituents.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any of your state related matters.

Sincerely,

Mark K. Keller
State Representative
Perry & Franklin Counties
1-800-959-8119
FAX - 717-582-8979