This is why we need the Castle Bill

[sdsorrentino]

In many places this guy would be waiting for the wheels of justice to decide his fate. In Sarasota, Florida the local cops call a press conference the next day to praise him

http://tinyurl.com/l3puw3

[WhiteShadow]

Pennsylvania is a great state when it comes to the legalities of firearms and using them, however they are just missing one major piece of the puzzle, the castle doctrine. I mean come on, someone breaks into MY house and i protect myself and MY family with MY legally registered firearm, yet i still face the possibility of some scumbag of a jury deciding whether or not i was right in protecting myself and my family? Bullshit.

[WhiteFeather]

Pennsylvania is a great state when it comes to the legalities of firearms and using them, however they are just missing one major piece of the puzzle, the castle doctrine. I mean come on, someone breaks into MY house and i protect myself and MY family with MY legally registered firearm, yet i still face the possibility of some scumbag of a jury deciding whether or not i was right in protecting myself and my family? Bullshit.

Well the solution is right here, IF you want this concept to beome a law in PA, help do your part and make it happen.
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ease-read.html

Target of Sarasota robbery shoots his assailant


SARASOTA - Elliott Firby left the post office on Tallevast Road, where he has worked the night shift as a mail sorter for the past 13 years, and headed home on Thursday.


Brandon Ellis It was 2:45 a.m. and he was alone on the road, save for a dark pickup truck that slowed down, let Firby pass and started following him on University Parkway.

Firby was suspicious.

“Something is fixing to jump off,” he recalled thinking to himself, as he sat at a table at the Sarasota Police Department on Thursday afternoon and told the story to reporters.

The truck was still behind him when Firby pulled into his driveway on Rilma Avenue and got out to open a gate. A guy jumped out of the truck with a shotgun — politely telling Firby that he was being robbed.

“Give it up, sir,” he said.

Firby, 54, had followed recent news reports of violence in Newtown, especially a rise in shootings and a recent spate of home invasions. His wife was asleep inside the home and he was concerned that the robber might try to get to her.

About a year ago — worried about the increase in crime — Firby and his wife got concealed-weapon permits.

“You have to do something to protect yourself,” he said. “The police can’t be there all the time.”

Firby started carrying a .380-caliber pistol wherever he went, stashing it in his pocket.

As the robber approached with the shotgun, Firby went to his knees to make him think he was complying.

The shotgun was covered with a T-shirt, police say, and the robber fumbled with it.

Firby reached for his pistol and fired a round, striking the robber in the stomach.

The robber stumbled back toward the truck and Firby fired again, missing as the truck sped away.

A few hours later, officials at Sarasota Memorial Hospital called the police to say that a teenager, Brandon Ellis, 16, had showed up with a bullet wound.

Ellis just finished his junior year at Booker High School, where he played basketball and football.

He has no arrest record, police say. His injury is not life-threatening.

Detectives plan to charge him with attempted robbery when he is released from the hospital.

Late Thursday, detectives arrested Ellis’ half-brother, Cadareus Ray, on an armed robbery charge.

Ray, 18, who graduated from Booker in 2008, was a linebacker on the football team and, after graduation, continued to play football at a junior college in California.

When Ellis was dropped off at the hospital, a surveillance camera filmed the black truck as he climbed out of it. Detectives found the truck later Thursday in front of the 25th Street home where Ellis and Ray live.

Detectives say Ellis and Ray were cruising Sarasota looking for someone to rob, and that it was Ray who gave Ellis the shotgun.

Firby says he had $5 on him.

“It wasn’t a whole lot of money,” Firby says, “but you do what you have to do when you’re looking down the business end of a shotgun.”

For Firby, the ordeal left him shaken, tired and thankful that he was armed.

He first thought about carrying a gun last year, as the the economy’s condition rapidly deteriorated.

People started moving out of his neighborhood and vagrants took over a few empty houses.

Once, someone cut his phone lines. Another time, when he was on a bicycle, someone shot him with a paintball gun. He and his wife figured it was time to take their safety more seriously.

They took a gun course, got the concealed-weapon permits and try to never leave home without a pistol within reach.

Detectives have cleared Firby of any wrongdoing in the shooting. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law — which allows people to use deadly force when they face bodily harm — was a factor in the decision not to charge him.

“He was looking at dying,” said Sarasota Police Capt. Bill Spitler. “And he has every right to defend himself.”

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...-his-assailant

[FormerUser123]

Pennsylvania is a great state when it comes to the legalities of firearms and using them, however they are just missing one major piece of the puzzle, the castle doctrine. I mean come on, someone breaks into MY house and i protect myself and MY family with MY legally registered firearm, yet i still face the possibility of some scumbag of a jury deciding whether or not i was right in protecting myself and my family? Bullshit.

Well, that, and the carry in a car law needs to be repealed.

[son of the revolution]

Not to be contentious , but its REALLY been a thorn in my side everytime something like this comes up and people talk about the need for " Castle Doctrine " in PA . Now , before I get lynched , YES PA needs the " Castle Doctrine " to be enacted . But " castle doctrine " here OR in Florida simply DOES NOT APPLY to this and several other situations I've seen people post here . The " victim " in this Florida case was protected by the " Stand Your Ground " law in Florida , which says that you have NO duty to retreat in the face of an aggressor from anywhere you have a legal right to be .

That is a HUGE difference from " Castle Doctrine " which applies to your home , place of business , or your car .

PA also needs a " Stand Your Ground " Law AS WELL as " Castle Doctrine " !

The two terms describe two completely different sets of applicable circumstances and protections afforded to the citizenry acting under them . To continuously intermingle the terms , asserting they apply to situations they dont , is not only incredibly confusing , its " ignorance " or lack of attention to detail , and perpeptuating an " urban legend " of sorts , at a time when we have " newbies " joining daily , more and more sheeple waking up , and PAFOA rapidly becoming , if not already recognized as " the " standard bearer " for gun rights activism in Pennsylvania .

We owe it to ourselves and the group as a whole to make at least a minimal effort to understand and accurately articulate the effects and conditions of legislation we are actively supporting , not only as individuals , but also as a group .

Sorry if this came off as a rant , but it really gets under my skin the mixing of the two terms and I know Whitefeather has also acknowledged its a real problem in the past .

[TXDMERC73]

why the hell do we have a LTCF if we cant shoot the threats?if they are a threat what should we do ? hold them at gunpoint till the cops come, arrest them then a year later let them go they come back and do it all over again?

[The Unknown 1087]

Not to be contentious , but its REALLY been a thorn in my side everytime something like this comes up and people talk about the need for " Castle Doctrine " in PA . Now , before I get lynched , YES PA needs the " Castle Doctrine " to be enacted . But " castle doctrine " here OR in Florida simply DOES NOT APPLY to this and several other situations I've seen people post here . The " victim " in this Florida case was protected by the " Stand Your Ground " law in Florida , which says that you have NO duty to retreat in the face of an agressor from anywhere you have a legal right to be .

That is a HUGE difference from " Castle Doctrine " which applies to your home , place of business , or your car .

PA also needs a " Stand Your Ground " Law AS WELL as " Castle Doctrine " !

The two terms describe two completely different sets of applicable cicumstances and protections afforded to the citizenry acting under them . To continuously intermingle the terms , asserting they apply to situations they dont , is not only incredibly confusing , its " ignorance " or lack of attention to detail , and perpeptuating an " urban legend " of sorts , at a time when we have " newbies " joining daily , more and more sheeple waking up , and PAFOA rapidly becoming , if not already recognized as " the " standard bearer " for gun rights activism in Pennsylvania .

We owe it to ourselves and the group as a whole to make at least a minimal effort to understand and accurately articulate the effects and conditions of legislation we are actively supporting , not only as individuals , but also as a group .

Sorry if this came off as a rant , but it really gets under my skin the mixing of the two terms and I know Whitefeather has also acknowledged its a real problem in the past .

The "Castle Doctrine" bill that i hope gets passed soon, as nice wording in it. You WONT have to retreat to safety before you can use force. I hope it stays that way, and it passes

[son of the revolution]

The "Castle Doctrine" bill that i hope gets passed soon, as nice wording in it. You WONT have to retreat to safety before you can use force. I hope it stays that way, and it passes

NO ONE has a "duty to retreat " under the CURRENT law , unless you can do so in COMPLETE SAFETY ! Which is such a ridiculously broad definition that in 99.9% percent of cases , one could argue that under the " reasonable person " standard of belief of the situation/circumstances at the time , you can almost always raise the lack of " complete safety " as a defense .

PA needs the protection from civil suits , the burden of proof put on the State that the victim shouldnt have fired , and a version of Stand Your Ground .

Still doesnt change the fact that consistantly refrencing " Stand your Ground " types of cases , as justification for why PA needs " Castle Doctrine " shows a woeful "ignorance " of existing law , or whats actually needed vs what already exists .

[NavJAG06]

Some good points of distinction. The Castle Doctrine in Florida applies to persons in a dwelling or vehicle. Florida's Castle Doctrine provides a couple of presumptions that help the victim: First there is a presumption that a person unlawfully entering a residence or vehicle is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence and second, the victim is presumed to be in imminent fear of serious bodily harm because of the unlawful entry.

When the incident occurs in places other than a dwelling or vehicle, the victim may use deadly force with no requirement of retreating (standing one's ground) if he or she is threatened with force likely to produce imminent death or serious bodily harm. The presumptions found in the Castle Doctrine are not inherent in the right to stand one's ground. Here are the two statutes that address the concepts:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

[The Unknown 1087]

NO ONE has a "duty to retreat " under the CURRENT law , unless you can do so in COMPLETE SAFETY ! Which is such a ridiculously broad definition that in 99.9% percent of cases , one could argue that under the " reasonable person " standard of belief of the situation/circumstances at the time , you can almost always raise the lack of " complete safety " as a defense .

Yeah it says you have to retreat to complete safety first, which is bullshit, and needs to be taken away. You can argue that you couldn't have made it to complete safety, but there will always be some douche bag that says other wise and then you have to prove that you couldn't.

PA needs the protection from civil suits

We need this too!