Senator Earll tries to defend her 1926 nay vote

[1quikmf]

This was sent to me by Senator Earll's office in response to my email to her urging support for HB1926 this past weekend.

To: Constituents interested in HB 1926

From: State Senator Jane M. Earll

Re: Bill status, Senate vote

Date: November 16, 2010

On October 14, 2010, the Senate moved the “castle doctrine” legislation amended into House Bill 1926, and passed it by a vote of 45-4. The bill had been sitting in the House Rules committee, but with the House’s decision to resume voting session, they did concur yesterday, by a vote of 161-35.

I was one of the four “no” votes in the Senate for the following reasons:

Pennsylvania has already sufficiently established a “castle doctrine” standard. Under current law, a “duty to retreat” is never imposed upon an individual if he or she is threatened inside his or her home or place of work – regardless of whether or not safe retreat is an option. Taking it a step further, under current Pennsylvania law, a person still does not have a “duty to retreat” outside home or work, unless he/she is certain he or she can retreat in complete safety.

This established standard works and should not be changed. Individuals can defend themselves against home intruders, can defend their place of work, and are able to use necessary force in other situations when retreat is not a safe option – while balancing the need to reduce unnecessary violent confrontation.

Expanding the “castle doctrine” will make it harder for police and prosecutors to do their jobs. Police officers across the Commonwealth are already at great risk combating gun violence in communities large and small. In the last 10 years, 22 PA law enforcement officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty – 7 since 2009 alone. If we further remove the “duty to retreat,” thereby expanding the zone and situations in which deadly force is acceptable – we run the risk of making violent domestic situations even more dangerous.

The proposed expansions to the “castle doctrine” will make the job of prosecutors – working to get stiff penalties for violent offenders – more difficult. As Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray described it in a November 2009 hearing on the issue, “This is a defense attorney’s dream.” Expansion of the standard will provide a creative defense for violent criminals, such as gang members, for violence against one another – and even collateral tragedies of civilians caught in the crossfire. It could also be used as a way out for domestic disputes, or even road rage.

The PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, a coalition of police chiefs, representing every major city in the Commonwealth (including Erie), as well as dozens of boroughs and townships, are strongly opposed to any expansion of the “castle doctrine” in Pennsylvania. Also opposed are the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.

The proposed expansions encourage the use of deadly force, even when there is a safe option of retreating, without risk of surrendering one’s home or business. Our duty as public officials is to protect life – not to diminish it. Why would we actively put police in more dangerous situations and put a greater burden on prosecutors – whose duty it is to apprehend and prosecute dangerous criminals, to get them off the streets? The only beneficiaries of this expansion are criminals – not law abiding citizens, who are already adequately covered by current self defense laws

Having been a prosecutor for seven years, I have had first-hand experience in these types of prosecutions. I firmly believe the law is adequate as is.

[Finch00]

how do these folks convince themselves that this is the right thing to do.

I try not to be a "tinfoil" guy but it really seems to me when people respond in the way she did they are just pushing propaganda

[PocketProtector]

This was sent to me by Senator Earll's office in response to my email to her urging support for HB1926 this past weekend.

To: Constituents interested in HB 1926

From: State Senator Jane M. Earll

Re: Bill status, Senate vote

Date: November 16, 2010

On October 14, 2010, the Senate moved the “castle doctrine” legislation amended into House Bill 1926, and passed it by a vote of 45-4. The bill had been sitting in the House Rules committee, but with the House’s decision to resume voting session, they did concur yesterday, by a vote of 161-35.

I was one of the four “no” votes in the Senate for the following reasons:

Pennsylvania has already sufficiently established a “castle doctrine” standard. Under current law, a “duty to retreat” is never imposed upon an individual if he or she is threatened inside his or her home or place of work – regardless of whether or not safe retreat is an option. Taking it a step further, under current Pennsylvania law, a person still does not have a “duty to retreat” outside home or work, unless he/she is certain he or she can retreat in complete safety.

This established standard works and should not be changed. Individuals can defend themselves against home intruders, can defend their place of work, and are able to use necessary force in other situations when retreat is not a safe option – while balancing the need to reduce unnecessary violent confrontation.

Expanding the “castle doctrine” will make it harder for police and prosecutors to do their jobs. Police officers across the Commonwealth are already at great risk combating gun violence in communities large and small. In the last 10 years, 22 PA law enforcement officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty – 7 since 2009 alone. If we further remove the “duty to retreat,” thereby expanding the zone and situations in which deadly force is acceptable – we run the risk of making violent domestic situations even more dangerous.

The proposed expansions to the “castle doctrine” will make the job of prosecutors – working to get stiff penalties for violent offenders – more difficult. As Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray described it in a November 2009 hearing on the issue, “This is a defense attorney’s dream.” Expansion of the standard will provide a creative defense for violent criminals, such as gang members, for violence against one another – and even collateral tragedies of civilians caught in the crossfire. It could also be used as a way out for domestic disputes, or even road rage.

The PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, a coalition of police chiefs, representing every major city in the Commonwealth (including Erie), as well as dozens of boroughs and townships, are strongly opposed to any expansion of the “castle doctrine” in Pennsylvania. Also opposed are the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.

The proposed expansions encourage the use of deadly force, even when there is a safe option of retreating, without risk of surrendering one’s home or business. Our duty as public officials is to protect life – not to diminish it. Why would we actively put police in more dangerous situations and put a greater burden on prosecutors – whose duty it is to apprehend and prosecute dangerous criminals, to get them off the streets? The only beneficiaries of this expansion are criminals – not law abiding citizens, who are already adequately covered by current self defense laws

Having been a prosecutor for seven years, I have had first-hand experience in these types of prosecutions. I firmly believe the law is adequate as is.

Sorry it's better if you die or get prosecuted than these Government workers jobs get tougher.....woweeee.

That whole response is full of fail and BS.

[WhiteFeather]

Sounds like Senator Earll be copying anti-gun press releases, groups with political agendas, because its sure is not based on facts, past courts cases or real DA's actions dealing with criminals.

[JR956678]

Sounds also like Senator Earll has lost sight of the fact that she was not elected by the PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, or the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association - she was elected by the people and she should be serving the people.

[Pat T]

My letter to her:

Dear Senator Earll-

There is more to the Castle Doctrine language than the stand your ground you are so vehemently against. The removal of civil liability for a person forced to use deadly force to repel a criminal is not insignificant, and is my major interest in the legislation. It should be signed into law on that very basis, no one should be bankrupted defending themselves against criminals and their families in civil court because they were the victim of a crime.

Thirty one states have some form of Castle Doctrine/Stand-Your-Ground legislation on the books and quite frankly the statistics do not bear out your claims of police or anyone else being slaughtered by concealed carry permit holders or anyone else using whatever means to defend themselves against a violent attack from a criminal. You, The PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association are all on the wrong side of this issue, and in all those organizations have a long history of opposing the rights of individuals to possess and use arms to defend themselves. In short they do not believe the second amendment to the US Constitution and Article one section twnety one of the Pa Constitution applies to us in the matter of self defense. Since you have aligned yourself with them I must assume you also do not believe these rights are ours granted by our Creator and guaranteed by the above referenced documents. Since this is obviously the case, I will in the future be working to find other conservative candidates for the 49th district State Senate to nominate and run against you in 2012.

I appreciate your forthrightness in expressing your reasons for your vote, and I hope we now both understand each other.

Sincerely,

Pat T

[knight0334]

My letter to her:

Dear Senator Earll-

There is more to the Castle Doctrine language than the stand your ground you are so vehemently against. The removal of civil liability for a person forced to use deadly force to repel a criminal is not insignificant, and is my major interest in the legislation. It should be signed into law on that very basis, no one should be bankrupted defending themselves against criminals and their families in civil court because they were the victim of a crime.

Thirty one states have some form of Castle Doctrine/Stand-Your-Ground legislation on the books and quite frankly the statistics do not bear out your claims of police or anyone else being slaughtered by concealed carry permit holders or anyone else using whatever means to defend themselves against a violent attack from a criminal. You, The PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association are all on the wrong side of this issue, and in all those organizations have a long history of opposing the rights of individuals to possess and use arms to defend themselves. In short they do not believe the second amendment to the US Constitution and Article one section twnety one of the Pa Constitution applies to us in the matter of self defense. Since you have aligned yourself with them I must assume you also do not believe these rights are ours granted by our Creator and guaranteed by the above referenced documents. Since this is obviously the case, I will in the future be working to find other conservative candidates for the 49th district State Senate to nominate and run against you in 2012.

I appreciate your forthrightness in expressing your reasons for your vote, and I hope we now both understand each other.

Sincerely,

Pat T

I should remind you that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with gun rights. It is another cause, separate in nature, which a matter of the use of force whether it be with a gun, your fists, a knife, a ball bat, the bumper of your truck, a hammer, or any other object. One should keep the issues separate, because in reality guns is only loosely tied by subsequently to Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground.

[ChamberedRound]

I should remind you that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with gun rights. It is another cause, separate in nature, which a matter of the use of force whether it be with a gun, your fists, a knife, a ball bat, the bumper of your truck, a hammer, or any other object. One should keep the issues separate, because in reality guns is only loosely tied by subsequently to Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground.

Bear in mind that it wasn't Pat T who made guns the issue, it was Senator Earll in her initial statement.

However, I completely agree with your statement; we need to be very careful to make it clear that laws which expand the use force in self defense are NOT GUN LAWS. The anti-gunner love to constantly frame this debate as a gun debate, when that is simply not the case. In general, guns are the most effective tool in self-defense, to be sure, but that doesn't mean they're the only tool.

[1quikmf]

I should remind you that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with gun rights. It is another cause, separate in nature, which a matter of the use of force whether it be with a gun, your fists, a knife, a ball bat, the bumper of your truck, a hammer, or any other object. One should keep the issues separate, because in reality guns is only loosely tied by subsequently to Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground.

This was the basis for my argument in the email I sent to her. I was very specific in warning her not to let the antis twist it into a pro 2A issue. As you can see from her response it went in one ear and out the other, if she even read it.

[Yellowfin]

Sounds also like Senator Earll has lost sight of the fact that she was not elected by the PA Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, the Pennsylvania State Police, or the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association - she was elected by the people and she should be serving the people.

Here's the problem, though: those groups paid for her election hence they bought her.