Last week, Gov. Tom Corbett approved the expansion of the Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use deadly force against an attacker at any place where they have a legal right to be. It also limits civil liability for people who act within the guidelines.In other words among the Pennsylvania gun-rights folks they don't believe in the expression, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Before, the use of deadly force was not justifiable if the person could safely retreat, except when the threat was made inside his or her home or business.
Every member of the state Legislature who represents Luzerne County voted for the bill except for state Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston. She called the law a "defense attorney's dream" and predicted violent criminals will try to use it in court.
"As far as I'm concerned, this was a solution in search of a problem and in the long run it's going to be detrimental to law enforcement and the prosecution of violent criminals," Mundy said.
During hearings on the bill, she said she asked sponsors to point to one instance of a person in Pennsylvania ever being prosecuted for legally defending themselves.
There was not one single instance of someone being prosecuted becasue the old law wasn't broad enough. Nevertheless, it's broader now.
They keep saying it's not a license to kill or permission to shoot first, but what exactly is it then? How can they say no obligation to retreat is compatible with shooting only when absolutely necessary? Wouldn't retreating be one of the ways to avoid having to shoot?
Of course, the macho men who push these laws can't accept that. Backing down to scumbags, no way. The righteous never back down. They've got god and the constitution on their side.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
