Bill would change definition of 'self defense'
Friday, November 20th, 2009
Critics say a bill aimed at broadening the right to self-defense would have unintended consequences, and make it harder for prosecutors to convict murderers.
Listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Pennsylvania law justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense, but requires people outside their home or workplace to try and retreat first, if they think that's safe and possible.
A bill before the House would eliminate that provision, and reads a threatened person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use protective force, including deadly force."
Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico says if the bill passes, it would open up a loophole and allow drug dealers charged in shoot outs to claim a legitimate defense.
Marisco: The defense attorney's going to have a tool to raise, and that's going to be that he didn't have the duty to retreat, that he acted in self-defense. And we'll have that guy-probably an illegal gun carrier – he'll be acquitted and released back on the street to purvey violence, to provide more drugs. That's what's going to happen.
An NRA statement says the bill "will reinstate the law prior to the time when criminal-coddling judges and courts started putting the rights of criminals before the rights of the law-abiding."
There is a plethora of crimes a gun carrying drug dealer can be charged with and convicted of. Marisco is just trying to "scare the white folks". He has a personal profit from being able to prosecute legitimate self-defenders. Every DA wants to be governor. DAs reach that goal more often than not by proving they are tough on crime. They prove they are tough on crime by conviction rates. The more crimes they prosecute, even those natural normal reactions of survival if criminalized give a DA more opportunity to display his "toughness" on crime. Even when the "crime" shouldn't be one.
Let's suppose the DA is going to speak to the local Rotary club. Someone threatens him harm if he does. But that someone has left him six different doors through which to flee. Does anybody here believe he would avail himself of the opportunity to flee? Or would he used armed men to protect him? We know the answer, don't we?
That's not even self-defense, but hired defense. Yet no one doubts that is what he would do. However, for those of us not privy to publicly funded private security forces (police), he would not even allow us to defend ourselves but would require we use one of those six doors. Where would we stop?
What is to keep everything you own and everything you love from being taken from you as long as the assailant allows you an avenue of escape? Nothing, that's what!
Does anyone here believe that Marisco would find that acceptable for a DA? If he were threatened if he entered a court room, would he give up his job because that would be an avenue of escape? No, he wouldn't, nor should he be required to so by law. But those are the conditions he finds acceptable for the rest of us.
Get rid of this slug at your next election.
Dan is completely correct. If DA Ed Marsico can't charge the survivor of a shooting between 2 drug dealers with anything except defending their life he should either retire or fire a few Assistant DA's. Does he also favor charging the survivor of a shooting between 2 jaywalkers with murder?
To Ed Marsico. BULL!
An overlooked but very important part of this bill provides protection against civil lawsuits, if the shooting is deemed appropriate. Criminals would no longer be able to sue you for damages because you shot them.
Ed Marsico's only concern is his potential loss of power. His drug dealer fantasy is no excuse to deny the rest of society the right to self defense; without having to fear legal ramifications from a tax-paid lawyer.
What difference does his occupation make? If it is legitimate Self Defense, he should be allowed to claim it. Now, using a firearm in the commission of a crime might be another matter.
I say good! Why can't drug dealers protect themselves. Is selling drugs a capitol crime, that individuals should lose their lives over? I don't use or condone the use of drugs, but I do condone self-defense in all cases. If the DA doesn't agree, then disarm Law Enforcement, so nobody will feel threatened. Besides, drug dealers killing themselves keeps prisons from filling up. Just train them up, so innocents don't get hit.