Local DAs oppose 'Castle Doctrine' (PA)

[jpak]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/local-das-oppose-castle-doctrine/article_33e03520-69aa-11e0-9c3f-0019bb30f31a.html

Legislators believe a pending state law will enhance citizen's rights to use deadly force in self-defense, and while many police support the law, district attorneys in Bucks and Montgomery counties don't see the need.

Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler called it a "solution in search of a problem," and Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman concurred. Both DAs said the existing law is enough for them to be able to rule truly justifiable homicides correctly. And if the Legislature passes the updated "Castle Doctrine" it won't change that.

Nearly identical Castle Doctrine bills recently passed overwhelmingly in both the state House and Senate eliminate a previous requirement that citizens attempt to flee an assailant if they are able to, before using deadly force. The changes would enable citizens who are in a place where they have a right to be, and who are not committing a crime, to meet deadly force with deadly force, according to Sen. Richard Alloway II, who represents Adams, Franklin and York counties.

Alloway, who sponsored the Senate version, said the judiciary committees of each legislative body will review his bill and the House one authored by Rep. Scott Perry of York and Cumberland counties. At some point the bills will either merge, or legislators will choose one or the other. Last year both houses passed a Castle Doctrine bill, but then-Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed the bill before it became a law.

<more>

[damntexdem]

1. Local DAs support citizen rights to not be innocent bystanders ...

when someone with a gun claims to be under attack and fires wildly.

[Upton]

2. So?

Most DAs support the war on drugs...you down with that too?

[YllwFvr]

3. Glad to hear it is doing so well

Its taken long enough

[TPaine7]

4. DA's have withheld exculpatory evidence and framed/railroaded innocent people too.

Do you approve of that as well?

I notice that the story mentioned police support, not that that really matters either.

Why should the people act as if the details of their laws should be dependent, in some perverse way, on the opinions of their servants?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. They are conveniently forgetting their capricious past and that the new laws

also curtail civil suits.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. No one should be required to flee in the face of violence.

To require citizens to attempt to flee an assailant if they are able to is an abomination.

No one should be required to cower before those who would do them harm or steal their property.

[Remmah2]

7. Good reason to fire the DA next election.

yup

[X_Digger]

8. And DA's hate the exclusionary rule.. so what?

They bend over backwards to try to keep evidence in, when the cops didn't have probable cause / reasonable suspicion to detain / search someone.

We should value their opinion over others why, again?

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Pretty much any monopoly of force

Is as seductive as the next . Of course they protest , but I think they protest a bit too greatly .

They would like every encounter with every dirt bag to generate revenue from every party involved and to do so for an extended period of time . And I cant really blame them , as it's exactly........ the kind of innovative thinking that is driving ......our national... economic..... recovery .

[ileus]

10. Of course they do....

[gravity556]

11. I like the castle doctrine laws.

I also like the "no duty to retreat" laws as well. I've had 5 knee surgeries and nearly that many back surgeries-running away is not an option for me. And I believe that AZ also passed a law prohibiting the family of the "honor student who was gonna turn his life around, right after he got clean and got off parole in 4 years" from suing some poor bastard for defending himself.

[Euromutt]

12. Somebody needs a remedial course in basic civics

District attorneys are part of the executive branch of government; their job is to carry out the law, not to make the law. The latter is the job of the legislative branch of government. Moreover, ruling "truly justifiable homicides correctly" sounds to me like the judiciary's job.

Basically, Heckler & Ferman seem to think their remit goes well beyond what it actually does (or at least should) in a democratic society under the rule of law.