HARRISBURG â?? Gov. Ed Rendell on Saturday vetoed a bill that he feared would escalate violent acts by expanding a personâ??s rights in Pennsylvania to use deadly force, even when safe retreat is possible, if feeling threatened outside their home.
Rendell criticized the bill as a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem that would encourage a â??shoot first, ask questions laterâ?? mentality.
[quote]SteelyD wrote: Self-defense gun bill vetoed by Rendell
HARRISBURG �¢?? Gov. Ed Rendell on Saturday vetoed a bill that he feared would escalate violent acts by expanding a person�¢??s rights in Pennsylvania to use deadly force, even when safe retreat is possible, if feeling threatened outside their home.
Rendell criticized the bill as a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem that would encourage a �¢??shoot first, ask questions later�¢?? mentality.
Rendell has just relegated PA to “victim zone” status. Suckers.[/quote]
Yes Rendell is a worthles POS, I have friends that are troopers and some that work for the LCB, and he is a staight a f-up.
But it made it through legislature, if they put up again next year, corbett would sign it. So he only delayed the inevitable, after all were filled with antipathy clinging to our guns and our bibles.
What they need to do is put the wording into the law so that criminals that get hurt on your property cannot suite you and win,
But back tot he bill, If my life is threatened, why should I have to flee? It only ensures that the judiciary actually heed the self defense lawas as they were originally intended.
Rendell did not sign a budget a while back, causing all state workers not to get paid, but if they didn’t work they lost their jobs, this included troopersand other emergency personell. But he himself is paid out of the profits of the LCB, a separate budget that profits app. 2.5 billion a year and still makes alcohol availble cheaper that other states. So he did not lose income.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Yeah but this isn’t a gun issue alone, this is using deadly force to defend yourself and removing the duty to flee.
[/quote]
Agree which makes it reprehensible. But again how many democrats who hold national or high state office would agree with him? The overwhelming majority I would guess.
People who shoot first and ask questions later aren’t going to pay much mind to whether or not a bill says they can.
That, coupled with the fact that upon investigation, if police find there was no wrong doing, no charges are filed.
Happened not too long ago down in Fayette county. Guy was getting robbed and beat up on his property, he managed to get his shotgun, and shot one of the attackers in the back of the head (non fatal). No charges filed and the attackers were caught and charged shortly after.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
People who shoot first and ask questions later aren’t going to pay much mind to whether or not a bill says they can.
That, coupled with the fact that upon investigation, if police find there was no wrong doing, no charges are filed.
Happened not too long ago down in Fayette county. Guy was getting robbed and beat up on his property, he managed to get his shotgun, and shot one of the attackers in the back of the head (non fatal). No charges filed and the attackers were caught and charged shortly after.
[/quote]
but that was on his property, this extended the right to deadly force and removed the concept fo duty to flee in public areas as well.
were this guy in public and he would first have the duty to flee because the attackers were not using equal deadly force.
so say your wife is out and two guys attack her currently if she shot them and they were unarmed it is open for the judge to say she used unequivocal lethal force. With the new law she can shoot them and the extension of castle provides just grounds for the lethal self defense.
I also believe some of the terminology helped with the absurd civil law suites of injury during tresspass or robbery of private property.
After another look, I see what you mean about that apbt.
With Rendells main motivations being personal gain and political posture, the only thing I can see is that none of the bills that he refused offered much of either, other than that by striking this down he maintains his position as a good party line liberal.
He isn’t getting re-elected, so fuck the firefighters. The general citizenry have nothing to offer him in the form of “revenues” or votes, so screw them too. No need to vote on or pass anything when he isn’t going to be able to reap a reward.
Interesting how suddenly sanctimonious his wording has become too. No thinly veiled threats, just pure concern for the safety of others.
A couple of people who are a bit more politically astute than I have said that the democratic party have higher plans for him when he leaves office. He may just be playing it safe until he gets there.
Yeah there are a lot of traditional people in this state that have no interest in the truth and just do what their parents did. It is scary. Have you heard of rep ken smith. he still has tax leins against his restaurant surfacing, did before the elections and still won his spot. Even though he didn’t pay his employees income tax.
HAve you seen the reports put out by Corbett about selling the liquor stores to privatize them. He is really close with denaples, they are postured to buy them and already planning everything. Which hey great privatization, but don’t lie. He stated they only make 30million a year. I know from a first hand source that they profit over 2 billion/year while still offering lower prices. So he sells this to appease some of his mob boys, sorry louis and dominic. And cut a $2 billion profit from the annual budget at a point when the state needs money, great idea. Cut the only governement run business that actually makes money.
Then there is barletta, wanting to extend unemployment benefits.
Hearing these guys now that they won is discouraging to say the least.