The Pennsylvania Progressive - Recent Comments

Exactly

John Morgan — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:44:37 GMT

my comments are consistent. Reading is turning into the wild, wild west because of the Castle Doctrine. The fact the man wasn't charged because of the law is proof.

Doing something substantial...for whom?

Matt Thomas — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:48:35 GMT

"Now he must be seen as going after the crooks and doing something substantial for homeowners."
John...Please do not count on anything further than what will be another dog and pony show from this Democratic president who now serves best as no more than a shameless whore for the bankers and his Wall Street friends.
Have we not learned by way of being lied to and screwed over since January of 2009?
The real tragedy here is the collective Republican opposition...for in taking them one-by-one, it is impossible for any sane and half-intelligent person to even consider throwing a vote to any one of these mean-spirited losers.
While I will almost certainly vote for someone who cannot possibly win, at least it will be somewhat in line with this maxim by Eugene Victor Debs:
"I would rather vote for something I want and not get it... than vote for something I don't want and get it."
Matt Thomas

Wait Wait Wait

Kirk Wentzel — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:18:59 GMT

You wrote: "Reading is turning into the Wild West thanks to the Castle Doctrine."

Now you're saying this had nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

Which is it?

in my view

Jamoca — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:28:43 GMT

the emboldening of criminals by just giving into them is what helps make criminals think they can get away with damn near anything. Give the bastards pause is my view of it and make them think twice about those who they think are an easy mark.

Those who would do such things deserve neither our respect nor our compliance with their wishes to rob and hurt us. If it is wrong for corporate criminals and such to do what they've done, what makes it right for a street thug or everyday criminal to do that to us. If you fight for one, fight for the other as well is my way of seeing it.

Surely you are not opposed to the Castle Doctrine applying to one's home?

Matt Thomas — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:43:37 GMT

John,
More often than not such a scenario as yours is the result of the home's occupant/s having no idea of when and/or how to use a weapon to protect themselves.
Years ago I was a police officer, later serving as a union organizer up in the Boston area, I spent many nights away from home leaving my wife and small children alone back here in Berks County.
I trained her in the safe operation of a 12 ga pump shotgun with the shortest barrel legally available. She slept with the kids in a locked bedroom and understood that if someone forced their way into the house she would call the police emergency number and stay put.
In the event the locked bedroom door was being forced she was (without any verbal warning) to fire the weapon directly at the door and instantly reload.
Your advice of "...give them what they want and live to tell about it" is a highly risky theory...especially in these times, for too often, robbery victims are now murdered in spite of giving into the demands of the perpetrator.
One final thought in the form of a question:
How is terror inflicted on an innocent and defenseless person like yourself by an armed criminal in Berks County any different than that carried out by an armed Nazi hoodlum on an innocent German Jewish person 70 years ago?
Other than that Nazi's action being sanctioned by his government there is precious little difference.
Both you and that German Jew would be as dead as Julius Caesar.
Matt THomas

He wasn't charged

John Morgan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:01:00 GMT

due to the castle doctrine. Since he felt threatened he was allowed to use deadly force. More often than not the use of a weapon results in its being taken and turned on the owner. That's why I don't have a gun in the house. If someone holds you up or comes into your home the best advice is always simple: give them what they want and live to tell about it. Trying to fight back usually ends up with tragic consequences.

I am strongly opposed to the extension of the Castle Doctrine beyond the home

Matt Thomas — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:55:07 GMT

Police recruits are subject to intensive training in terms of when and under what circumstances the use of deadly force is appropriate. Further, when such force is judged appropriate by an officer who then actually fires his weapon that officer is placed on administrative leave from his regular duties while an intensive investigation is pursued. This procedure is followed whether the firing of that weapon resulted in death, injury or a no hit.
Few if any members of the General Assembly would disagree with these near universal professional law enforcement procedures. Yet these same hapless fools voted to allow every gun-toting untrained jerk to make a life or death decision based on nothing more than that same jerk's perception of what represents a threat to his person.
Nevertheless, not being familiar with the details of the particular event under discussion I am not prepared to disagree with the positions taken by Jamoca and Kirk.
John...no one can see this as anything but tragic in that a a human life was lost. At the same time, we were not there nor were any one of us the potential target of these boys who appear to have been predators out to bring down a 65 year-old man who, perhaps, could not escape by way of his bicycle.
Matt Thomas

More facts...again...

Jamoca — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:09:36 GMT

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-...

Something you may not have read elsewhere, the kid who got shot and killed had already mugged/robbed 2 other people that same morning in that area, he took 3 chances to rob someone, any of those people before the 65 year-old man could've retaliated and the result could've been the same sooner. That kid chose what he did and had a history of an aggravated assault already. While I agree he shouldn't have had to die this way, something long before that incident happened to him went way wrong and didn't get taken care of that helped lead to that ending. Nevertheless, when you don't take care of things, when you take those kinds of risks, sometimes this is what happens.

No It is called

Jamoca — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:10:21 GMT

justifiable homicide...it's been on the books longer than the castle doctrine ever was.

Castle doctrine governs home/property, justification defense or justifiable/self-defense homicide is what was applied here and the DA ruled correctly.

I agree the rampaging use of guns illegally is a bad thing but not allowing people to defend themselves lawfully is not something our founders wanted ergo 2nd amendment, ergo, state laws on justification/self-defense.

More facts

John Morgan — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:43:53 GMT

the man had a bike, the boys were on foot, he could have escaped. The castle doctrine is what allowed this guy to carry a gun and blow them away without any legal ramifications. It is this mentality which is turning our cities into the wild, wild west with shootouts everywhere. I bet your opinion would be different had he hit you with a stray bullet. It's only a matter of time until one of these killers hits a civilian, a child or another bullet flies through a Head Start Center...again. This was reckless conduct.

Hang on!

Kirk Wentzel — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:07:34 GMT

The kids were not in school (where where their parents by the way).

The man had a valid carry permit.

THEY attacked HIM (not the other way around).

Are you suggesting that he should have allowed himself to be mugged and have his gun taken away from him and then allowed himself to be shot with his own gun?

Are you suggesting that a 65 yo man could out-ride 2 young men on foot? Not likely.

We're not talking about some guy who just randomly walked up to 2 teens and shot them killing one.

I'm not in favor of guns (as well you know) but I can hardly blame the bicycle man for defending himself.

I also think it's pretty smarmy to try and turn the victim into the aggressor.

"The boys weren't armed." Big effen deal! A 65 yo man doesn't stand much of a chance against 2 older teens John. Get off the high horse - they weren't "boys" at 16 & 17 they were young men.

I grant you I wish he hadn't killed the one teen but what happened happened.

Had they left the man alone on his bike ride NOTHING bad would have happened.

Moral of the story: Muggers sometimes lose. Crime doesn't pay.