Self-defense bill backs broader deadly force use

In law, the so-called "castle doctrine" treats a person's home as a castle, one that can justifiably be defended from invaders by deadly force.

But unless the threat occurs in a home or workplace, Pennsylvanians are not justified in taking lethal action if they can retreat "with complete safety."

Now a state legislator, backed by the National Rifle Association, has won the first round in his attempt to broaden the state's laws governing self-protection.

A bill by Rep. Scott Perry, R-York, would eliminate the need to retreat under certain circumstances, make law-abiding citizens immune to lawsuits if they injure or kill someone in self-defense and expand the places where deadly force can be used to include a deck, patio, porch and vehicle.

"Individuals understand they don't want to wake up at 4 in the morning to the sound of breaking glass and don't want to be thinking about, as they're wiping the sleep from their eyes, whether to defend themselves or not," Mr. Perry said.

The controversial bill, opposed by the state's police chiefs and district attorneys, sailed Tuesday through the state House judiciary committee on a 22-4 vote.

"In our view, it's a solution in search of a problem," said Joe Grace, executive director of CeaseFirePA, a group that works to reduce gun violence. "I think it's a feel-good bill for the gun lobby."

In a letter dated Monday Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, notified the judiciary committee of his group's opposition to the bill.

It "will provide violent criminals, including gang members, a ready defense for using violence against one another. Further, the bill encourages the taking of human life even when there is a safe option of retreating. I want to discourage the use of violence unless it is absolutely necessary, not encourage it," Mr. Marsico wrote.

Someone caught today between an armed assailant and a fence in an alleyway might have to scale the fence to safety before being justified in firing a shot in self-defense. Under Mr. Perry's changes, there would be no obligation to run.

With what some refer to as a "stand-your-ground" provision of the bill, "You do not have a duty to retreat."

Mr. Perry knows the legislation still faces an uphill battle. A companion bill in the state Senate has been stuck in committee since May. And the House majority leader's office made clear Thursday that the Democrats' top priority is passing a state budget.

"Nobody's going to rush it to the top of the flagpole in this Legislature. It can be very polarizing. There's a lot of emotion about it," Mr. Perry said.

Even so, he likes the bipartisan support shown for the bill so far among his colleagues.

Mr. Perry said he believes the law today is tilted slightly in favor of the criminal. His bill, he said, would rectify the imbalance and swing it in favor of the law-abiding citizen.

The bill states that a person "has no duty to retreat, and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked."

Other provisions state that the person must be in fear of immediate death, serious injury, kidnapping or rape and that the attacker must be brandishing a deadly weapon.

Rep. Gregory S. Vitali, D-Delaware, one of the four Democrats who voted against the bill, said current law is just fine.

"I think if a person can flee or remove themselves from a situation in their home or car without using a gun, they should. I don't think a person has the right to impose the death penalty for a burglary gone bad," Mr. Vitali said.

Critics have assailed the bill as advocating a shoot-first philosophy.

But Mr. Perry and the NRA say that's not the case. John Hohenwarter, the NRA's government affairs lobbyist, who attended Tuesday's judiciary committee meeting, said roughly 20 states have strengthened their self-defense laws.

Mr. Hohenwarter said there have been cases where people have shot to defend themselves in their homes and were then sued, something he opposes.

"It's wrong that people have to worry about being sued after being attacked by a criminal," Mr. Hohenwarter said.

As for concerns that the changes would create a "shoot-first" environment, he said, "We heard that from the beginning when states passed conceal-carry statute, that it would turn the states into the Wild West. Of course, that hasn't happened."

Mr. Perry also said his bill is not meant to give citizens the unfettered ability to wage war on criminals.

"Listen, we're not advocating gun fights in the street or anything like that. And if you can retreat, that's still your best option. But at the same time it's not a good idea to turn your back on someone with a weapon who's bearing down on you," Mr. Perry said.