Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Of course we all know that a case in Westmoreland County never made it past the magistrate. DA Peck would have had his arse handed to him. The article we found says that Fisher's case is the first one supported by Castle.
Recent case blazes trail for 'stand your ground' in Pa.
Monday, August 19, 2013 10:11
Recent case blazes trail for 'stand your ground' in Pa.
By Susy Kelly skelly&heraldstandard.com Herald-Standard 0comments
A recently decided case in Fayette County Court regarding what was termed by both the prosecution and defense as a "road rage" incident may be the first in Pennsylvania to use "stand your ground" legislation to successfully argue self-defense.
"We're not aware of any cases like ours in Pennsylvania," said Jack Purcell, one of the attorneys who defended Ralph Ore Fisher, 23, of Uniontown. Ore was acquitted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and related charges during the August criminal court term.
Fisher was charged after an incident on May 15, 2012, in which he shot at another driver who rear-ended his vehicle, striking the other driver in the hand with one of the seven shots fired. At trial, Fisher testified he was afraid for his life because when he got out of his vehicle, the other driver "revved his engine and came directly at" him.
Before the trial was over, Fisher's defense counsel made a motion to have all charges dismissed, citing the "stand your ground" amendment of the state's self-defense law. Senior Judge Gerald R. Solomon denied the request, saying, "It's the province of the jury to determine if (Fisher's) life was in danger."
The elements of self-defense have been codified for decades in the Pennsylvania criminal code. The law states that "the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."
There are 46 states that have additionally adopted the castle doctrine as part of their self-defense laws. According to the castle doctrine, a person has no duty to retreat from an attacker within his or her home.
In 2011, Pennsylvania became one of 22 states to adopt "stand your ground" legislation when Gov. Tom Corbett signed an amendment to the self-defense statute into law.
The 2011 amendment states that "an actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat . . . has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force," under certain limited circumstances.
A person can use "stand your ground" as a defense when she or he has a right to be in the place where the attack occurs; when the attacker displays or uses a firearm, replica firearm or any other weapon capable of lethal use; and when the person believes it is immediately necessary to use force to protect her or himself against death, serious injury, kidnapping or rape, the law states.
There is an exception to the duty to retreat. The "stand your ground" provision does not apply when the supposed attacker is in fact a peace officer performing her or his official duties.
"It's a complicated law," Purcell said, noting that a defendant, such as Fisher, must be able to prove that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger at the moment.
"It's not about whether the defendant correctly perceived that he was about to be killed," Purcell said, "it's about whether a jury finds that to be a reasonable belief." In other words, a jury does not have to decide whether the attacker meant to kill the defendant, but whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe he was about to be killed.
Purcell acknowledged criticism of the law, including the notion that the "stand your ground" provision will effectuate a "wild west" mentality, or promote vigilantism.
"There is a danger that using deadly force will become too easy," Purcell said. He said he hopes people understand that while the burden is on the commonwealth in a case like Fisher's to disprove the contention that he was acting in self-defense, there is a high likelihood that a defendant will have spend a great deal of time, money and anguish in hashing out her or his state of mind at the time of the incident in order to ultimately convince a jury.
Purcell also pointed out that while gun rights supporters played a role in expanding the self-defense law, the momentum which pushed "stand your ground" into legislation came in part from minority communities who felt people needed to have the right to protect themselves when and where police were not available to do so.
Another important contingent in getting the amendment passed in Pennsylvania was the domestic violence movement, Purcell said. Domestic violence advocates sought a means by which victims could legally defend themselves against attackers who had a right to be in the home and were therefore not bound by the constraints of the castle doctrine.
Regardless of whether the act of self-defense is righteous, Purcell reiterated that convincing a jury is not easy. Although, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted in a 1921 opinion regarding the use of self-defense, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife," Purcell said people in situations that call for self-defense need to use caution.
"You have to be cognizant of the consequences," he said.