Davidson’s Castle Doctrine Remarks Shock House

Daily Times, April 15, 2011

State Rep. Margo Davidson, D-164, of Upper Darby, turned heads on the House floor Tuesday during a debate on expanding the “Castle Doctrine” of self-defense to areas outside the home when she asked if current Pennsylvania law would protect her for dispatching a fellow legislator.

“If the gentleman from Butler County stood yelling, knowing that he’s a gun-toter, and I felt threatened, would I be protected under current law if I blew his brains out?” asked Davidson.

Her comment, about state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler County, was one of a series of hypothetical scenarios Democrats posed during the debate on House Bill 40.

{snip}

Davidson said Wednesday she was trying to illustrate that current gun laws already protect victims who use deadly force to fend off attackers, albeit with the retreat caveat. Removing that provision would remove a “moment of pause” before taking someone’s life, she said.

{snip}

Metcalfe said he was shocked by the question. He described at least a cordial relationship with Davidson and said he doesn’t believe there is any bad blood there, or with any other member of the House.

Metcalfe noted Republican Speaker of the House Sam Smith struck Davidson’s comment from the record, indicating her language was beyond the pale.

{snip}

While Davidson acknowledged she could have chosen her words more carefully, she said she was hoping the shock factor of her question would help fellow lawmakers understand House Bill 40 deals with real-life situations that shouldn’t be allowed to fall into the realm of “knee-jerk” violent reactions.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Question Diversity

    An AR poster awhile back postulated that the weakening or the elimination of the legal duty to retreat, and also making the perpetrators of a crime legally responsible for murder if their victim has to use deadly force to defend him or herself against a violent crime, (e.g. two thugs invade a house, homeowner gets scared for his life, shoots both of them, one of them dies, and the surviving thug is charged with Murder 2nd because his fellow thug died), while they don’t seem to have anything to do with race, are being enacted to make it far less likely if not impossible for whites who have to use deadly force to defend themselves against black crime to be caught up in a legal imbrogliana.

    The reason it is important to weaken or eliminate the “duty to retreat” is that it is often the legal keystone that dispatched thugs’ families and their lawyers use to sue those who use deadly force to defend their lives. Or on occasion, a Nifong-type black pandering D.A. charges such a person with murder, because he “had a duty to retreat” and the prosecutor thinks he can sell a jury into thinking that he didn’t retreat as far back as he should.

  • Anonymous

    Lol…Metcalfe got the short course about what blacks think, even “normal” ones supposedly part of your in-group.

    I hope he spends at least some thought contemplating the fact that Davidson fantasizes about blowing his brains out and holds fantasy justifications for it that are psychotic, at best.

    Of course, the real issue here is the state uses the law, as currently written, to immediately arrest, jail, even kill (better be ultra-careful in how you deal with the police after being involved or even witnessing an event like this) people using force to protect themselves.

    Which is why the law needs to be changed.

  • Bill R

    She objects strongly because she KNOWS that in Pennsylvania, as everywhere else, it is BLACKS who most often commit violent crimes requiring deadly force be used in self-protection. She of course mentions nothing at all about the numerous blacks carrying guns illegally and using them against other blacks on a daily basis.

  • Memphomaniac

    Maybe it was just a Freudian slip, where some of her hopeful subconscious spilled out. We all know what she really means.

  • Dave

    “While Davidson acknowledged she could have chosen her words more carefully, she said she was hoping the shock factor of her question would help fellow lawmakers understand House Bill 40 deals with real-life situations that shouldn’t be allowed to fall into the realm of “knee-jerk” violent reactions.”

    Knee-jerk violent reactions? Oh, you mean when you are asleep in your bed and you hear a loud bang-crash downstairs and you run to the steps with your pistol in hand and there are three black thugs in your living room? They rush towards you and you let loose with a full magazine of hollow points. You try to fire a warning shot to their heads – and you succeed. Now you have to file a claim with your home owners insurance company because your door and frame has to be replaced, your living room carpet and sub-floor has to be replaced because of the blood stains, and your furniture has to be cleaned or replaced because of the blood spalatter. Your insurance will grapple with you for months because they don’t feel that they are responsible for the damages. You were vindicated by the local law enforcement agency but you still face civil lawsuits from the families of the thugs that you took out. Sound incredible? Not so, it happened to me a few years ago. The good news is that the lawsuit was dismissed (after almost two years), and we have moved out of the area. I suggest that you sleep with your weapon holstered on the headboard of your bed. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

  • GetBackJack

    She knows, well we all know, blacks will more often than not be on the receiving end of the Castle Doctrine. Maybe it will make them think twice before committing a crime (yeah, when hell fre….).

  • Wayne Engle

    So State Rep. Davidson is afraid that not requiring “a moment of pause” before defending oneself might “produce a violent society”? Wonder if she’s ever been to one of the inner cities where her Soul Brothuhs and Sistuhs live? And did it occur to her that if her brother had had a weapon of his own, and had not hesitated to use it, he might be alive today?

    Why should her remarks be stricken from the legislative record? Let them linger there, as a lasting monument to how ignorant she is.

  • ice

    This black moron can bray all she wants, knowing full well that her anti-defence issue will fall most heavily against blacks, because they are many more times likely to commit crimes and crimes of violence than any other race in the US, but it’s all in vain.

    The Castle Doctrine will continue to be passed in many other states, and concealed carry, open carry and other gun laws will also advance as well, so it is bad news for blacks all around.

    This black hater should be thankful the legislature doesn’t pass a law saying all politicians….before being seated….must pass a test on the 8th grade level.

  • John

    “Castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws are common sense and appeal to everyone. “Duty to retreat” laws by comparison are backwards and sick. What progressives have pushed for is the further dispossesion of the white middle class. They want us to throw down our weapons in order to make us easier prey. Castle laws and laws like them are common today. While these progressives snicker, mock and ridicule these laws it is they who are the outcasts. They’re not fooling anyone as to what type of America we live in. Duty to retreat laws are rediculous.

  • Jeddermann.

    “Metcalfe said he was shocked by the question. He described at least a cordial relationship with Davidson and said he doesn’t believe there is any bad blood there, or with any other member of the House.

    Metcalfe noted Republican Speaker of the House Sam Smith struck Davidson’s comment from the record, indicating her language was beyond the pale.”

    NO, it IS because there IS bad blood there. A suppressed but internal hate that merely expressed itself verbally. Was a true reflection of the inner self. And why strike the record? Was “beyond the pale” but WAS a true sentiment.

  • Pelayo

    The “retreat clause” is an outrage. When someone enters your home in the middle of the night he is there to kill, rape and rob you and your family members. You kill him as quickly as possible.

    Can you imagine the military rules of engagement being rewritten so that when an enemy attacks you, your forces must fall back to a prescribed distance before you can return fire?

  • Fr. John

    “Metcalfe noted Republican Speaker of the House Sam Smith struck Davidson’s comment from the record, indicating her language was beyond the pale.”

    Oh, how insensitive. Doesn’t the Daily Times realize that, in reporting about a Black’s ill-chosen (clearly prejudicial) remarks against a ‘gun-toting white,’ that they, as a paper, have used a term that is (supposedly) offensive to Jews(?) in saying, “…her language was beyond the pale.”

    The Pale of Settlement was the ‘no man’s land’ in Czarist Russia, between the Orthodox East, and the Papa/Protestant West. It is where the Jews had their homes, neither fish nor fowl in either Christian Culture, where they could neither influence, nor corrupt Chrsitian civilization. Think ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and you’re there.

    So, does the playing of ‘He said, she said’ matter, only if one is talking to the ‘correct/privileged/approved’ racial [sic] ‘minority’ of the month? Or are we honestly concerned about verbal banter, in a land where Freedom of Speech – even to the point of calling a senator a ‘lily-livered coward,’ or saying to a President, ‘YOU LIE!’ – is still (supposedly) our First Amendment right?

    Just sayin…

  • Strider

    Question Diversity (#1) is referring to my posts here and here. Nice to know what I write at AR is noticed and has an effect — thanks, y’all! BTW, the 1st link above also links to Florida’s self-defense law, which IMHO is a model for other states to follow. Everyone here should make a copy and forward it to his/her legislators.

    To Dave (#5): Sorry to hear about your unfortunate incident. Glad things worked out in the end. Given the grief your insurer gave you, did you consider counter-suing the families of the home invaders to recoup the damages? That would have been the ultimate in poetic justice. Like you, I keep a gun (loaded with hollow points) at the bed where it isn’t visible, but where I can easily reach it. I also keep a 2nd gun hidden in the living room, and it’s my CCW weapon as well.

  • S.L. Cain

    Apparently Ms. Davidson is sticking up for her real constituents …………….. home invaders.

  • Question Diversity

    13 Strider:

    One of the things you said in your first link really hits home. When a legislative body is proposing a bill, and the bill’s language or purpose seems strange, the key to figuring the real motive is if a racial lobby or caucus starts whining. In the case of the repeal of “duty to retreat,” castle doctrine, stand your ground, and more generous ability to apply murder charges, it was easy to tell that the purpose was to help the victims of black crime once the black caucus started, as you termed it, their “stuck pig squealing.”

    Here’s another example: Around ten years ago, a county or city in Northern Virginia passed an ordinance stating that no more than a certain number of people could sleep in a kitchen. At first, I thought it was all a matter of a local government with too much time on its hands wanting to wind up on DumbLaws.com. But a few days later, I read another story about the same law where LULAC was whining about it. There was the motivation — They were worried about that world famous Hispanic propensity to cram jam people into houses at an unsafe density.