Do you think HB 641 would apply to this incident

[CZ40P]

Do you think HB 641 Castle Doctrine would have stopped this guy from being charged. The police are saying he chased the perps out of his house. I have mixed feelings about this one. I think something more was going on.

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...d=415898&rfi=6

Shootout ends robbery try
BY KIMM R. MONTONE AND DAVID SINGLETON
STAFF WRITERS
12/13/2007

A botched robbery and ensuing shootout in South Scranton late Tuesday has led to the arrest of five people, Scranton police said Wednesday.

Four people who allegedly conspired to rob a Gallagher Court home, as well as the homeowner — who allegedly chased the suspects down a neighborhood street while shooting at them — are all facing criminal charges.

Gregory Joseph Bell, 30, of 108 Belvedere Drive; Jeffrey Sampson, 22, of 4360 William Penn Highway, Easton; Tiffanie Dominech, of 419 S. Webster Ave., and Malik McDonald, 23, of the same address, orchestrated a plan to rob Danny Gonzales’ 419 Gallagher Court home, police said.

They allegedly planned to rob Mr. Gonzales as retribution for an argument earlier Tuesday, said police Detective Lt. Al Leoncini.

According to Detective Lt. Leoncini:

Around midnight, Ms. Dominech, Mr. McDonald and an unidentified male drove to Mr. Gonzales’ residence. There, they met Mr. Bell and Mr. Sampson. The unidentified male, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McDonald broke into Mr. Gonzales’ house.

Mr. Sampson entered the residence with a Tec-9 semiautomatic handgun and fired several rounds before it jammed, police said. Mr. Gonzales returned fire with his .45-caliber handgun.

The intruders fled out a door; Mr. Gonzales followed, and more shots were fired, some striking a house on Hickory Street.

Mr. Sampson, Mr. McDonald and the unidentified man escaped into a waiting vehicle and returned to 419 S. Webster Ave.

Police responded to a report of gunfire on Gallagher Court. Their investigation led them to obtain a search warrant for the South Webster Avenue address.

Ms. Dominech and Mr. McDonald allegedly tried to hide the Tec-9 by stashing it in a garbage can in the cellar, Detective Lt. Leoncini said.

Mr. Sampson and Mr. McDonald were charged with robbery and criminal attempt to commit robbery.

Mr. Bell and Ms. Dominech were charged with criminal attempt to commit robbery.

Also, Detective Lt. Leoncini said, Ms. Dominech and Mr. McDonald are likely to be charged with tampering with evidence and hindering apprehension or prosecution.

Mr. Gonzales was charged with recklessly endangering another person.

All five were awaiting arraignment at press time.

I love this part "Mr. Sampson entered the residence with a Tec-9 semiautomatic handgun and fired several rounds before it jammed,"
Don't they always

[PisnNapalm]

Once they fled his home he should have stopped firing. Chasing them down the street firing away is dangerous and reckless. I don't think this would be covered by the proposed law.

He would still be charged. Once the criminals left his home, the threat to him and his property is over. By going after them and firing at them down the street he endangered his neighbors' lives and property.

[jerkin]

I agree, what if one of the bullets that hit the house would have killed someone inside? That was reckless to say the least. IMO home owner defending himself turned to vigalante as soon as he chased them down the street.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by CZ40P

the homeowner [Gonzales] . . . allegedly chased the suspects down a neighborhood street while shooting at them. . . .

Mr. Gonzales was charged with recklessly endangering another person.

Uh, yeah, don't do that. Only the cops can use lethal force to capture or prevent the escape of a "dangerous felon." Your job in self-defense is to get the bad guys to stop trying to kill/hurt you. Once you succeed and they run away, thank your lucky stars you're still breathing to realize that.

HB641 has nothing to do with that. HB641 is more of a "stand your ground" type of bill.

Right now if you are in a place you have the right to be and someone threatens your life with lethal force, depending on where you are, you have to retreat if you can with absolute safety. The major issue with that is it comes in as 20/20 hindsight plus why should you have to start looking around for a place to retreat to safety when the perp is in the process of killing you?

Somebody threatens your life -- fight or flight. If your instinctive reaction to that specific situation turns out to be fight, you shouldn't get in trouble. You also should not have a legal obligation to hesitate to think about it all while you're being killed. That's what HB641 is about.

It also throws in immunity from civil liability and if I remember right some provisions that would preclude the park service from banning lawful carry in state parks.

It's a big one for us.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

Uh, yeah, don't do that. Only the cops can use lethal force to capture or prevent the escape of a "dangerous felon." Your job in self-defense is to get the bad guys to stop trying to kill/hurt you. Once you succeed and they run away, thank your lucky stars you're still breathing to realize that.

HB641 has nothing to do with that. HB641 is more of a "stand your ground" type of bill.

Right now if you are in a place you have the right to be and someone threatens your life with lethal force, depending on where you are, you have to retreat if you can with absolute safety. The major issue with that is it comes in as 20/20 hindsight plus why should you have to start looking around for a place to retreat to safety when the perp is in the process of killing you?

Somebody threatens your life -- fight or flight. If your instinctive reaction to that specific situation turns out to be fight, you shouldn't get in trouble. You also should not have a legal obligation to hesitate to think about it all while you're being killed. That's what HB641 is about.

It also throws in immunity from civil liability and if I remember right some provisions that would preclude the park service from banning lawful carry in state parks.

It's a big one for us.

There is an exception to that above in bold. However you have to have reasonable belief the person is a threat to others, or is an actual threat to yourself.

§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement.
(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--
(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned
or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from
efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or
threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the
use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect
the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary
to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making
the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force
only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent
death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other
person, or when he believes both that:
(i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest
from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or
attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape
and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates
that he will endanger human life or inflict serious
bodily injury unless arrested without delay.
(2) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an
invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he
would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless
he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--
(1) A private person who makes, or assists another
private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the
use of any force which he would be justified in using if he
were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such
arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly
force only when he believes that such force is necessary to
prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.
(2) A private person who is summoned or directed by a
peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is
unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would
be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he
knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(3) A private person who assists another private person
in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned,
assists a peace officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is
justified in using any force which he would be justified in
using if the arrest were lawful, if:
(i) he believes the arrest is lawful; and
(ii) the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as
he believes them to be.
(c) Use of force regarding escape.--
(1) A peace officer, corrections officer or other person
who has an arrested or convicted person in his custody is
justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of
the person from custody as the officer or other person would
be justified in using under subsection (a) if the officer or
other person were arresting the person.
(2) A peace officer or corrections officer is justified
in the use of such force, including deadly force, which the
officer believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a
correctional institution of a person whom the officer
believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under
sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for
an offense.
(3) A corrections officer is justified in the use of
such force, which the officer believes to be necessary to
defend himself or another from bodily harm during the pursuit
of the escaped person. However, the officer is justified in
using deadly force only when the officer believes that such
force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury
to himself or another or when the officer believes that:
(i) such force is necessary to prevent the
apprehension from being defeated by resistance; and
(ii) the escaped person has been convicted of
committing or attempting to commit a forcible felony,
possesses a deadly weapon or otherwise indicates that he
will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury
unless apprehended without delay.
(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of
crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of
another is justifiable when the actor believes that such
force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person
from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury
upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a
crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or
loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:
(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions
of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-
protection, for the protection of others, the protection
of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the
prevention of an escape from custody shall apply
notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against
which such force is used.
(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event
justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a
substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to
prevent from committing a crime will cause death or
serious bodily injury to another unless the
commission or the consummation of the crime is
prevented and that the use of such force presents no
substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or
(B) the actor believes that the use of such
force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after
the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to
disperse and warned, in any particular manner that
the law may require, that such force will be used if
they do not obey.
(2) The justification afforded by this subsection
extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if
the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the
confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless
the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

[CZ40P]

Well one good thing I noticed, the uber-liberal Scranton Times actually called the Tec-9 a semi-automatic handgun, as opposed to you know what.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by knight0334

There is an exception to that above in bold. However you have to have reasonable belief the person is a threat to others, or is an actual threat to yourself.

Yeah, you can citizen's arrest. But you can't use lethal force in effecting that arrest unless your life is in danger. When someone is running away, no shoot. Definitely don't run after them shooting.

One thing I once wondered about was if a citizen's arrest might have the same effect as stand your ground, as in thug sticks a gun in your face and your instinct is to shoot at him to stop him from killing you. The DA says you should have tried to run away or what have you (duty to retreat). You say he committed a crime so I have the right to make a lawful citizens arrest from which I do not have to retreat, and in the course of that arrest my life was in danger, etc. I don't know how that would play out.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

Yeah, you can citizen's arrest. But you can't use lethal force in effecting that arrest unless your life is in danger. When someone is running away, no shoot. Definitely don't run after them shooting.

One thing I once wondered about was if a citizen's arrest might have the same effect as stand your ground, as in thug sticks a gun in your face and your instinct is to shoot at him to stop him from killing you. The DA says you should have tried to run away or what have you (duty to retreat). You say he committed a crime so I have the right to make a lawful citizens arrest from which I do not have to retreat, and in the course of that arrest my life was in danger, etc. I don't know how that would play out.

Yeah.. that situation is really screwy as to how things could play out. Its up to each of us to apply it to our given situation as we see fit during the moment.