HOME DEFENSE

[knight0334]

ahh good point, I'll concede on that.

Now who's to say something of yours doesn't happen to fall into his hands or pocket as he/she bleeds to death?

I know that location of the events plays a part. Your Blue areas may have legal outcomes like as you describe. Red areas of the state may have another.

Our local LEO's and DA have told many people(Me being one of them) that they wouldn't side against a tenant so long as there wasn't any obvious "funny business" to the events.

[brewguy]

"(B) such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a felony in the dwelling."

To show someone committed a burglary you need to be able to show that he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Simply opening a door and walking in isn't enough. Nor is breaking a window or a door. I'm personally aware of at least one case where a fellow is in jail for shooting an intruder for breaking a lock on a glass door and entering.

The other issue is that you still need to show that DEADLY force was necessary (in that it was the only force that would suffice) to stop the commission of the felony that you're talking about.

It looks like an "or" but it really isn't, because of necessity.

I'd just like to take a moment and say how much I can't stand our legal system or our laws or the people who come up with them.

If someone is entering my home uninvited then I should be able to do what ever I want to them. Period.

And yes I don't care what the reason is they are there. Bottom line is DON'T ENTER MY HOME!!

This is all the more reason to have a good security system in place. I hope I never have to deal with this because I'm sure I will make the incorrect legal choice, dispite the fact it is the right choice.

[markheck1]

"(B) such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a felony in the dwelling."

To show someone committed a burglary you need to be able to show that he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Simply opening a door and walking in isn't enough. Nor is breaking a window or a door. I'm personally aware of at least one case where a fellow is in jail for shooting an intruder for breaking a lock on a glass door and entering.

The other issue is that you still need to show that DEADLY force was necessary (in that it was the only force that would suffice) to stop the commission of the felony that you're talking about.

It looks like an "or" but it really isn't, because of necessity.

WHAT???? that is a testament to some of the problems in this country!
If a person breaks into someone else's house.....without their permission.....what would constitute a valid reason for doing so? I realize the law is written so that the person should warn a perpetrator, but geez. Other than the house being on fire or something?

[Rule10b5]

I'd just like to take a moment and say how much I can't stand our legal system or our laws or the people who come up with them.

If someone is entering my home uninvited then I should be able to do what ever I want to them. Period.

And yes I don't care what the reason is they are there. Bottom line is DON'T ENTER MY HOME!!

This is all the more reason to have a good security system in place.

Agreed -- it's infuriating.

A man's home is, really, his only truly private space outside his own mind. He ought to be able to defend that space.

knight0334

"Now who's to say something of yours doesn't happen to fall into his hands or pocket as he/she bleeds to death?"

Tempting for many folks, I'm sure, but a bad idea. First, they'll find out -- the stuff the forensics guys can do is, really, amazing. Second, something in his pockets isn't going to cut it -- you're judged based on what you knew at the time you pulled the trigger. If you pop him and it turns out he has a grenade stuffed down his shorts that they discover in the morgue, you can't claim the presence of the grenade as the basis for your use of force. Annoying, no?

Blue v. Red is always a good point, but there are no guarantees. You never know what sort of clown you're going to draw from the DA's office.

[Hawk]

Is shooting a unarmed "intruder" in the leg, when he fails to heed your warnings to put down your TV, using deadly force?

Hawk,

[Emptymag]

...

PA has a "no duty to retreat" law in your own home unless you are the initial aggressor (you caused the need for deadly force). 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2)(ii)(A).

This is NOT a "castle" law. Don't confuse "castle" with "no duty to retreat." Don't use buzzwords like "castle" to describe a statute. All statutes mean different things, regardless of what they're called. A castle statute in one state may allow deadly force against all intruders, in another it might not. Know the law in your own state; don't just assume that because you heard the word castle you're good to go.

Anyway:

You can't shoot someone simply because they come in your home in PA.

Deadly force, even in your own home, is not legal "unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2).

Shooting someone just "because he came in my house" is a damn fine way to go to jail. Are their strong arguments to be made that he wouldn't be in your house for any other reason but to commit a serious crime? Sure. But are you going to get away with popping someone for walking through your front door? Probably not. Remember, there are degrees of homicide. You can act negligently in your use of deadly force and go to jail just as easily as if you intended to kill the guy.

Rule, I'm confused by this...

First, I see that there is no duty to retreat, which sounds to ME like I DON'T have to "go hide in the corner of my bedroom".

Then, I read that Deadly force, even in your own home, is not legal "unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2).
Which sounds a LOT like I better try to RETREAT, because if I have the opportunity to do so, "how could I be in fear for my life?"

Is it any wonder you have to "answer" the same questions over and over... it just doesn't make sense. (to me, but then again... I can be kinda' thick sometimes)

[Hawk]

Does anyone recall the story of the local drug store owner in PennHills that had not once but on two different occasions shot armed robbers in the ass while they were leaving the store? I knew this guy but never asked him about his experiences. I believe he was never charged with anything either time. I withheld his name out of respect for his family (he passed away a few years ago).


Hawk,

[knight0334]

"(B) such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a felony in the dwelling."

To show someone committed a burglary you need to be able to show that he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Simply opening a door and walking in isn't enough. Nor is breaking a window or a door. I'm personally aware of at least one case where a fellow is in jail for shooting an intruder for breaking a lock on a glass door and entering.

The other issue is that you still need to show that DEADLY force was necessary (in that it was the only force that would suffice) to stop the commission of the felony that you're talking about.

It looks like an "or" but it really isn't, because of necessity.

Just thought of something..

Unless the person (illegally)entering the home had a legitimate reason to be in there, the unlawful entry would be prima-facie evidence that his entry was intended to commit a crime. Why else would he be there? That is the whole spirit of "Castle Doctrine" back to Marcus Tullius Cicero(Tully).

Unless it can be proven that the entry was to retrieve property that the "burglar" owned, or that it was LEO's in the performance of their duties, or one of the other coded legal reasons - the entry by the "burglar" was for the intent to commit crimes or cause harm which has been understood for 2050 years or so.

[dgg9]

Rule, I'm confused by this...

First, I see that there is no duty to retreat, which sounds to ME like I DON'T have to "go hide in the corner of my bedroom".

Then, I read that Deadly force, even in your own home, is not legal "unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2).
Which sounds a LOT like I better try to RETREAT, because if I have the opportunity to do so, "how could I be in fear for my life?"

There's no contradiction. You can't shoot someone just for being in your house -- if he's not attacking you in any way. It's only when he initiates a physical attack that the "duty vs no duty to retreat" issue even enters the picture.

Forget about the house for the moment. If you're standing on the street, can you just shoot someone? No -- the someone needs to demonstrate a clear, immediate, unavoidable threat to you first.

More or less the same deal as in your house: the intruder still has to start to physically attack you. That's where the house vs street issue comes in: on the street, you have to try to retreat from an attack; in the house, perhaps you don't.

But none of this is even in the picture absent an actual attack.

[markheck1]

Just thought of something..

Unless the person (illegally)entering the home had a legitimate reason to be in there, the unlawful entry would be prima-facie evidence that his entry was intended to commit a crime. Why else would he be there? That is the whole spirit of "Castle Doctrine" back to Marcus Tullius Cicero(Tully).

Unless it can be proven that the entry was to retrieve property that the "burglar" owned, or that it was LEO's in the performance of their duties, or one of the other coded legal reasons - the entry by the "burglar" was for the intent to commit crimes or cause harm which has been understood for 2050 years or so.

That's what I would think, however he has not tried to commit a felony as yet, correct? Breaking and entering would only be a Misdemeanor? I guess he "Could" just be looking around.....that's how curiosity killed the cat, no?