PA Statute Question

[Brudog]

I understand that is statute 505 it states that a person must first retreat if an intruder forces entry into your home before you can act with deadly force and only when you are threatened with perceived deadly force:

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:


Found in its entirety here http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...lf-protection/


But after reading further and getting to statute 507 it states:

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

Found in its entirety here: http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...n-of-property/

Wouldn't this contradict section 505? Paragraph, subsection 1 basically says I can act to prevent entry or theft.

Am I missing something, misreading something?

Please forgive my ignorance if I am missing something obvious or misstated the nomenclature of the statute numbering. I am not a legal expert only trying to learn the laws more precisely.

[F16vipers]

I understand that is statute 505 it states that a person must first retreat if an intruder forces entry into your home before you can act with deadly force and only when you are threatened with perceived deadly force:

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:


Found in its entirety here http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...lf-protection/


But after reading further and getting to statute 507 it states:

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

Found in its entirety here: http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...n-of-property/

Wouldn't this contradict section 505? Paragraph, subsection 1 basically says I can act to prevent entry or theft.

Am I missing something, misreading something?

Please forgive my ignorance if I am missing something obvious or misstated the nomenclature of the statute numbering. I am not a legal expert only trying to learn the laws more precisely.

507 is a guideline for general use of force...505 is saying you can't use DEADLY force unless you have no way of retreating safely. Two different things.

[Philbert]

IANAL, but I think you shouldn't confuse "force" and "deadly force".

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

You can't "expose" someone to the risk of serious bodily injury, which to me means that you can't inflict serious bodily injury or do anything that could lead to serious bodily injury (for example if someone is trespassing and falls and breaks their leg, you can't drag them out the door, you should call 911 instead). Deadly force may cause death or serious bodily injury, and is justified only to protect people.

[knight0334]

Inside your home or place of work you have no duty to retreat. However you may only use deadly force when in fear of death, serious bodily injury, rape or kidnapping. You cant just shoot someone because they broke into your house. Remember, there is a legal difference between "force" and "deadly force."

In the protection of properties portion you may use deadly force to stop a felony committed within a dwelling after there has been an unlawful entry.

[Steve in PA]

I understand that is statute 505 it states that a person must first retreat if an intruder forces entry into your home before you can act with deadly force and only when you are threatened with perceived deadly force:

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:


Found in its entirety here http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...lf-protection/


But after reading further and getting to statute 507 it states:

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

Found in its entirety here: http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...n-of-property/

Wouldn't this contradict section 505? Paragraph, subsection 1 basically says I can act to prevent entry or theft.

Am I missing something, misreading something?

Please forgive my ignorance if I am missing something obvious or misstated the nomenclature of the statute numbering. I am not a legal expert only trying to learn the laws more precisely.

PACS 505 does NOT state that you must first retreat in your home or work;

PACS 505(b)(2)(ii)(A)
the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;

PACS 507 covers "force" not "deadly force" for the protection of property.

You need to learn the difference between force, deadly force and when you are justified in their using them.

[knight0334]

PACS 505 does NOT state that you must first retreat in your home or work;

PACS 505(b)(2)(ii)(A)
the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;

PACS 507 covers "force" not "deadly force" for the protection of property.

You need to learn the difference between force, deadly force and when you are justified in their using them.

Except for this clause:

18 Pa.C.S. § 507: Use of force for the protection of property

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

[Novesh]

The statutes are as cut and dry as they possibly can be - meaning they cannot be more specific in their langauge.

If your asking what you should do in the event your actions fall under one of these, 505 or 507, I would highly suggest you do not think about that at the time when you should presumably be saving your life or the lives of others.

Just as a reference point - if you act within a "reasonable" mindset, you will most likely not be facing any type of legal recourse. Meaning that if someone comes into your dwelling or place of business and you have the ability of getting around the entire encounter without any force exhibited from your side, while keeping your safety a top priority (and presumably calling 911), you should have no issues.

Force should always be the absolute last resort. EG; your on the top floor of a two floor home, you have no safe way out, you hear glass break, noises, etc, you call the police but the noise is getting closer, the door opens and fearing for your safety after recognizing the threat and/or making warnings "I've called the police" then you would be justified in using force to stop the immediate threat until police arrive. This is but one example but the point here is fairly clear.

[Brudog]

The statutes are as cut and dry as they possibly can be - meaning they cannot be more specific in their langauge.

If your asking what you should do in the event your actions fall under one of these, 505 or 507, I would highly suggest you do not think about that at the time when you should presumably be saving your life or the lives of others.

Just as a reference point - if you act within a "reasonable" mindset, you will most likely not be facing any type of legal recourse. Meaning that if someone comes into your dwelling or place of business and you have the ability of getting around the entire encounter without any force exhibited from your side, while keeping your safety a top priority (and presumably calling 911), you should have no issues.

Force should always be the absolute last resort. EG; your on the top floor of a two floor home, you have no safe way out, you hear glass break, noises, etc, you call the police but the noise is getting closer, the door opens and fearing for your safety after recognizing the threat and/or making warnings "I've called the police" then you would be justified in using force to stop the immediate threat until police arrive. This is but one example but the point here is fairly clear.

Thank you for trying to clarify the practical application of all the legal ease. My question did revolve around a what if scenario for actual application of the law.

If someone breaks in am I forced to retreat to my bedroom, get to a place of safety and arm myself as intruders wreck my home, rob me blind and possibly kill my dog and not be able to react unless entry to my room is made and I feel my life is in danger with nowhere else to go?

Or, can I react if someone enters my home and refuses to leave and may cause me harm if I confront them? I guess the question is can I confront them and if they threaten me can I respond with deadly force if needed? Basically that is the question.

Most here reinstated that you do not need to retreat in your home. But 505 clearly states you should retreat. (2-ii) I have to ask if you don't need to retreat then why do we need the Castle Doctrine?

I am not being a wise ass I just really am trying to interpret the laws as accurately as I can for myself and for others who often ask me what is allowed in PA.

I appreciate everyone's interpretation of the law.

[Brudog]

It would help if you read and posted the relevant parts in their entirety instead of cutting off some critical parts:


The duty to retreat does not apply within your own home.

This is why I added the links instead of posting a huge long post with the entire code pasted in.

So I don't need to retreat but I can't do anything unless my life is threatened? Is that the general consensus? That is a fine line to determine at 3am in the dark.

[Brudog]

PACS 505 does NOT state that you must first retreat in your home or work;

PACS 505(b)(2)(ii)(A)
the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;

PACS 507 covers "force" not "deadly force" for the protection of property.

You need to learn the difference between force, deadly force and when you are justified in their using them.

I now see the difference in the language between force and dealy force. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I did see however just above PACS 505(b)(2)(ii)(A) Section 505(b)(2)(ii) states the following, that if you think you can avoid the use of force by retreating you are not justified in using deadly force but further on states as you posted you are not obligated to retreat from your dwelling or place of work. Doesn't that contradict itself?

I posted the language below.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

Thanks for the clarification.