Castle Law Protects Homeowner

[F16vipers]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/co...r.html?nav=742

HOLLIDAYSBURG - January's shooting death of an Altoona man in Allegheny Township has been ruled as justified under Pennsylvania's "Castle Doctrine," Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio said Wednesday in a statement.

Consiglio said his office "is legally prohibited from filing charges against [homeowner] Timothy Lepore."

Lepore shot Brandon L. Zeth, 24, early Jan. 14 on the porch of Lepore's home. Zeth died Feb. 8 at a Pittsburgh hospital.

"The statement lays out the facts as I believe them to be," Lepore's attorney, Steven Passarello, said. "It also lays out Mr. Zeth's intoxication level. It is clearly an unfortunately tragic incident, and I think the statement says that."

An attempt to reach Zeth's family for comment wasn't immediately successful late Wednesday.

Zeth's blood-alcohol level was 0.274 percent, more than three times the legal limit in Pennsylvania, Consiglio said.

Zeth entered Lepore's property without permission and went on the porch where he began to bang on a bedroom window in hopes he would be allowed inside, thinking it was his girlfriend's home, Consiglio said.

"Mr. Lepore reported that he informed Zeth that he had a gun and would shoot, but Zeth refused to leave," Consiglio wrote in his statement. "Mr. Lepore asserted that he then displayed his firearm to Mr. Zeth prior to its discharge."

"The investigation [by Allegheny Township police] revealed that Lepore subsequently fired three rounds through the bedroom window, striking Zeth."

Consiglio said his review of the Castle Doctrine and the facts of the case, which included the time of day, show that Lepore had the presumption under Pennsylvania law that Zeth was attempting to enter the home and Lepore and/or his wife were in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

"Mr. Zeth was not deserving of his fate, and I would like to reiterate my sincere condolences to his family and all who knew him. My obligation, however, in the present matter is to view the circumstances and examine whether or not the belief that Mr. Lepore had at the time was reasonable and justified," Consiglio said.

"Unfortunately, at the time of the incident, Mr. Lepore was unaware that Mr. Zeth was unintentionally on his property. His actions, while regrettable, were justified under the current State of Pennsylvania Law."

[F16vipers]

Previous story when the incident first occured with more info:

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/co...t-to-fire.html

[Franky4Fingers]

He said he was undeserving of his fate? ... he did it to himself.

Normal people don't go get drunk and go to the wrong people's houses and try to break and and refuse to leave when shown a firearm. This guy obviously has an alcohol problem and an asshole problem.

Darwinism, plain and simple. He was given more than enough opportunity to leave. This is suicide, really.

[PAallterrain]

He said he was undeserving of his fate? ... he did it to himself.

Normal people don't go get drunk and go to the wrong people's houses and try to break and and refuse to leave when shown a firearm. This guy obviously has an alcohol problem and an asshole problem.

Darwinism, plain and simple. He was given more than enough opportunity to leave. This is suicide, really.

I went to school with the man who attemped to break into the house. When i read this arcticle it did not supprise me at all. It fit his personality 6 years ago, aparently he didn't change much. I am glad they did not press changes against the man, he did nothing wrong defending himself.

[streaker69]

These two statements make it sound as though the speaker doesn't agree with the Castle Doctrine.

"Mr. Zeth was not deserving of his fate, and I would like to reiterate my sincere condolences to his family and all who knew him. My obligation, however, in the present matter is to view the circumstances and examine whether or not the belief that Mr. Lepore had at the time was reasonable and justified," Consiglio said.

"Unfortunately, at the time of the incident, Mr. Lepore was unaware that Mr. Zeth was unintentionally on his property. His actions, while regrettable, were justified under the current State of Pennsylvania Law."

It sounds as though he's disappointed that he cannot file charges.

[Franky4Fingers]

Our local DA definitely seems to be anti-gun (judging by some things he's said and done). Including after a local guy named Zimmerman had charges pressed against him for self defense until the judge threw it out.

Do a search for him (Zimmerman) on the Altoona Mirror.

[farmplinker]

These two statements make it sound as though the speaker doesn't agree with the Castle Doctrine.



It sounds as though he's disappointed that he cannot file charges.

He's a prosecutor.

[GunLawyer001]

Consiglio said his office "is legally prohibited from filing charges against [homeowner] Timothy Lepore."

Not actually true, the DA can always file charges, because the facts have not yet been determined.

The criminal and civil immunity provisions require that the finder of fact comes to certain conclusions, and those conclusions don't exist prior to trial. You have a dead body, you have a shooter, you have a location; most of the other factors are subject to interpretation, especially where the only direct testimony is from the shooter.

Castle Doctrine/SYG is not some magical spell that automatically kicks in if you say the words. Even the presumptions require factual conclusions before they kick in. A lot of "ifs" in the statute.

What you have here is not a legal bar to filing charges, it's the DA deciding that the evidence he has would probably result in the finder of fact determining that the presumptions apply and the elements of a crime can't be proven.

[Deleted]

Minus the shooting part, stuff identical to this happens every weekend. Summertime can get scary with screen windows and open storm doors when u have a determined drunk.

[Franky4Fingers]

Consiglio said his office "is legally prohibited from filing charges against [homeowner] Timothy Lepore."

Not actually true, the DA can always file charges, because the facts have not yet been determined.

The criminal and civil immunity provisions require that the finder of fact comes to certain conclusions, and those conclusions don't exist prior to trial. You have a dead body, you have a shooter, you have a location; most of the other factors are subject to interpretation, especially where the only direct testimony is from the shooter.

Castle Doctrine/SYG is not some magical spell that automatically kicks in if you say the words. Even the presumptions require factual conclusions before they kick in. A lot of "ifs" in the statute.

What you have here is not a legal bar to filing charges, it's the DA deciding that the evidence he has would probably result in the finder of fact determining that the presumptions apply and the elements of a crime can't be proven.

I'm no lawyer and his statement didn't sound too.......professional to me, even.

I'm glad they aren't prosecuting this guy....but I wish the DA would keep his silly, misspoken opinions to himself. I also wish they didn't push charges against Zimmerman over his self defense shooting either. I think he's actually a member here....anyway, that guy went through hell waiting for the hammer to drop (or not) eventually the judge threw it out.