Course aims to put guns in safe hands

[Steve in PA]

This guy Shaw still doesn't understand the Castle Doctrine. If you are sitting in your home and someone breaks in, he still wants you to wait and see a weapon before using deadly force. His "opinion" smells like a bull's rear end.

Maybe he should read 505 (2.1)(i) before he spouts his "opinion".

“I think people think that if someone comes in their house, they have the legal right to use deadly force – and that’s not the case,” said Randy Shaw, a retired police officer and instructor of the course.

Shaw said Pennsylvania’s version of the Castle Doctrine allows a person to shoot at another in defense of themselves or their property only when an attacker presents an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. “If the perpetrator is threatening you with a gun or a knife or a deadly object, that could cause death or serious injury,” Shaw said. “If there’s not a deadly force situation, you’re not justified.”

Illegally breaking into my residence IS a deadly force situation!!

http://www.timesleader.com/stories/C...e-hands,264847

[Emptymag]

Fuck the police.


Oh. Hey, Steve. Didn't see you there.

[GunLawyer001]

This guy Shaw still doesn't understand the Castle Doctrine. If you are sitting in your home and someone breaks in, he still wants you to wait and see a weapon before using deadly force. His "opinion" smells like a bull's rear end.

Maybe he should read 505 (2.1)(i) before he spouts his "opinion".

“I think people think that if someone comes in their house, they have the legal right to use deadly force – and that’s not the case,” said Randy Shaw, a retired police officer and instructor of the course.

Shaw said Pennsylvania’s version of the Castle Doctrine allows a person to shoot at another in defense of themselves or their property only when an attacker presents an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. “If the perpetrator is threatening you with a gun or a knife or a deadly object, that could cause death or serious injury,” Shaw said. “If there’s not a deadly force situation, you’re not justified.”

Illegally breaking into my residence IS a deadly force situation!!

http://www.timesleader.com/stories/C...e-hands,264847

Keep in mind that the statute creates a REBUTTABLE presumption. It may be a bright line, but the DA might be able to drag you back across it. As an extreme example, let's say a girl with no arms kicks your door in, and as she weebles her way across the room, you shoot her 5 times in the face.

You may have some trouble in court.

[Emptymag]

OMG, I'm CRYING!

ROFLMAO, he said "WEEBLES"!!! ^^^


Oh, that was good.

[Steve in PA]

Keep in mind that the statute creates a REBUTTABLE presumption. It may be a bright line, but the DA might be able to drag you back across it. As an extreme example, let's say a girl with no arms kicks your door in, and as she weebles her way across the room, you shoot her 5 times in the face.

You may have some trouble in court.

Well, if she has the strength to kick down my door, then I can presume that she could have the strength to cave in my head or use it like a soccer ball.

[CHEMICAL]

Keep in mind that the statute creates a REBUTTABLE presumption. It may be a bright line, but the DA might be able to drag you back across it. As an extreme example, let's say a girl with no arms kicks your door in, and as she weebles her way across the room, you shoot her 5 times in the face.

You may have some trouble in court.

Weebles wobble but they never fall down. I believe she would...just sayin'!

[Steve in PA]

The law says that if someone unlawfully and forcefully breaks into my home, it is presumed (they would have to prove otherwise) that I have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent my death or serious bodily injury.

[GunLawyer001]

The law says that if someone unlawfully and forcefully breaks into my home, it is presumed (they would have to prove otherwise) that I have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent my death or serious bodily injury.

I agree. That is what the law says. But a rebuttable presumption is not the same as a safe harbor.

I cannot be properly convicted of receiving stolen property, if the property was not stolen. I cannot be properly convicted of trespassing on property that I own (assuming no applicable PFA's or easements). I can't properly be convicted of murdering someone who testifies on my behalf at the murder trial.

But I could be properly convicted of killing someone who broke into my house, if the DA meets his burden of proving that I did not reasonably fear that the trespasser posed a real threat.

[Steve in PA]

But I could be properly convicted of killing someone who broke into my house, if the DA meets his burden of proving that I did not reasonably fear that the trespasser posed a real threat.

I'll refer to 2.5 of the law;

"(2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit:

(i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or

(ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat."


Someone breaks into my house it is presumed they are there to commit a violent act. It doesn't say they can break into my house then I have to wait for them to do something else. The act of breaking into my house is proof of their intentions.

[GunLawyer001]

I'll refer to 2.5 of the law;

"(2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit:

(i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or

(ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat."


Someone breaks into my house it is presumed they are there to commit a violent act. It doesn't say they can break into my house then I have to wait for them to do something else. The act of breaking into my house is proof of their intentions.

The words and phrases have very specific meanings, and the act of breaking into your home CREATES A PRESUMPTION, it doesn't prove their intentions. It shifts the burden from the defendant to the state.

You will recall that plenty of defendants were acquitted when they had the burden of proof. I'd expect that some will be convicted now, even though the DA has that burden.