Castle Law in PA?

[DesperatelyNeedHelp]

Hello, I am looking for advice.

Long story short - my parents (both in 60s) have been the victims of trespassing, vandalism, burglary, breaking/entering by the same people for the past 5+ years. Over this period of time, they have lost approx $60k of personal possessions not to mention farm equipment has been destroyed and family heirlooms have vanished. PSP does not help even though they have been contacted numerous times.. they say 'call us when you have them cornered'. These people doing this are kids.. teenagers/kids old enough to drive not to mention their father figure knows about it and does nothing to stop it. Things have escalated to the point where my mother has invested in a few personal firearms and patrols her property (17 acres in the woods) at all hours of the night to try to deter the thieves. She has shot at them and my father has almost been run over by the culprits in their haste to get away however that is not enough proof. Can someone tell me exactly what rights Castle Law provides home owners when it comes to defending their property and possessions from thieves and vandals?

Any assistance will be appreciated.. I am prior service Military and I don't want bloodshed however nothing stops these thieves.. not even a fence and dogs

[Gunowner99]

And the PSP will do nothing? You have proof it is them?

[DesperatelyNeedHelp]

We have vehicle descriptions but no plates because they cover them up and they only come out at night (2-4AM).. We know where they live, we know who it is because conversations have been heard (the individuals responsible live right down the street approx 300-500 yards away) between the father and one of the kids saying "were you up there again last night" and they say "yes"

My parents aren't good with vehicle identification but even the neighbors have seen and reported things.

The whole thing is such a long story but end story is in order to catch them, we need to have video or picture or plates and we cannot get any because they've cut wires to cameras, destroyed trail cameras. They cover up their license plates and they walk in because they live right down the road.

[philadelphia patriot]

You can't use deadly force to protect property. This isn't Texas. You can only use deadly force if there is a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

[rodspade]

my mother has invested in a few personal firearms and patrols her property (17 acres in the woods) at all hours of the night to try to deter the thieves. She has shot at them

It's probably illegal to shoot at people while patrolling your property.

Can someone tell me exactly what rights Castle Law provides home owners when it comes to defending their property and possessions from thieves and vandals?

None. Pennsylvania law does not authorize lethal force to defend property. The Castle Law just says that when someone breaks into your home, you may start with the presumption that they intend to hurt you.

Maybe what they need is "No Trespassing" signs (I believe this makes trespassing a more serious offense) and some (well hidden) trail cameras to collect evidence.

[DesperatelyNeedHelp]

So you're basically telling me that they are supposed to sit back and do nothing while their possessions get stolen because the police won't do anything because there is not a threat of bodily harm?

That is a whole load of crap. How would you feel if this was you?

Everything has been done. I'm telling you EVERYTHING and nothing works

[R L Suehr]

So you're basically telling me that they are supposed to sit back and do nothing while their possessions get stolen because the police won't do anything because there is not a threat of bodily harm?

That is a whole load of crap. How would you feel if this was you?

Everything has been done. I'm telling you EVERYTHING and nothing works

Unfortunately they are right. You can't use deadly force to protect property in PA.

Here's the law for use of force to protect property. Notice it says force, not deadly force, there is a distinction.

§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property.
(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
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.
(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.
(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.
(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:
(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.
(Dec. 19, 1980, P.L.1310, No.235, eff. imd.)

You need to figure out a way to catch them in the act and get proof. If they break into the house then castle doctrine comes into play.

[philadelphia patriot]

So you're basically telling me that they are supposed to sit back and do nothing while their possessions get stolen because the police won't do anything because there is not a threat of bodily harm?

That is a whole load of crap. How would you feel if this was you?

Everything has been done. I'm telling you EVERYTHING and nothing works

Lobby to have the law changed so that we can use deadly force to protect property, like they do in Texas. I tried to give you the correct information, not the information you want to be true.

[wanneroo]

It's hard for us to judge from a few forum posts what exactly the situation is.

Change up where you put trail cams, put them out of reach, add more lighting, add more reinforcement to doors and windows, add in some german sheppards that like to bite.

Also:

§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property.

(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

[wanneroo]

Lobby to have the law changed so that we can use deadly force to protect property, like they do in Texas. I tried to give you the correct information, not the information you want to be true.

The law was changed in 2011.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...8&div=0&chpt=5