Use of force to protect property?

[Lehmeow]

Hi, looking for info on pa law concerning the use of force to protect property. Say I'm inside my home and a perpetrator is attempting to break into my vehicle located outside, trespass on my land, and not attempting to enter my dwelling.

From what I gather, I can go prepared to use non lethal force and if they pulled a gun or if I felt my life was in danger it would legally be wrong on my part to use a gun because I went outside to investigate? According to pa law; What are some non lethal force devices to have besides pepper spray?

Thanks for the info

I believe this is the law I'm referring to:

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.

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

[R.A.D.]

^^^ exactly... here we go again

[Hawk]

My basic understanding (IANAL) is that in PA you can use non-lethal force to protect property. In other words, you can physically engage the actor with less than lethal force to protect property. My personal opinion is that if your not positive you can handle the situation with non-lethal force, you should stay in the house and leave it to the police.

[GunLawyer001]

There is no "safe harbor" for using deadly force, it's always fact-specific.

In theory, you can see somebody messing with your car, and walk out with a gun in your holster to chase them off by yelling at them; 9 times out of 10, they'll run away. But if they respond by threatening you with imminent death or serious bodily injury (which has been known to happen; some folks are all about the ultra-violence), IN THEORY you could then defend yourself with deadly force from that threat, if it's reasonable under the circumstances.

Problem is, nobody can force a jury to see things your way. The yutes breaking into your car will likely be underaged, unarmed, and "finally turning their lives around after some youthful mistakes". So when you shoot the first one or two because 3 or 4 of them were jumping you, in YOUR mind it's self-defense. But the local jury may decide that you went out with a gun to shoot some pranksters.

Best bet, if you want to be able to shoot nighttime thieves, is to move to Texas, where the law allows that. I doubt that we'll see that kind of law in Pennsylvania, not with the large urban areas filled with nominal adults and their offspring who are likely to be on the wrong end of the muzzle. Those folks don't see anything particularly wrong with property crimes, and if everyone who committed crimes died in the process, our cities would swiftly become empty parks, with deer walking down Broad Street. Or people would stop committing crimes. But I'm betting on the deer scenario.

[Lehmeow]

Sorry if it's been discussed a bunch before but no specific thread came up in results. Please link to other ones that I can refer to.

Thanks for the responses.

[Bill67]

How else are these utes supposed to get their clothes for school?

[markshere2]

Snip

Best bet, if you want to be able to shoot nighttime thieves, is to move to Texas, where the law allows that. I doubt that we'll see that kind of law in Pennsylvania, not with the large urban areas filled with nominal adults and their offspring who are likely to be on the wrong end of the muzzle. Those folks don't see anything particularly wrong with property crimes, and if everyone who committed crimes died in the process, our cities would swiftly become empty parks, with deer walking down Broad Street. Or people would stop committing crimes. But I'm betting on the deer scenario.

O what a rosy picture you paint! Alas, if only t'wer true .

[markshere2]

To the OP...

You best not be shooting somebody over property.
You best not be PERCEIVED as shooting somebody over property.

We dunno where you live, what property you are worried about, or much else.

In the evening, I respond with a shotgun or handgun, but I live in the boonies with a 40 min state police response time. It's what we do here.

[Didnotcomply89]

Not a good idea. If you could have avoided the situation entirely and went and did something- that does not look good. To my knowledge castle doctrine extends to your home and your vehicle. If someone is stealing your rims you can't shoot them. If they pull a gun on you as you investigate or charge with a crowbar... completely different story. The best and most prudent thing to do (reasonable man) is to call the police and stay inside, although you have a right to investigate.

edit- Gunlawyer trumps anything I said.