Waynesburg Man Charged With Shooting Alleged Attacker

[TaePo]

You guys seemed to have wrapped this one up pretty tightly but...

What if the latter incident occurred on the man's porch? Are we now inside or outside of the dwelling?

[Dredly]

You guys seemed to have wrapped this one up pretty tightly but...

What if the latter incident occurred on the man's porch? Are we now inside or outside of the dwelling?

I'm sure we are just talking hypothetical here I think it would depend on the porch...

If it a standard open outdoor deck or stone patio then its definately outdoors and not in the house. If its a windowed in porch (ie "3 season room") with a door I'd imagine that would qualify as living space for the house and could be defended, however unless it is connected to the house without a door (IE part OF the house) I think the same issue would still occur, and that is the man was no longer in the "house".

I believe the same would apply to a garage. If it is connected to the house, ie: Part of the house, then it could be legally defended as you wouldn't have to retreat, however if it is a detached structure you would not be able to defend it as part of your home as it is a seperate building

(obviously all this changes if you have no option to run. THis is more of a "can you shoot a burgular if he breaks into my..." stuff)

In this case there was a very easy option to close the door and lock it and this situation would have ended with the attacker being arrested outdoors while he was indoors adding up the damages.


If I'm wrong on any of this please feel free to correct me, I'm just getting this info from me asking the same question and the really knowledgeable guys answering.

[TaePo]

We would have to look into case law, I guess.

I think my covered porch(es) when I lived downtown counted on the drawing for the tax records. Cannot recall if it was added to the house sq. footage, though.

What if screened-in porch with no door or with door etc.?

Even an attached garage could be questionable if you have a solid door from the house to it and no one tried breaking into the house proper.

In my mind, however, you should be able to have the right to defend anywhere on your property if someone is threatening your well-being or stealing your property. But I am old-fashioned.

[1861]

I think you should have a right to defend yourself any time anywhere if attacked

[chesire17201]

The guy shouldn't have said anything at all in the first place, regardless as to whether or not he shot to wound or truly feared for his life...let the lawyers explain that.

"I was in fear for my life officer, I want a lawyer now."

[TonyF]

This will fall into the issue of "he pursued and thus became the aggressor".

Or, he did not take the opportunity to withdraw into the safety of his home. This is precisely why the D.A. is filing charges.

I've been conducting the Utah CFP classes for three years and it's amazing to me how many people have never given any thought as to "when" you can legally employ lethal force against another human being, especially out on the street where you have far less latitude than you do when in the home.

We have a forum member who posted in another thread that he thought it was OK to shoot someone trying to steal your car (not a car-jacking).

Our society values life, even the lives of criminals and IMHO that is a good thing. The justice system frowns on homicide to the point that there is a very narrow margin of error for justifiable homicide. And that is as it should be.

We become righteously indignant when LE screws up by breaking down the wrong door and shoots an innocent citizen yet some people think it's fine for civilians to have almost unlimited latitude as to when they can pull the trigger on someone.

[TonyF]

I think you should have a right to defend yourself any time anywhere if attacked

We do.

However, there are "degrees of force" that have to be applied in proper measure. If someone without a weapon threatens to "kick your ass", presenting your weapon and shooting them is not the answer.

[Philbert]

Or, he did not take the opportunity to withdraw into the safety of his home. This is precisely why the D.A. is filing charges.

I've been conducting the Utah CFP classes for three years and it's amazing to me how many people have never given any thought as to "when" you can legally employ lethal force against another human being, especially out on the street where you have far less latitude than you do when in the home.

We have a forum member who posted in another thread that he thought it was OK to shoot someone trying to steal your car (not a car-jacking).

Our society values life, even the lives of criminals and IMHO that is a good thing. The justice system frowns on homicide to the point that there is a very narrow margin of error for justifiable homicide. And that is as it should be.

We become righteously indignant when LE screws up by breaking down the wrong door and shoots an innocent citizen yet some people think it's fine for civilians to have almost unlimited latitude as to when they can pull the trigger on someone.

This is why I have reservations about "stand your ground" laws. All the guy in the OP has to do under PA law is show that he could not retreat in "complete safety". That's a high standard to meet, and rightfully so, but it at least puts some duty on people not to pursue deadly force when it is obvious that it can be avoided. It's not just about protecting the BGs, before anyone goes there. When bullets fly it endangers everyone in the vicinity. That should not happen if it can be safely avoided.

[Robert Kayland]

The fact that one has so damn much "'splainin' to do" after shooting someone who was obviously attacking (let alone on one's own property!) shows how much this country has become feminized and Oprah-fied.

The nation lost a lot of its viability when being an asshole no longer carried a penalty amongst men of honor.

[Philbert]

The fact that one has so damn much "'splainin' to do" after shooting someone who was obviously attacking (let alone on one's own property!) shows how much this country has become feminized and Oprah-fied.

The nation lost a lot of its viability when being an asshole no longer carried a penalty amongst men of honor.

Wait, are you saying that we should allow "honor killing"?