Duty to retreat?

[The Unknown 1087]

Alright, I dont know if this goes here, or where. If its in the wrong place please move it.

I just got done talking to an officer, he wasnt busy so i asked him a few questions. My one question was about self defense if someone breaks into my house and has a weapon, what can be done?

His answer: You must leave your house if someone breaks in, there is a duty to retreat, if someone breaks in and you stay and do harm your in trouble too. So if someone breaks in the front, you have to find a way out, either the back, or some other way.

So wtf? If someone breaks in I have to leave? That is by far the stupidest fucking thing ever if its true.

Is there a law that says I have to leave here in PA? Is there any Stand Your ground type law pending?

[dc dalton]

While there is no "Castle Doctrine" in PA I think the officer is 100% wrong about having to try and escape the house but I'm sure others here will have more info on that.

[Robert Kayland]

Tell the officer to put down his badge and gun, and back slowly away.

[gnbrotz]

While there is no "Castle Doctrine" in PA...

I disagree. The law already has a 'Castle Doctrine' provision (ie - there is NO duty to retreat in your home). What we don't have is "Stand Your Ground", which would removed the duty to retreat in a public setting.

Title 18, §505. Use of Force in Self-Protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. —

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or

(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) 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 safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

[dc dalton]

I disagree. The law already has a 'Castle Doctrine' provision (ie - there is NO duty to retreat in your home). What we don't have is "Stand Your Ground", which would removed the duty to retreat in a public setting.

What I really meant was we have no actual "Castle Doctrine" law but as I told the OP the police officer was 100% wrong.

Now my question is where does this officer get HIS information, talk about WAY off base.

[cgbudde]

What I really meant was we have no actual "Castle Doctrine" law but as I told the OP the police officer was 100% wrong.

Now my question is where does this officer get HIS information, talk about WAY off base.

The same place a lot of LEO's do, their opinions or their beliefs. I had an officer tell me once that he did not like a certain law so it should not apply. You try that logic and see were you end up.

[normanvin]

What I really meant was we have no actual "Castle Doctrine" law but as I told the OP the police officer was 100% wrong.

Now my question is where does this officer get HIS information, talk about WAY off base.

Tribal knowledge....... Its not written down anywhere. It is passed around by word of mouth.

[gnbrotz]

The same place a lot of LEO's do, their opinions or their beliefs. I had an officer tell me once that he did not like a certain law so it should not apply. You try that logic and see were you end up.

And there you have it: "I am the law. I can both create new ones as I see fit, and ignore existing ones if I choose."

[knighthawk06699]

Alright, I dont know if this goes here, or where. If its in the wrong place please move it.

I just got done talking to an officer, he wasnt busy so i asked him a few questions. My one question was about self defense if someone breaks into my house and has a weapon, what can be done?

His answer: You must leave your house if someone breaks in, there is a duty to retreat, if someone breaks in and you stay and do harm your in trouble too. So if someone breaks in the front, you have to find a way out, either the back, or some other way.

So wtf? If someone breaks in I have to leave? That is by far the stupidest fucking thing ever if its true.

Is there a law that says I have to leave here in PA? Is there any Stand Your ground type law pending?

Let me say this, if someone breaks into my home and seeks to do me or my family harm, or remove my property. I will not retreat and I will do what ever is necessary to ensure the security of my home and family.

[mikey]

The officer that told you that, should not be an officer, if he really thinks that the law says you have to retreat in your own home. What other laws is he wrong about, if this is how he thinks.

You should tell that officer, that wasn't busy, to go brush up on the Title Section, that Greg posted. It seems he has too much time on his hands, and not enough training.