PA. Law on the use of deadly force

[Orion0317]

It ( HB40 ) is STILL being held up by a sole person, the Anti Gun Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. What have YOU done personally to contact not just your reps, but others in the State to pressure them ??

Well, Sir, since you called me out on the carpet, I must admit, nothing...yet. But, that will change.

Thanks for the kick in the ass, I need it sometimes.

[LittleRedToyota]

What happened to the proposed introduction of Castle Law to PA? That would radically shift the balance of legality to the homeowner, and place the accountability squarely on the shoulder's of the perpetrator of said home invasion.

unless i have misread the bill, it would not actually change anything about when you are or are not justified in shooting a home invader. it would prevent you from being sued, though, if you were justified.

you already do not have a duty to retreat in your home. basically we already have castle doctrine on the criminal side. so nothing would change in that regard.

also, the legislation would not change the conditions required before you can use deadly force in your home. you would still have to be reasonably in fear of death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or rape or terminating the unlawful entry when you reasonably believe nothing less than deadly force will terminate it.

really, the bill is more of a "stand your ground" bill than a "castle doctrine" bill. it gets rid of the duty to retreat if you can do so with complete safety outside of your home.

(it does a few other things that aren't really relevant as well.)

[knight0334]

What happened to the proposed introduction of Castle Law to PA? That would radically shift the balance of legality to the homeowner, and place the accountability squarely on the shoulder's of the perpetrator of said home invasion.

PA already has Castle Doctrine for one's home and place of work, nothing really changes with the proposed "Castle Doctrine" bill as to justification. It only removes the burden of having to retreat outside one's home and provides protections from civil suites. You still must be in a life/death/serious bodily injury/rape/kidnapping situation before you can use deadly force no matter where you are in the state.

[son of the revolution]

PA already has Castle Doctrine for one's home and place of work, nothing really changes with the proposed "Castle Doctrine" bill as to justification. It only removes the burden of having to retreat outside one's home and provides protections from civil suites. You still must be in a life/death/serious bodily injury/rape/kidnapping situation before you can use deadly force no matter where you are in the state.

Which is why it should really be called a " Stand your Ground " bill, IIRC the language is even taken from Florida's existing Stand Your Ground legislation

[knight0334]

Which is why it should really be called a " Stand your Ground " bill, IIRC the language is even taken from Florida's existing Stand Your Ground legislation

Yep.. SYG is really all this bill is. Florida had Castle Doctrine before the now infamous Stand Your Ground provision was added just a couple years ago.

FL's prior, and PA's present "Castle Doctrine" is virtually the same. In FL you could use deadly force to stop a "forcible felony", which burglary is(theft from under a roof). In PA, you can use deadly force to stop an unlawful intrusion if a felony is committed(see 18.507.(c)(4)(ii)(B)).

[cadence2arms]

Everyone on here should be contacting reps. to get this passed!

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ease-read.html

If you haven't yet, it's time to start.

[anonymouse]

Question that's kind of on this topic...

Where is "force" defined? "Deadly Force" is defined in §501 as:

Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

But where is "force" defined, or what is its definition?

[JCWohlschlag]

I was under the impression that HB 40 (and the accompanying SB 842) does change the justification simply by creating a legal presumption that deadly force is necessary for anyone who unlawfully and forcefully enters your home or vehicle (with certain exceptions). Subsection (b)(2.1) and (b)(2.4) of the “HB 40”-fied version of the statute (which can be found here) cover this change.

This legal presumption, along with the removal of the duty to retreat from any place you have a right to be [(b)(2.3)], also known as the “stand your ground” portion, and the immunity from civil liability, are the three major factors of the bill.

[cheeseburger1976]

How about the use of deadly force when attacked while in your vechicle? If I am in my car in a parking lot with my seatbelt on, waiting for someone and another person walks up to the car (it could be a pissed off ex-coworker,for example),opens the driver side door and starts screaming,yelling and punching you. What could be legally done to defend yourself? It would be pretty damn hard to unbuckle yourself, jump over the console and excape thru the passenger side door and just as hard to start your car and drive away while trying to fend off the assialiant. Also, if you did get the car started, you could endanger others because you dont have full control of the vechicle. Does anyone think lethal force would be acceptable in this situation?

I thought of this same scenario, but with my 3 yr old strapped in the car seat, is there a definition on this subject?