Results 1 to 10 of 35
Thread: HOME DEFENSE
-
October 16th, 2007, 06:47 PM #1
HOME DEFENSE
I BOUGHT SOME SHOTGUN SHELLS AT WAL-MART AND THE RETAILER THERE TOLD THAT JUST BECAUSE I HAVE A GUN FOR HOME PROTECTION DOESN'T MEAN THAT I CAN USE DEADLY USE WITH IT IF SOMEONE ENTERS MY HOME WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. IS THIS TRUE? OR DOES THIS PERSON HAVE NO CLUE WHAT'S HE TALKING ABOUT.
-
October 16th, 2007, 06:54 PM #2
Re: HOME DEFENSE
See that button on the left of the keyboard that says "caps" press it.
Then be more specific in your question and we should be able to answer.
Be very afraid of a man with only one gun.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer
-
October 16th, 2007, 07:36 PM #3
Re: HOME DEFENSE
We have the castle law in PA. That means your home is your castle, and you may protect it with deadly force if need be. You have no duty to retreat in your own home and you do not need to see a weapon to use force. Just dont shoot them in the back.
Not as a matter of law, but I dont want to shoot anyone. If I can see clearly and see no weapon I will give a verbal warning. otherwise, if you dont like getting shot dont break into my house.
-
October 16th, 2007, 07:41 PM #4
Re: HOME DEFENSE
-
October 16th, 2007, 07:58 PM #5Active Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
-
East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania
(Monroe County) - Posts
- 116
- Rep Power
- 22
-
October 16th, 2007, 07:59 PM #6
Re: HOME DEFENSE
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...18/00.005..HTM
Read
Try to make your questions more clear next time.
-
October 16th, 2007, 08:05 PM #7
Re: HOME DEFENSE
RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
October 17th, 2007, 09:31 AM #8Grand Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
-
Landenberg,
Pennsylvania
(Chester County) - Age
- 49
- Posts
- 1,136
- Rep Power
- 8168
Re: HOME DEFENSE
I'm going to give you a very brief primer on the use of deadly force in your home in PA, and then I'm going to shut up. I'm not going to answer hypotheticals or "what ifs."
This is a very, very serious topic, and too many people post without even thinking about whether they're right.
PA has a "no duty to retreat" law in your own home unless you are the initial aggressor (you caused the need for deadly force). 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2)(ii)(A).
This is NOT a "castle" law. Don't confuse "castle" with "no duty to retreat." Don't use buzzwords like "castle" to describe a statute. All statutes mean different things, regardless of what they're called. A castle statute in one state may allow deadly force against all intruders, in another it might not. Know the law in your own state; don't just assume that because you heard the word castle you're good to go.
Anyway:
You can't shoot someone simply because they come in your home in PA.
Deadly force, even in your own home, is not legal "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." 18 Pa.C.S. 505(b)(2).
Shooting someone just "because he came in my house" is a damn fine way to go to jail. Are their strong arguments to be made that he wouldn't be in your house for any other reason but to commit a serious crime? Sure. But are you going to get away with popping someone for walking through your front door? Probably not. Remember, there are degrees of homicide. You can act negligently in your use of deadly force and go to jail just as easily as if you intended to kill the guy.The material presented herein is for informational purposes only, is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date, does not constitute legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. You should NOT act or rely on any information in this post or e-mail without seeking the advice of an attorney YOU have retained.
In plain English, while I am an attorney, I'm NOT your attorney, and I'm NOT giving you legal advice.
-
October 17th, 2007, 09:52 AM #9
Re: HOME DEFENSE
Dont forget § 507. Use of force for the protection of property.
"§ 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."
Burglary is a felony, a forcible at that. Really confusing to read, but with the placement of the "or" in certain locations of the text, it excludes following passages there after.Last edited by knight0334; October 17th, 2007 at 09:57 AM.
RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
October 17th, 2007, 09:58 AM #10Grand Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
-
Landenberg,
Pennsylvania
(Chester County) - Age
- 49
- Posts
- 1,136
- Rep Power
- 8168
Re: HOME DEFENSE
"(B) such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a felony in the dwelling."
To show someone committed a burglary you need to be able to show that he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein.
Simply opening a door and walking in isn't enough. Nor is breaking a window or a door. I'm personally aware of at least one case where a fellow is in jail for shooting an intruder for breaking a lock on a glass door and entering.
The other issue is that you still need to show that DEADLY force was necessary (in that it was the only force that would suffice) to stop the commission of the felony that you're talking about.
It looks like an "or" but it really isn't, because of necessity.The material presented herein is for informational purposes only, is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date, does not constitute legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. You should NOT act or rely on any information in this post or e-mail without seeking the advice of an attorney YOU have retained.
In plain English, while I am an attorney, I'm NOT your attorney, and I'm NOT giving you legal advice.
Similar Threads
-
9mm suitable for home defense?
By Zeede in forum GeneralReplies: 29Last Post: October 15th, 2010, 02:11 AM -
Home defense
By bric2000 in forum GeneralReplies: 139Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 12:07 PM -
Worried about Home Defense
By lexington86 in forum GeneralReplies: 47Last Post: April 11th, 2007, 02:51 AM -
New first line of home defense...
By dmg1969 in forum GeneralReplies: 21Last Post: November 8th, 2006, 08:40 AM
Bookmarks