Results 1 to 10 of 19
-
February 17th, 2009, 09:21 AM #1
Shooting in Johnstown after break in
The guy whos house was broken into is being charged also. I can see why he was being charged after shooting the bulgar after he was leaving and the cops were already there. Read this article its a good one.
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/loca...047234434.html
-
February 17th, 2009, 09:53 AM #2Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
-
state college,
Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 35
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
The title of this led me to believe you were looking for a place in Johnstown to shoot after breaking in a new gun....Doh
-
February 17th, 2009, 10:21 AM #3
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
Apparently this idiot pursued the badguy and shot at him even after the police were in chase and nearly hit the officer involved in the foot chase. ...Which, even figuring Commonwealth v. Chermansky, subsections 507 and 508, and all common law powers/rights - he was wrong to do so.
Had the officer not been there, he'd probably been close to justified (fleeing felon, all attempts to effect an arrest failed, etc).
I say book'm..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, SteveWag
Don't end up in my signature!
-
February 17th, 2009, 10:23 AM #4
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
Homeowner will walk free.
Cops didn't feel like deciding who was and wasn't guilty, it's not their job. But when this gets in front of a Johnstown jury, it's going to boil down to peckerhead broke into someone's home, homeowner warned him, peckerhead didn't leave fast enough and and got shot at.
If it even gets in front of a jury."Never give up, never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
-
February 17th, 2009, 10:57 AM #5
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
According to the atricle the homeowner was defending his property.
Sounds like a raw deal for the homeowner.
Title 18, §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 sub¬paragraph (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 cre¬ate 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.
EdFeedBack: https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.p...ight=edstephan
An OathKeeper and OC Activist, 1 of the 3%, Ed Stephan
-
February 17th, 2009, 11:30 AM #6
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
The problem here is... he shot at the guy while on his property, and after chasing him off while behind an officer. Which he nearly hit the officer. The putting the LEO in danger is what most of the charges are about.
The officer had the lead and was behind badguy, the homeowner was behind the officer. Since an officer was involved already, he can hardly claim "fleeing felon".
I'm all for shooting fleeing felons, but once an officer is involved in such an area were assistance would be just a couple minutes away to effect an arrest - you really cant justify a fleeing perp shoot, protect of property, or self defense - unless the big four were immediately at hand: murder, serious bodily injury, rape or kidnapping.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, SteveWag
Don't end up in my signature!
-
February 17th, 2009, 11:38 AM #7
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
Burglary suspect, homeowner both face charges
BY PATRICK BUCHNOWSKI
The Tribune-Democrat
An alleged burglar – and the owner of the home police say he broke into – both face charges after shots were fired during an incident Monday on Horner Street in Johnstown.
There were no injuries in the shooting, and the man police say owns the home and did the shooting is being held on $1 million bond.
Earl Rexford Carnahan, 45, was charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and discharging a firearm.
The alleged burglar – Willie J. Gates, 38, of Fronheiser Street – was charged with criminal trespass, resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and possessing an instrument of crime.
Both men were sent to the Cambria County jail after being arraigned by on-call District Judge Max Pavlovich of Richland Township.
Gates is being held on $100,000 bond.
In a court document, police said they were called to a burglary in progress in the 200 block of Horner Street at 1:42 a.m.
Officer Donald Robertson said that when he arrived, he saw a man wearing a ski mask running from the house.
Robertson said he began chasing the suspect – later identified as Gates – then heard a shot fired and saw Carnahan standing nearby with a handgun.
Carnahan told police he had fired “twice while Gates was in the residence.”
When police later examined the weapon they found three rounds missing.
Officer Eric Gelles said when he reviewed the 911 tape he could hear Carnahan yelling “get out of here or I’ll shoot you.”
Two shots were heard and then the third shot shortly after Robertson arrived at the scene.
Gates was captured on the 200 block of Pine Street.
-
February 17th, 2009, 11:53 AM #8Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
-
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
(Allegheny County) - Age
- 53
- Posts
- 7,320
- Rep Power
- 37698
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
you have to differentiate between *force* and *deadly force* in reading that statute.
(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 sub¬paragraph (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.
the entry had already been terminated, so clearly 4.i.c was not met (which means all of 4.i was not met).
the bad guy was not trying to dispossess the homeowner of his home, so 4.ii.A was not met.
at the point of the 3rd shot, the homeowner was not preventing a felony in the dwelling...so 4.ii.B is out.
thus, it seems that none of the conditions allowing for the use of deadly force were met for the 3rd shot.
-
February 17th, 2009, 12:42 PM #9
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
The real problem is that the guy shot at him 2 times in his house and didnt hit him. He needs a class or 2 in shooting.
-
February 17th, 2009, 07:15 PM #10
Re: Shooting in Johnstown after break in
And the homeowner gets $1,000.000 bond, while the burglar/ invader gets $100,000??????
Did the homeowner chase the guy down the block, or fire from the doorway as the officer was pulling up?
Yeah, he shouldn't have continued once the guy was outside, but YOU try turning off the adrenaline after you just faced down a BG in your own home."...a REPUBLIC, if you can keep it."
Similar Threads
-
Johnstown Wal-Mart
By USMC SGT in forum GeneralReplies: 42Last Post: July 7th, 2009, 01:03 PM -
my helicopter ride to JOHNSTOWN
By 1861 in forum GeneralReplies: 21Last Post: October 6th, 2008, 05:42 PM -
Johnstown area..
By knight0334 in forum GeneralReplies: 14Last Post: November 28th, 2007, 03:35 AM -
Johnstown area get together
By PA Highlander in forum GeneralReplies: 128Last Post: October 21st, 2007, 11:18 PM -
Gander Mt. in JOhnstown.
By Stooperzero in forum GeneralReplies: 6Last Post: October 17th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Bookmarks