🤔 Homeowner charged with homicide after deadly Stroud Township shooting

[GOYABEAN]

Could it possibly be of the change in administration you know the peasants must remain loyal and the fact of not keeping his mouth zipped !

[pens87pgh]

Castle doctrine should apply, even if the intruders are on their way back out. There are no provisions in PA's law (18 Pa. C.S. § 505) that nullify it based on direction of travel.

Did the intruders "unlawfully and forcefully enter" and were they "present within, a dwelling"? Yes. Case closed.

IMO, the belief that they may be leaving, and the desire to prevent that, while maybe macabre or uncaring, is irrelevant to the legality of killing them pursuant to clear allowances spelled out in statute.

I don't disagree with how the case law "should" work, but shooting at someone in the back, not presenting a threat in TODAY's climate is just suicide.

[spandexlurch]

What I don't get is that police can shoot a fleeing suspect, but not a private citizen that's just been terrorized in their home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[gnbrotz]

I don't disagree with how the case law "should" work, but shooting at someone in the back, not presenting a threat in TODAY's climate is just suicide.

But that's the whole point of the Castle Doctrine being codified. Mere presence of someone unwelcome within the 'castle' IS "presenting a threat".

Short of rape, it's the most intimate intrusion that one can experience.

[GunLawyer001]

What I don't get is that police can shoot a fleeing suspect, but not a private citizen that's just been terrorized in their home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

There's a list of violent felonies that allow the use of deadly force to prevent flight, but none of them appear to apply here.

Castle doctrine should apply, even if the intruders are on their way back out. There are no provisions in PA's law (18 Pa. C.S. § 505) that nullify it based on direction of travel.

Did the intruders "unlawfully and forcefully enter" and were they "present within, a dwelling"? Yes. Case closed.

IMO, the belief that they may be leaving, and the desire to prevent that, while maybe macabre or uncaring, is irrelevant to the legality of killing them pursuant to clear allowances spelled out in statute.

Castle Doctrine creates a rebuttable presumption that you needed to shoot to defend yourself, if the elements are met; the key is "rebuttable". If you tell the cops "they were leaving when I used deadly force", you are in rebuttal territory.

If you might be the suspect, don't talk to cops without a lawyer.

If the FBI is asking you anything, don't talk to them at all. General Flynn missed that memo. So did Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, and thousands of others entrapped into false or misleading statements to the FBI during interrogations by agents trained to entrap them.

Unless you need the FBI to get your kidnapped family back, just don't talk to them. They can lie to you with impunity, you go to jail if you get a date wrong. Why would anyone play that game with those rules?

BTW, watch the movie "Richard Jewell", it accurately depicts the depths to which the FBI agents sank to incriminate a guy who was completely innocent, using a "profile" that they just made up, and asking him to "help us with a training video".

[MARINE DIVISION TWO]

It was dark, I couldn't see, I was scared for my life, talk to my lawyer.

SAY NOTHING ! Instinct is to prove your innocence BUT STFU ! Demand LEGAL Representation Immediatley but respectfully .Officers will try to get you to make a statement BUT DONT !

[bpgood1]

As I ponder this, there is always another point of view. What if this guy is a total wacko, the "intruders" were a couple of confused "kids". Upon the homeowner shouting after they broke in they realized they arent dicking around in an abandoned house, but they have broke in to someone's home. They frantically try to exit as they never intended him any harm and they havent stolen anything. He shoots them in the back over a misunderstanding.
I know the argument will be made that they shouldnt have been there regardless, and I agree, but did one to deserve to die and the other be shot over it? I dont think so. Of course I dont know what happened in the home, and none of you do either. Should be an interesting case to follow

[DennisH82]

IANAL, but from the police post, in the comments section from folks that know this man and that he had someone also break into his house a few years ago and that he was evicted from that home and was squatting in it. The two that broke in were supposedly homeless looking to get warm. His mistake I believe from the charges that they listed for hims was that he left the home and shot again at them when they were leaving. In addition he gave a detailed account of what he did to police which sealed the deal. In my opinion he did everything wrong that this site has been discussing not to do for years. The comment section on the Stroudsberg police page is filled with so many folks that believe opinion and emotion out weighs law. The occasional suggestion that he call police and wait for them or fire warning shots is also spoken there.

[Calzonewdippingsauce]

If you might be the suspect, don't talk to cops without a lawyer.

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

[M404]

Repeat after me:

"............"