Results 1 to 10 of 99
-
November 4th, 2013, 04:54 PM #1Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
-
Leesport,
Pennsylvania
(Berks County) - Posts
- 51
- Rep Power
- 214772
"Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
-
November 4th, 2013, 04:58 PM #2Grand Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
-
South East of disorder
- Posts
- 3,598
- Rep Power
- 21474853
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
Two more out of the Criminal gene Pool !!!
Aggies Coach Really ??? Take off the tin foil bro.
-
November 4th, 2013, 05:32 PM #3
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
Sadly, and hopefully I'm wrong and it turns out someone was threatened outside the store but I can see this going either way and charges being filed again an over zealous gun owner.
-
November 4th, 2013, 05:33 PM #4Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246704
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
He is a HERO
Take his gun? Should replace it with keys to the city
-
November 4th, 2013, 05:36 PM #5
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
I am not a fan of more laws but one thing we need is a "Buy that man a Beer law".
The USA is now a banana republic. Only without the bananas....or the Republic.
-
November 4th, 2013, 05:40 PM #6
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
Two dead armed robbers. A good day.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
-
November 4th, 2013, 05:41 PM #7
-
November 4th, 2013, 06:05 PM #8
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
An interesting read for you.. This case was cited as late as 2005 in other cases and hasn't been changed as far as I know of.
COMMONWEALTH v. CHERMANSKY (05/21/68)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
decided: May 21, 1968.
COMMONWEALTH
v.
CHERMANSKY, APPELLANT
Appeal from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Montgomery County, Feb. T., 1966, No. 294, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John Phillip Chermansky.
COUNSEL
James R. Caiola, for appellant.
Arthur L. Jenkins, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, with him Richard A. Devlin and Henry T. Crocker, Assistant District Attorneys, and Richard S. Lowe, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Eagen. Mr. Justice Jones dissents.
Author: Eagen
[ 430 Pa. Page 172]
John Phillip Chermansky was convicted by a jury in Montgomery County of murder in the second degree. A motion for a new trial was dismissed and a prison sentence of two and one-half to ten years was imposed. Chermansky appeals from the judgment.
It is urged that, viewing the trial testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a finding of murder cannot be sustained or, in the event this position is not affirmed, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The prosecution arose as the result of the fatal shooting of Marcelle Hardison at about 2:30 a.m. on March 19, 1966, on a public street near Chermansky's home. The Commonwealth's evidence at trial that Chermansky fired the fatal shot with a deer rifle was not challenged, but it was asserted that the killing was accidental or, if intentional, justifiable.
Chermansky testified that, while sleeping in his home, he was awaked by a noise; that he found a set of double doors on the side of his house pushed in about eight inches and kept from opening completely by an attached chain; that, upon looking out a window, he saw an unknown individual come out of an alleyway adjacent to his home and proceed to a house across the street, where "he started fixing around the windows"; that the individual then ran into an alley-way as an automobile came down the street; that shortly thereafter he saw this same individual ". . . monkeying around the windows" of another house across the street; that he sent his son out the back door of his home to notify the police; that he secured his rifle, opened the front door and went out on the doorstep, intending to restrain the prowler until the police arrived; that the prowler then started to run and he yelled "Halt or I'll shoot"; that, when the prowler continued
[ 430 Pa. Page 173]
to run, he fired a shot in the direction of a tree, intending not to kill or injure the prowler, but only to frighten him.
Justifiable Homicide
A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. Commonwealth v. Micuso, 273 Pa. 474, 117 A. 211 (1922); Commonwealth v. Long, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 641 (1901); 2 Trickett, The Law of Crimes in Pennsylvania 683 (1908). And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. See Commonwealth v. Micuso, supra; 2 Trickett, supra. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.
The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today. Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law. Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has
[ 430 Pa. Page 174]
committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A.2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct.
That the trial court correctly and fairly instructed the jury on the law is not challenged. In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict, Chermansky apparently assumes that, since his explanation of the killing was not contradicted at trial, it must be accepted as true and the killing declared justifiable as a matter of law. This position is incorrect.
Firstly, the truthfulness of Chermansky's testimony was for the jury to determine. Even though it was uncontradicted, the jury still had the right to accept it totally, to believe part of it or to reject it completely. Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246, 199 A.2d 411 (1964). Secondly, the intentional taking of human life is presumed to be unlawful and the burden of proving otherwise is upon him who attempts to justify it. Commonwealth v. Wilkes, supra. In other words, justifiable homicide is an affirmative defense.
[ 430 Pa. Page 175]
a lawful one; [2] it must be done with reasonable care and due regard for the lives and persons of others; and [3] the killing must be accidental and not intentional, or without unlawful intent, or without evil design or intention on the part of the slayer. All these elements must concur and the absence of any one of them will involve in guilt. Even though the homicide is unintentional, it is not excusable where it is the result or incident of an unlawful act, such as pointing or presenting a gun, pistol or other firearm at another person in such a manner as to constitute an offense under the laws of the state, or unlawfully striking another with an intent to hurt, although not with an intent to kill, or driving an automobile at an unlawful rate of speed': 30 C.J., page 87, sec. 269." See also, Commonwealth v. Pavillard, 421 Pa. 571, 220 A.2d 807 (1966).
In the absence of justification for the killing, the jury was warranted in finding it resulted from the performance of an unlawful act, i.e., pointing and firing a firearm at another person. Hence the killing was not excusable.
We find no error of law in the record and no abuse of discretion by the court below in refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Disposition
Judgment affirmed.Last edited by knight0334; November 5th, 2013 at 01:08 PM.
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!
-
November 4th, 2013, 06:15 PM #9
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has
committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A.2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct.
No wonder they don't want guns in DC.
-
November 4th, 2013, 08:07 PM #10Super Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
-
Southern York County,
Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 849
- Rep Power
- 15373428
Re: "Private Citizen" shoots pair of armed robbery suspects in Reading
Good guys 2
Bad guys 0
Maybe the next armed robber will think twice before he takes something that is not his!
Similar Threads
-
What do YOU think is "good enough" pistol skills for an armed citizen ?
By Shawn.L in forum Training, Tactics & CompetitionReplies: 316Last Post: April 8th, 2012, 09:32 AM -
"Armed Senior Citizen"
By Bruce Eimer in forum GeneralReplies: 16Last Post: November 23rd, 2009, 08:04 AM -
NRA "Armed Citizen" report- Delaware!
By arks in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: February 18th, 2009, 02:37 PM -
ABC’s "20/20" Seeking "Armed Citizen" Stories
By NineseveN in forum GeneralReplies: 5Last Post: April 8th, 2007, 07:09 AM
Bookmarks