Question on Use of Force in a Trespass

[Gallo]

This is what the PA Uniform Firearms Act says:

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;


Now this clearly indicates that you may use force to prevent or stop an unlawful entry or trespass upon your land (or home, I believe, since the home is on the private land).

Now the second part:

Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

(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.

So if I am understanding this correctly, you may use force in a trespass provided you first warn that trespasser to desist from continuing, unless the request would be useless (whatever that means), or it would be dangerous to make the request (such as giving away your position, I guess). Now the big punch: however, it is NOT justifiable if the exclusion of the trespasser will expose me to substantial danger or serious bodily injury. Now, I do not know about anybody else but a trespasser who has just made its way into my home has already established the possible existence of substantial danger of serious bodily injury to myself and family. However, in knowing this I am not justified in the use of force according to the above highlighted section. I guess you can only use force as long as the tresspasser does not have a firearm.

Maybe someone can shed light on this and how it relates to the castle position in PA.

[LittleRedToyota]

just remember that "force" and "deadly force" are two different things under PA law. just because you can use "force" to protect property or terminate an unlawful entry does not mean you can shoot someone over it (unless, of course, you are in fear for your life, serious bodily injury, etc.)

This is what the PA Uniform Firearms Act says:

Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

(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.

...

or it would be dangerous to make the request (such as giving away your position, I guess). Now the big punch: however, it is NOT justifiable if the exclusion of the trespasser will expose me to substantial danger or serious bodily injury.

i think you are misreading that section of the statute.

i think the "him" is referring to the trespasser, not you.

in other words, if someone is running for their life, and they come onto your property in the process (maybe to avoid being shot or avoid being mauled by a vicious dog or someting), you have to allow them refuge. you can't kick them off your property to face death.

at least that's how i read it.

(btw, those use of force statutes are not actually part of the UFA. the ACSL has included them on their UFA page as a convenient refernce, but they aren't actually part of the UFA--they are a completely separate chapter under title 18. not that that really makes any difference...)

[US Militiaman]

^ Thats how I read it... + 1 (I think...i'm new to this rep thing)....

The only thing is that you don't have to allow them refuge, you just can't forcibly remove them and throw them to the dogs/angry mob/whatever threat exists that would face them should you forcibly remove them. They are still breaking the law and can be prosecuted for it.

I believe this is for property...not in your house. If they are in your house, the Castle Doctrine applies.

[GunLawyer001]

.....
(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.[/COLOR]

.......Now the big punch: however, it is NOT justifiable if the exclusion of the trespasser will expose me to substantial danger or serious bodily injury. Now, I do not know about anybody else but a trespasser who has just made its way into my home has already established the possible existence of substantial danger of serious bodily injury to myself and family. However, in knowing this I am not justified in the use of force according to the above highlighted section. I guess you can only use force as long as the tresspasser does not have a firearm.

Maybe someone can shed light on this and how it relates to the castle position in PA.

You're misreading the text, it's intended to say that you can't remove a trespasser if THE TRESPASSER will be exposed "to substantial danger of serious bodily injury". The classic case is a guy on a boat who ties his boat to your dock without permission, because there's a hurricane about to hit. If you force him to leave, the hurricane will likely sink his boat and take him with it, so he's justified in trespassing on your dock.
Other examples would be a guy hiding in your back yard because a lynch mob is after him, or someone trespassing onto your porch because a stray dog is trying to get him.

[Hawk]

OK, I have a question regarding these laws. What rights do I have to protect my property from intentional damage? Say for instance my car is parked in my driveway and someone decides to key the paint or kick in the door panel? Would it make a difference if the cars parked in the street or a public parking lot? What if someone from the street is throwing stones at my homes windows? Do I have the right in the above scenario's to forcefully stop them in order to protect my property?

[Wynder]

OK, I have a question regarding these laws. What rights do I have to protect my property from intentional damage? Say for instance my car is parked in my driveway and someone decides to key the paint or kick in the door panel? Would it make a difference if the cars parked in the street or a public parking lot? What if someone from the street is throwing stones at my homes windows? Do I have the right in the above scenario's to forcefully stop them in order to protect my property?

From my understanding, you have the right to use force to defend your property.

You may use deadly force to prevent entry into your home, assault, rape, murder or other forms of serious physical harm in your home if you reasonably believe it's needed to prevent the entry or attack.

[pex]

The use of force is required to be immediately necessary.

[Gallo]

Thanks everyone for clearing that up. I did misread into it.

GunLawyer001's post clarified the difference in the use of the language of Title 18 when applying the term "Use of Force" and the term "Use of Deadly Force". This became more clear in understanding that property does NOT use the term "Use of Deadly Force", while the protection of self or another person does. Now I can at least understand why you are asked to comply with giving up your possessions such as in a carjacking and not justified for protecting your property by the use of deadly force (your firearm).

I know that this may be elementary for some, however, for new gunowners like myself, an understanding of the law can make the difference in having to pay for the recovery of your property with jail time.

However, this being said, I understand that the field is balanced when there is no safe retreat and the law on self protection is established: The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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;

So a carjacker who jumps into the backseat and does not ask you to exit the vehicle would fall under the definition of kidnapping. The use of deadly force is then justifiable. The command to get out the car alone is not justifiable, if I am reading this right. However, the gray area is what happens once you are out of the car, and whether or not you consider your life to still be in danger against death or serious bodily injury by the actions that proceed after you have exited the vehicle.

Thanks again everyone for your posts. They are very helpful.

[LittleRedToyota]

I know that this may be elementary for some, however, for new gunowners like myself, an understanding of the law can make the difference in having to pay for the recovery of your property with jail time.

this stuff is *extremely* important...whether you are a new gun owner or not. and it it good even for those who have discussed the issues many times to do so again from time to time.

it is good that you asked your questions...they are extremely important questions.

most people just make assumptions instead of asking questions...and doing so is a recipe for disaster.

one thing to keep in mind, however, is that ultimately every individual case is settled in court based on the totality of the circumstances in that case as well as based on the judge's, juriy's, etc. interpretation of the law--there are no guarantees going in. so, even if we all come to a concensus here and it makes perfect sense, you still can't be positively sure of what will happen in court. that is just something to always keep in mind.

[Gallo]

From my understanding, you have the right to use force to defend your property.

You may use deadly force to prevent entry into your home, assault, rape, murder or other forms of serious physical harm in your home if you reasonably believe it's needed to prevent the entry or attack.

Wynder,
So you are saying that I can use 'deadly force' to prevent entry into my home? For example, a person attempting to open one of my windows? I guess I must be under the assumption that by preventing the entry I believed that I was protecting myself against death or serious bodily injury.

Maybe this can be also explained...