Philadelphia homeowner defends his family and kills a burgler

[TParrish]

"Police continue to search for the second suspect. Officials say Heng will not be charged because he has a right to carry a gun inside his home even though he doesn't have a permit.

In Pennsylvania, a person can be found justified to use force against someone who has broken into their home under the so-called “Castle Doctrine” that was amended in 2011."

Quotes from the first article. Kind of a liberal spin there.

The second srticle seems a bit more neutral. To be honest they both seemed a less tainted than what I have been reading the last several months.

I disagree that there was liberal spin. If anything, the two sentences quoted explained why his actions were legal, and the rest of the article explained why what what he did was the right thing. He was protecting his family from people why worked pretty hard to get into his home, and who also had at least one gun. ALL shootings are investigated.

[XavierBK]

Ive heard that if someone is breaking into your home, and you shoot him in self defense. That it is best to shoot to kill, because if you injure him, he can sue you. And also, you can only fire a weapon if the burglar is armed. Is this true??

That used to be the case, pre-Castle Doctrine.

IANAL but if I recall correctly it protects an individual from being sued in a justified shoot. Also, you can fire if you have a reasonable fear of losing your life.

[xtitan1]

Ive heard that if someone is breaking into your home, and you shoot him in self defense. That it is best to shoot to kill, because if you injure him, he can sue you. And also, you can only fire a weapon if the burglar is armed. Is this true??

This was answered above but I thought I'd add this link to a YouTube video of a 15 minute lecture by Massad Ayoob who, among many other impressive things, has served as an expert witness in many shootings-related court cases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w

The short summary is this taught to me by Jeff Bloovman of Armed Dynamics:

A.O.I.

You may only use lethal force if the aggressor has the following:

ABILITY: They have the physical ability to cause you grave bodily injury*
OPPORTUNITY: They have the opportunity to cause you grave bodily iniury
INTENT: They intend to cause you grave bodily injury

*ln Pennsylvania, "Grave bodily injury" is defined as: Bodily injury which creates [a substantial] any risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

[GunLawyer001]

This was answered above but I thought I'd add this link to a YouTube video of a 15 minute lecture by Massad Ayoob who, among many other impressive things, has served as an expert witness in many shootings-related court cases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w

The short summary is this taught to me by Jeff Bloovman of Armed Dynamics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Bloovman Armed Dynamics

A.O.I.

You may only use lethal force if the aggressor has the following:

ABILITY: They have the physical ability to cause you grave bodily injury*
OPPORTUNITY: They have the opportunity to cause you grave bodily iniury
INTENT: They intend to cause you grave bodily injury

*ln Pennsylvania, "Grave bodily injury" is defined as: Bodily injury which creates [a substantial] any risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Technically, that's incorrect.

It doesn't matter what the attacker actually intends, or if they have the present ability to successfully hurt you.

What matters is what YOU reasonably believe.

That's why you can be excused if you kill someone who had a toy gun, or who only wanted to scare you. It's why cops usually don't go to jail for killing a suspect who had "something" in his hand, but not a gun.

The attacker having a real gun just makes your belief more reasonable. John Dillinger escaped from prison using a bar of soap carved to look like a gun (or so the story goes.)

Appearance trumps reality in lots of areas of life.

[xtitan1]

It doesn't matter what the attacker actually intends, or if they have the present ability to successfully hurt you.

2 things:

For all 3, yes of course this is from the perspective of you, the self-defense shooter, and not from the perspective of the aggressor, so when I say ability, opportunity, or intent, that's from your perspective. I didn't mean you required ESP to know what the aggressor was thinking.

I must disagree, although I am not at all experienced in law, that "the present ability to successfully hurt you" doesn't matter. I would think you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that you were in your right to blow away a quadriplegic who was telling you he was going to beat you to death.

[PhillyVet]

2 things:

For all 3, yes of course this is from the perspective of you, the self-defense shooter, and not from the perspective of the aggressor, so when I say ability, opportunity, or intent, that's from your perspective. I didn't mean you required ESP to know what the aggressor was thinking.

I must disagree, although I am not at all experienced in law, that "the present ability to successfully hurt you" doesn't matter. I would think you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that you were in your right to blow away a quadriplegic who was telling you he was going to beat you to death.

The point is "what would a reasonable person (the victim) believe in the situation".. A reasonable person wouldn't believe a quadriplegic's threat to "beat you to death" was likely to result in "serious bodily injury" therefore you would likely not have a legitimate self defense argument.

If, however, your quadriplegic was controlling a super-robotic arm that was aiming a pistol at you, your fear of serious bodily injury would likely be considered reasonable.

[GunLawyer001]

2 things:

For all 3, yes of course this is from the perspective of you, the self-defense shooter, and not from the perspective of the aggressor, so when I say ability, opportunity, or intent, that's from your perspective. I didn't mean you required ESP to know what the aggressor was thinking.

I must disagree, although I am not at all experienced in law, that "the present ability to successfully hurt you" doesn't matter. I would think you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that you were in your right to blow away a quadriplegic who was telling you he was going to beat you to death.

You may disagree if you wish, but (somewhat ironically) my post is based on the words you used, not what you intended them to mean. The reasonable reader would not have read your post as meaning "from the subjective yet reasonable view of the defender". Actual ability is less important than apparent ability, when evaluating the reasonableness of your belief. In fact, if he looked unarmed, but secretly had a gun nearby that you could not possibly have known about, your self-defense case would be in some trouble.

The point is "what would a reasonable person (the victim) believe in the situation".. A reasonable person wouldn't believe a quadriplegic's threat to "beat you to death" was likely to result in "serious bodily injury" therefore you would likely not have a legitimate self defense argument.

If, however, your quadriplegic was controlling a super-robotic arm that was aiming a pistol at you, your fear of serious bodily injury would likely be considered reasonable.

A much more common example (one not involving advanced bionics or cybernetics) is the attacker with a fake gun, or with his hand in his pocket. The totality of the circumstances matters; if he utters verbal threats, and comes straight at you under circumstances where no legitimate purpose is apparent, and he acts in every way like a man about to shoot you...then the fact that he has no real gun, or no bullets, is irrelevant to the reasonableness of your belief that he was about to shoot you.

The paraplegic example is one I use in "duty to retreat" discussions, where you're attacked by a man in a wheelchair who's holding a club, and you have the option to safely retreat by stepping backwards and up onto some steps, where (in the absence of a ramp) he could not follow. Given the choices of shooting him dead or stepping back and up a couple of stairs, I'd recommend the latter.

Usually, however, retreat is an uncertain option. Even a guy with a knife could throw it, and retreat often requires you to turn your back on the threat.

[xtitan1]

You may disagree if you wish, but (somewhat ironically) my post is based on the words you used, not what you intended them to mean. The reasonable reader would not have read your post as meaning "from the subjective yet reasonable view of the defender". Actual ability is less important than apparent ability, when evaluating the reasonableness of your belief. In fact, if he looked unarmed, but secretly had a gun nearby that you could not possibly have known about, your self-defense case would be in some trouble.



A much more common example (one not involving advanced bionics or cybernetics) is the attacker with a fake gun, or with his hand in his pocket. The totality of the circumstances matters; if he utters verbal threats, and comes straight at you under circumstances where no legitimate purpose is apparent, and he acts in every way like a man about to shoot you...then the fact that he has no real gun, or no bullets, is irrelevant to the reasonableness of your belief that he was about to shoot you.

The paraplegic example is one I use in "duty to retreat" discussions, where you're attacked by a man in a wheelchair who's holding a club, and you have the option to safely retreat by stepping backwards and up onto some steps, where (in the absence of a ramp) he could not follow. Given the choices of shooting him dead or stepping back and up a couple of stairs, I'd recommend the latter.

Usually, however, retreat is an uncertain option. Even a guy with a knife could throw it, and retreat often requires you to turn your back on the threat.

After reading both what PhillyVet and GunLawyer001 have said, I think all 3 of us are actually in agreement about the law.

Maybe I should have stipulated that the A.O.I. thing was from you, the self-defense shooter's perspective at the time you did the self-defense shooting, but I thought that was understood by all. My mistake if that wasn't, but that's what I meant.

I agree that if the guy had a fake gun, but you within reason at the time you shot him believed it was real and he was trying to use it to harm you, then that's defensible. I also agree that if you shoot the guy and he had a gun, but that was somehow unbeknownst to you at the time, then you are on shaky ground to say the least.

When you said the "present ability of the attacker to hurt you", I automatically assumed you meant as you the self-defense shooter perceived it (at least I'm consistent in my assumptions!), in which case I thought you were wrong to say it was irrelevant. I guess you meant in 20-20 hindsight would a jury reasonably deem the attacker had "the present ability", but in the past, to hurt you, regardless of whether you could have known or not, but you failed to say that and that is a weird way to put it.

My point was that you, as the self defense shooter, must have the reasonable perception that the attacker has the present ability to hurt you in order to be justified in shooting the attacker. This of course is in addition to the other two (Opportunity, Intent), also within reason and from your perspective at the time you pulled the trigger.

[BBS]

Left a lengthy reply to the first article. Slandering responsible gun owners seems to be the motif for liberal sites these days.