Question on the Castle Doctrine (Stand your ground) in PA

[Dennis42]

So I would like to get some feedback on the Castle doctrine (Stand your ground law) as it pertains to a real life scenario. My question is two parted:

1. If an angry man aggressively enters a place of business that you are patronizing and is verbally threatening and then gets physically aggressive with an employee tearing the shirt off the employee would the employee been covered under the stand your ground act and pull and use his weapon on this person? OR…

2. If a patron attempts to intervene and the person turns his aggression on the patron and the patron has a CCW permit is this a case of stand your ground or is the patron acting outside the law by initiating contact with the aggressor?

I think it would be beneficial to discuss these scenarios. I have read the law and while it is pretty clear on home invasion, I think there are a lot of variables when it comes to being outside the home. I would just like to get as much information as I can get. I plan on taking a course but would like to hear some feedback. Thanks in advance for your insight and comments.

[Svickstc]

So I would like to get some feedback on the Castle doctrine (Stand your ground law) as it pertains to a real life scenario. My question is two parted:

1. If an angry man aggressively enters a place of business that you are patronizing and is verbally threatening and then gets physically aggressive with an employee tearing the shirt off the employee would the employee been covered under the stand your ground act and pull and use his weapon on this person? OR…

If the man feels his life is in threat of serious bodily harm or at risk of death than yes


2. If a patron attempts to intervene and the person turns his aggression on the patron and the patron has a CCW permit is this a case of stand your ground or is the patron acting outside the law by initiating contact with the aggressor?

Depending on the situation really, what you outline is to vague to make a judgement call on use of deadly force, but the person would have to be getting beaten pretty badly once again in serious threat of bodily harm or danger or life one may intervene and use deadly force as well as other instances....just Read the castle doctrine yourself, instead of asking two vague scenerios that could play out a 1000 different ways...its better to understand the law and apply it then to ask specific scenerios and try to understand it in terms of two scenerios and applying that across the board

I think it would be beneficial to discuss these scenarios. I have read the law and while it is pretty clear on home invasion, I think there are a lot of variables when it comes to being outside the home. I would just like to get as much information as I can get. I plan on taking a course but would like to hear some feedback. Thanks in advance for your insight and comments.

IANL and those are my quick responses in a nutshell

[Sir Knight]

To the best of my knowledge, the Castle Doctrine specifically states that the attacker is to be armed and there is no provision for disparity of force. So, the Castle Doctrine law(s) would not having any bearing for the situations that you described.

[yeager484]

To the best of my knowledge, the Castle Doctrine specifically states that the attacker is to be armed and there is no provision for disparity of force. So, the Castle Doctrine law(s) would not having any bearing for the situations that you described.

So an 80lb grandmother can't shoot a 280lb unarmed attacker bludgeoning her with his hands and feet?

Not sure if I read your interpretation of castle doctrine correctly. I mean no condescension, just portraying another scenario.

[Svickstc]

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=0040

take a look for yourself, i was not under the impression the attacker needs to be armed with a weapon, as a professional boxer's fist may be considered one honestly

[yeager484]

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

Talk about ambiguous. There were about 700 deaths from hands and feet last year.

[Svickstc]

Talk about ambiguous. There were about 700 deaths from hands and feet last year.

why you need a good laywer and make sure you are within the lines of use of deadly force, and remember that jury who will be trying you

[bigandy1966]

IANAL
In the instance of situation #1 or #2, If you believe the employee or yourself is in danger of serious bodily harm and or death, you may defend him or her. However, you would have to prove this before a court of law. Castle Doctrine would not apply here because you are not in your House ("Castle"). Read up on these laws here:

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...lf-protection/
http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...other-persons/

[gummy jones]

i have read the castle doctrine and feel that if the attacker doesnt have a weapon and you intervene by immediately shooting them you will have a rough time in today's backasswards court system.

the caveat is if someone is incapacitated and the attacker is stomping their face.

my first choice would be a haymaker.

[knight0334]

You first need to understand the principle of "necessary force". While that term isn't coded into PA law, it does have a bearing as to what you are allowed to do.

Is deadly force necessary to stop a situation?
Is your life, or the life of another, in immediate threat?

Asking yourself those two questions will more often than not give you the answer you need.

Just because someone, or yourself, is getting man-handled, it doesn't open the door to busting a cap in someone. Yes, you can stand your ground, but that doesn't mean you can go straight to some trigger time. There are times you may be able to draw your gun and aim just to de-escalate the situation that may not warrant shooting.

You should only use "necessary force" to protect yourself or the life of another. Necessary force is only what is required to protect a life, or to stop the furtherance of a crime.