does the castle doctrine extend to a car in your driveway?

[DennisH82]

CL tried to rep you but I can't yet, e-tool decapitation , loved that little Gem

Let's look at this logically, you are in your home and somehow you hear someone breaking into your car. You exit your home just to see what's up and your are armed. Let's say 99% of car thieves are young kids/ men who run like little girls when confronted by someone catching them in the act. You don shoot them or at them, you don't chase them till you have a heart attack, you call the police and give them a good description.
The 1% that are hard core thieves, crackheads, ex wives/girlfriends or just drunk you confront tell them to stop, still have family call 911. If they are that whacked out that they think they can Assualt, stab, beat or other wise disarm you then you have a few choices to make and also some consequences to live with depending on your choices.
You work hard for what you own, your loved ones are worth more than the product of a faulty condom or a late withdrawal. Taking a life is a very difficult decission as it should be regardless if the intended threat is a waste of flesh or a misguided fool.
Depending on police to get there in time regardless of how you feel about Leo 's is really just a waste of time. Most times they will get there and if you're armed you will get proned out, tossed in the back seat or shot unless you handle yourself calmly and safely. Hiding in your home peeking from behind the blinds waiting for the 911 operator in New Dehli to answer the phone get the right address, the correct story and actually notify police is never the right answer. But storming out like one man Assualt squad will usually end up on YouTube or in the obituary.

[CaliRefugee]

Holy cow, talk about fully indoctrinated, the government is here to save you statement if I ever read one.

Well Mr. Cali, you do realize that in PA, the use of force is legal to protect property. You do know that right?

Dude, take it easy. You're already making assumptions about me based on where I'm from. That would be North Texas originally, if you have to ask, but I'm sure you knew that too before I posted.

Yes, I am more than aware of this fact. What I'm talking about is what control you have over a situation and whether it's worth it to engage relative to what you will lose and your risk. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because you can doesn't mean you shouldn't, either. Every situation is different, and one has to assess that situation as clearly and dispassionately as possible. If someone is sure they can make this assessment properly, then they should act. Can someone do this when their adrenaline is running high and it's dark and maybe they don't have their tactical flashlight or night sights or flash suppression for the first shot that will impair their vision for the next one? Maybe, maybe not. Unless I know all of that, then I won't engage them. Perhaps a salt load into the ground from a 12 gauge out of sight would intimidate someone into getting lost. If I thought I could pull that off, then I might consider it.

Again - if you can't fully and properly assess the situation, is it worth putting your life at risk? Everyone has to decide that themselves, and I believe you should default to no until you can know to a high enough degree of certainty.

Empowering those who are criminals by backing down is not the answer. Though it sounds good and politically correct to call the government to file a report, thereby supporting a loss claim with an insurance company, stopping the criminal activity is the preferred agenda by many thousands of Citizens in this country.

Oh, believe me, I think it's a great example to other thugs that the two aspiring rappers up in Reading holding up the convenience store found out what happens when armed citizenry decides to do the right thing. That's even when that armed citizen gave them the chance to surrender and they were in the process of drawing on the guy before he Swiss cheesed them. In that case, he had the tactical advantage because he came upon his friend running the convenience store and had drawn prior to the aspiring rappers being able to respond.

These are good examples. We need more of these so there can be less total incidents. Even in this case, there was a risk of something going south, but calculated well enough that (a) he was aware of his surroundings in the daytime, and (b) he was defending his friend's life. Much more at stake.

I welcome you to a FREE AMERICA Mr. Cali!

In PA and AZ, we don't follow Cali laws like in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yCd-Swxow


CL

Just remember that I'm on your side in this one. I just don't want to play cowboy unless I know I can be the last man standing or unless I don't have a choice in the matter. If I know that, then I'll do it. If I can't, then I want to know what I'm risking is worth it. That's all.

[customloaded]

Dude, take it easy. You're already making assumptions about me based on where I'm from. That would be North Texas originally, if you have to ask, but I'm sure you knew that too before I posted.

Yes, I am more than aware of this fact. What I'm talking about is what control you have over a situation and whether it's worth it to engage relative to what you will lose and your risk. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because you can doesn't mean you shouldn't, either. Every situation is different, and one has to assess that situation as clearly and dispassionately as possible. If someone is sure they can make this assessment properly, then they should act. Can someone do this when their adrenaline is running high and it's dark and maybe they don't have their tactical flashlight or night sights or flash suppression for the first shot that will impair their vision for the next one? Maybe, maybe not. Unless I know all of that, then I won't engage them. Perhaps a salt load into the ground from a 12 gauge out of sight would intimidate someone into getting lost. If I thought I could pull that off, then I might consider it.

Again - if you can't fully and properly assess the situation, is it worth putting your life at risk? Everyone has to decide that themselves, and I believe you should default to no until you can know to a high enough degree of certainty.



Oh, believe me, I think it's a great example to other thugs that the two aspiring rappers up in Reading holding up the convenience store found out what happens when armed citizenry decides to do the right thing. That's even when that armed citizen gave them the chance to surrender and they were in the process of drawing on the guy before he Swiss cheesed them. In that case, he had the tactical advantage because he came upon his friend running the convenience store and had drawn prior to the aspiring rappers being able to respond.

These are good examples. We need more of these so there can be less total incidents. Even in this case, there was a risk of something going south, but calculated well enough that (a) he was aware of his surroundings in the daytime, and (b) he was defending his friend's life. Much more at stake.



Just remember that I'm on your side in this one. I just don't want to play cowboy unless I know I can be the last man standing or unless I don't have a choice in the matter. If I know that, then I'll do it. If I can't, then I want to know what I'm risking is worth it. That's all.

Great Post. I think it's fair and to the point.

Rep to ya,

CL

[allen16323]

What about the use of none/less lethal rounds such as rubber buckshot to stop an auto break in?

[customloaded]

What about the use of none/less lethal rounds such as rubber buckshot to stop an auto break in?

That is an excellent question as I've recently found 12 Gauge rubber shot shells for sale commercially at a Sportsman's Warehouse.

CL

[streaker69]

What about the use of none/less lethal rounds such as rubber buckshot to stop an auto break in?

You're still using deadly force. I don't think the law says anything about type of ammunition used, just the fact that you're using a firearm.

[tl_3237]

What about the use of none/less lethal rounds such as rubber buckshot to stop an auto break in?

That is an excellent question as I've recently found 12 Gauge rubber shot shells for sale commercially at a Sportsman's Warehouse.

CL

You're still using deadly force. I don't think the law says anything about type of ammunition used, just the fact that you're using a firearm.

Actually, "deadly force" can be less than lethal:

"Deadly force." Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

18 PA CS §501

[General Geoff]

By that definition, fists are deadly force.