HB 482 - Home Invasion

[coat4gun]

I have read through this a few times and am having trouble figuring out it's implications. Can anybody figure this out? I am not sure if more narrowly defining home invasion is a good thing or not. It says that my house has to be occupied to consider the crime home invasion. That doesn't sit right with me for some reason. I know Rep. Scott Boyd and he is not one to support anything that I would not.

An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for home invasion.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=0482&pn=0534

[customloaded]

ok, you might want to find in the crimes code where "HOME INVASION" is already on the books. I don't think you will find home invasion. Its still a burglary but if people are home, the criminal, if arrested and convicted, are usually given longer sentences because they committed a burglary while the residence was occupied.

So, legally defining a crime or sentence enhancer for an occupied structure is a good thing. I have not read the proposed law as of yet.

Yup, read your link. Its formally defining "HOME INVASION" as a crime, making this a new law on the books. Personally, I have mixed feelings on this because it will screw some people who are not criminals. Many cases of this type thing happening in other states where a friend or lover enters the house not to commit an offense and are doing 20 plus years in prison....I understand the intent but its lacking in many aspects.

[Statkowski]

The proposal makes it a little bit more of an offense to invade an occupied home.

If the home is not occupied, or the criminal doesn't know it's occupied, then it's just burglary or criminal trespass.

[CoyoteJack]

I have read through this a few times and am having trouble figuring out it's implications. Can anybody figure this out? I am not sure if more narrowly defining home invasion is a good thing or not. It says that my house has to be occupied to consider the crime home invasion. That doesn't sit right with me for some reason. I know Rep. Scott Boyd and he is not one to support anything that I would not.

An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for home invasion.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=0482&pn=0534

IANAL but this somewhat concerns me if it could be twisted to be used against landlords.

[ChamberedRound]

Not sure I like this bill for a few reasons.

First, it's sponsored by many of usual "rogues gallery", which always makes my nose twitch.

Second, IMHO if you're going to define an offense like this, then the "defenses" are BS. If one knowingly invades a home for the intent of committing an offense, that's a home invasion. But it's not a home invasion if one walks in, sees someone home, and walks out without doing anything? Sorry, I don't buy that, as the HOME WAS STILL INVADED. To me, it doesn't make it any less a crime just because they didn't take anything or hurt anyone. I understand there are other offenses defined for such actions, but why not bolster the "man's home is his castle" creedo and just not have the listed exceptions? I'd go so far as to say that such "defenses" actually encourage criminals to attempt to invade someone's home, because if they realize after the fact that someone's in the house, they can get out, even if detected, and only be charged with lesser offenses.

Third, this legislation looks like compromise legislation, or political posturing from the "rogues gallery" to head off a real Castle Doctrine bill that would not only throw the book at a home intruder, but also give the homeowner justification to use deadly force.

[wa3ra]

That's assuming that they CAN get out...if you are armed, and force your way into my house, you are going out on a stretcher or in a bag.

[ChamberedRound]

That's assuming that they CAN get out...if you are armed, and force your way into my house, you are going out on a stretcher or in a bag.

And until a Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law is passed in this state, you could potentially be facing charges. As the law stands today, you don't have a duty to retreat from your own home, but unless any of the following are true:

- your life or the lives of family members or guests are in danger
- you're trying to stop a kidnapping or attempted kidnapping
- you're trying to stop a rape or attempted rape

you don't have legal justification to use deadly force. If you shoot someone who's fleeing your house, armed or not, you'll find yourself in court on assault charges. Likewise, if you shoot someone who sees you and drops their weapon, or who was complying with your commands to stand down, you could also potentially find yourself in some trouble.

[CoyoteJack]

And until a Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law is passed in this state, you could potentially be facing charges. As the law stands today, you don't have a duty to retreat from your own home, but unless any of the following are true:

- your life or the lives of family members or guests are in danger
- you're trying to stop a kidnapping or attempted kidnapping
- you're trying to stop a rape or attempted rape

you don't have legal justification to use deadly force. If you shoot someone who's fleeing your house, armed or not, you'll find yourself in court on assault charges. Likewise, if you shoot someone who sees you and drops their weapon, or who was complying with your commands to stand down, you could also potentially find yourself in some trouble.

You mean to say that there is an obligation on the home owners part to attempt to reason with an armed invader? How many chances are we to give them to drop their weapon before we assume they don't intend to comply?

[Statkowski]

CoyoteJack wrote:
IANAL but this somewhat concerns me if it could be twisted to be used against landlords.

It doesn't need twisting at all. If the landlord enters "your" property without permission, he/she/it is trespassing. If you or someone else is home when it's done, it's home invasion. Essentially, a landlord needs permission to enter the property rented out.

[ChamberedRound]

You mean to say that there is an obligation on the home owners part to attempt to reason with an armed invader? How many chances are we to give them to drop their weapon before we assume they don't intend to comply?

I'm not saying you have to debate the finer points of the world with said intruder, but you better have good reason to believe one of the three items I previously commented on are true. That's not to say that the simple presence of an armed intruder in one's home isn't enough to claim one's life is in danger; it could very well be reason enough. But with the law as it stands today, such a determination would likely be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the decision to charge the homeowner up to the prosecutor or DA's interpretation of the circumstances. With a stronger Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law with civil suit immunity on the books, such a circumstance wouldn't be up for interpretation; the homeowner would be protected.

IMHO we definitely need more solid Castle Doctine / Stand Your Ground protections added to existing law, and I don't believe HB 482 accomplishes that.