A Question on when an attacker enters my home.

[NickC.]

Hello,

my first post here. If this question has been answered already, moderators, please direct me to the proper thread.

I live in Delaware County PA. If someone were to enter my home to steal, or inflict harm in any way, as a gun owner what can i do to protect myself under the law to stop the intruder.

Any sites, articles, books you can recommend would be greatly appreciated.

all the best.

[tl_3237]

Good start would be to read the state statutes on deadly force for yourself:

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/

[NickC.]

Good start would be to read the state statutes on deadly force for yourself:

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/

thank you very much.

[G23neverjams]

according to a lawyer friend of mine that lives right by city island, (not that i felt like hearing the 45 minute lecture in such detail, but it was good info) he stated that the key thing to remember is that you should try to only meet force with force. this of course is only related when the situation allows. otherwise, be sure to retreat even when in your own home. you don't technically have to, but to the courts afterwards, it looks better. in any case, if you are able to retreat to an area in your house that you can retreat to SAFELY, try to. if not, put a 180 grain hydra shock in the MOFO's head! lolololol (i'm not saying that as my main advice by the way, don't want anyone giving warnings or any of that BS)

[knight0334]

Here is a general summary of PA's use of deadly force.

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground in PA:

Castle Doctrine - one's home(and place of work in PA): PA does have probably 90% of full blown Castle Doctrine as coded statute, and practices it in common law. You have no duty to retreat from your home or place of work, unless you were the initial aggressor and/or the other person has a lawful right to be there as well. The only thing that PA lacks with true "Castle Doctrine" is the assumption that the person unlawfully entering your home is doing so to do harm. You must believe that you are at immediate risk of serious bodily injury, death, rape or kidnapping before using deadly force. However, there is a provision under the Protection of Property section of law to stop unlawful entries if a felony is committed within a dwelling. And also a PA Supreme Court ruling stating deadly force may be used if all attempts to effect an arrest for a forcible type felony fail(Commonwealth v. Chermansky 1968, reaffirmed in Kopko v. Miller 2005).

Stand Your Ground - anywhere else in PA: PA lacks this type of provision allowing you to meet force with force anywhere. However, PA does grant one's place of work as a extension to the Castle Doctrine. Any place else you must retreat if you can do so "in complete safety" before using force. If you cannot retreat with complete safety, or are faced with immediate deadly force, risk of serious bodily injury, rape, or kidnapping - you may use deadly force to protect yourself.

Protection of Others: You may use force to protect another if they are in the same situation as you would be required to be in before using deadly force as described in the Stand Your Ground section above. Sort of a "in their shoes" type provision.

Civil Liabilities: This is usually added on with "Stand Your Ground" provisions. PA lacks such protections in our laws and you may face civil lawsuits even if the use of force is justified.

[Germothy]

"However, there is a provision under the Protection of Property section of law to stop unlawful entries if a felony is committed within a dwelling."

What does this mean? I want to understand exactly what PA defines as a felony. Does this mean theft of property from the house? So, if I catch a guy stealing my tv and computer in my home and I tell him to stop and he doesn't, I can shoot him? Just want to make sure I understand this.
Thanks

[tl_3237]

FWIW:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502. Burglary



(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.


(b) Defense.--It is a defense to prosecution for burglary that the building or structure was abandoned.


(c) Grading.--

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), burglary is a felony of the first degree.

(2) If the building, structure or portion entered is not adapted for overnight accommodation and if no individual is present at the time of entry, burglary is a felony of the second degree.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition


(a) Movable property.--A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.

Theft is a felony or misdemeanor as defined by:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3903. Grading of theft offenses


(a) Felony of the second degree.--Theft constitutes a felony of the second degree if:

(1) The offense is committed during a manmade disaster, a natural disaster or a war-caused disaster and constitutes a violation of section 3921 (relating to theft by unlawful taking or disposition), 3925 (relating to receiving stolen property), 3928 (relating to unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles) or 3929 (relating to retail theft).

(2) The property stolen is a firearm.

(3) In the case of theft by receiving stolen property, the property received, retained or disposed of is a firearm and the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property.

(4) The property stolen is any amount of anhydrous ammonia.

(a.1) Felony of the third degree.--Except as provided in subsection (a), theft constitutes a felony of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $2,000, or if the property stolen is an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle, or in the case of theft by receiving stolen property, if the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property.


(b) Other grades.--Theft not within subsection (a) or (a.1) of this section, constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, except that if the property was not taken from the person or by threat, or in breach of fiduciary obligation, and:

(1) the amount involved was $50 or more but less than $200 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree; or

(2) the amount involved was less than $50 the offense constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree.

On a personal note, I would never use deadly force to 'arrest' someone who has stolen property as long as there is no reasonable fear of personal injury. Not worth the potential criminal and civil sanctions that may be persued by the criminal or their estate.

[Germothy]

FWIW:





Theft is a felony or misdemeanor as defined by:




On a personal note, I would never use deadly force to 'arrest' someone who has stolen property as long as there is no reasonable fear of personal injury. Not worth the potential criminal and civil sanctions that may be persued by the criminal or their estate.

Thanks for the info. And, yeah, I agree with you whole-heartedly about not using force if there is no reasonable fear of injury. Possibly having killed a man, the hassle of court and legal fees would far outweigh the cost of anything I got in my home. Plus, that is what insurance is for. As long as the BG doesn't try to threaten me or my family.

[knight0334]

"However, there is a provision under the Protection of Property section of law to stop unlawful entries if a felony is committed within a dwelling."

What does this mean? I want to understand exactly what PA defines as a felony. Does this mean theft of property from the house? So, if I catch a guy stealing my tv and computer in my home and I tell him to stop and he doesn't, I can shoot him? Just want to make sure I understand this.
Thanks

Sorta... Read the bold passages below, and pay particular attention to the underlined parts and more so for the red lines.

18 Pa.C.S. § 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; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.
(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.
(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.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:
(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

[NikeBauer21]

On a personal note, I would never use deadly force to 'arrest' someone who has stolen property as long as there is no reasonable fear of personal injury. Not worth the potential criminal and civil sanctions that may be persued by the criminal or their estate.

However, more often than not, if a person is stealing something of yours, they are threatening you with a weapon. I don't know any cases where the suspect came up to the person "Hey, do you mind if I steal your car?".. "Sure, take it, just don't hurt me!". Almost always there is a weapon involved in the persuasion of robbery, hence, taking by force, and more justifiable cause to defend yourself in the situation. You just have to remember, that you aren't defending your property, you are defending yourself against the weapon they are wielding.

IANAL, and every situation is differently presented. But this is just a generalization...