Archived Posts » 59,646,491
Our Castle Doctrine in layman's terms? Could someone break it down?
1/4/2012 7:51:01 AM
I read through it and I was hoping some here could lay it out a little better.
Maybe even scenarios, inside my home, outside on my property, in my vehicles....
I understand justification of deadly force. That's always been there.
So what exactly changed? Other then not being held civil liable if it's a good shot.
Maybe even scenarios, inside my home, outside on my property, in my vehicles....
I understand justification of deadly force. That's always been there.
So what exactly changed? Other then not being held civil liable if it's a good shot.
1/4/2012 10:28:15 AM
Here, try this:
Castle Doctrine summary
Here is Rep Metcalfe Castle Doctrine summary in little hand dandy one page tri fold flier
Print this PDF out, then you got your own copy to pass out to help educate people
PDF link for printable version
From Rep Metcalfe's Castle Doctrine summary
HB 40 now known as Act 10 of 2011
Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle
Doctrine, addresses the right to use
force, including deadly force, in self
defense and the defense of others. It
contains several topics dealing with
self defense, including:
• Use of force in a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle,
• Use of force outside a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, and
• Limits on lawsuits for legal use of
force.
This is intended as a short overview
of the Castle Doctrine legislation and
is not a complete explanation of the
law as it relates to the use of deadly
force in self defense.
USE OF FORCE IN
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker”
or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the “attacker” or “intruder.”
NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of
the following apply:
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident
or has a right to be in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent,
grandparent or other guardian removing
a child from the dwelling, residence
or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a
law enforcement officer engaged in the
performance of his duties; OR
• the “attack” or “intrusion” is related
to criminal activity in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an
“attacker” breaks into a home to steal
drugs from a drug dealer).
USE OF FORCE OUTSIDE
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
Outside a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle,
the Castle Doctrine legislation eliminates
the duty to retreat and a person can “stand his
ground and use force,” including deadly force,
in self defense, if ALL of the following apply:
• the person has a right to be in the place
he/she was attacked;
• the person has a reasonable belief that the
use of force is immediately necessary to
protect against imminent death, serious
injury, kidnapping or rape;
• the person is not illegally possessing a firearm;
• the person is not engaged in criminal activity;
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon; AND
• the “attacker” is not a law enforcement officer
engaged in the performance of his
duties.
LIMITS ON LAW SUITS FOR
LEGAL USE OF FORCE
Any person who legally uses force in
self defense is entitled to protection
against civil lawsuits by his/her “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker”.
This protection allows the person to
recover attorney fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income if:
• the person uses force in compliance
with Pennsylvania law;
• the person is sued by the “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker” for an
injury to the “attacker” as a result of
that force; AND
• the person wins the lawsuit.
WHERE CAN I FIND THE FULL TEXT OF
THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE ” LEGISLATION ?
Act 10 of 2011 was signed into law on
June 28, 2011. Specific acts and the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
can be viewed on the General Assembly’s
Website: www.legis.state.pa.us.
NOTICE: Neither the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, nor any individual member or employee
thereof, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions
in the material contained in this document, or for the effect
on such material of the subsequent passage or repeal, after its
publication, of legislation dealing with the same subject matter.
Moreover, the above mentioned parties shall not be responsible
for mistakes in the interpretation by any person, of any statutory
provisions or case law decisions thereto. Any user of this document
shall consult with an attorney for advice on interpreting
the material contained herein before taking any action in reliance
thereon, which could affect his or her own rights or the
rights of others.
Castle Doctrine summary
Here is Rep Metcalfe Castle Doctrine summary in little hand dandy one page tri fold flier
Print this PDF out, then you got your own copy to pass out to help educate people
PDF link for printable version
From Rep Metcalfe's Castle Doctrine summary
HB 40 now known as Act 10 of 2011
Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle
Doctrine, addresses the right to use
force, including deadly force, in self
defense and the defense of others. It
contains several topics dealing with
self defense, including:
• Use of force in a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle,
• Use of force outside a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, and
• Limits on lawsuits for legal use of
force.
This is intended as a short overview
of the Castle Doctrine legislation and
is not a complete explanation of the
law as it relates to the use of deadly
force in self defense.
USE OF FORCE IN
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker”
or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the “attacker” or “intruder.”
NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of
the following apply:
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident
or has a right to be in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent,
grandparent or other guardian removing
a child from the dwelling, residence
or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a
law enforcement officer engaged in the
performance of his duties; OR
• the “attack” or “intrusion” is related
to criminal activity in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an
“attacker” breaks into a home to steal
drugs from a drug dealer).
USE OF FORCE OUTSIDE
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
Outside a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle,
the Castle Doctrine legislation eliminates
the duty to retreat and a person can “stand his
ground and use force,” including deadly force,
in self defense, if ALL of the following apply:
• the person has a right to be in the place
he/she was attacked;
• the person has a reasonable belief that the
use of force is immediately necessary to
protect against imminent death, serious
injury, kidnapping or rape;
• the person is not illegally possessing a firearm;
• the person is not engaged in criminal activity;
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon; AND
• the “attacker” is not a law enforcement officer
engaged in the performance of his
duties.
LIMITS ON LAW SUITS FOR
LEGAL USE OF FORCE
Any person who legally uses force in
self defense is entitled to protection
against civil lawsuits by his/her “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker”.
This protection allows the person to
recover attorney fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income if:
• the person uses force in compliance
with Pennsylvania law;
• the person is sued by the “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker” for an
injury to the “attacker” as a result of
that force; AND
• the person wins the lawsuit.
WHERE CAN I FIND THE FULL TEXT OF
THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE ” LEGISLATION ?
Act 10 of 2011 was signed into law on
June 28, 2011. Specific acts and the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
can be viewed on the General Assembly’s
Website: www.legis.state.pa.us.
NOTICE: Neither the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, nor any individual member or employee
thereof, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions
in the material contained in this document, or for the effect
on such material of the subsequent passage or repeal, after its
publication, of legislation dealing with the same subject matter.
Moreover, the above mentioned parties shall not be responsible
for mistakes in the interpretation by any person, of any statutory
provisions or case law decisions thereto. Any user of this document
shall consult with an attorney for advice on interpreting
the material contained herein before taking any action in reliance
thereon, which could affect his or her own rights or the
rights of others.
1/4/2012 3:27:29 PM
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon;
What does display mean? Lifts shirt to show gun or actually draws weapon?
any other deadly weapon;
What does display mean? Lifts shirt to show gun or actually draws weapon?
1/4/2012 10:39:20 PM
Originally Posted By Derf:
Here, try this:
Castle Doctrine summary
Here is Rep Metcalfe Castle Doctrine summary in little hand dandy one page tri fold flier
Print this PDF out, then you got your own copy to pass out to help educate people
PDF link for printable version
From Rep Metcalfe's Castle Doctrine summary
HB 40 now known as Act 10 of 2011
Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle
Doctrine, addresses the right to use
force, including deadly force, in self
defense and the defense of others. It
contains several topics dealing with
self defense, including:
• Use of force in a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle,
• Use of force outside a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, and
• Limits on lawsuits for legal use of
force.
This is intended as a short overview
of the Castle Doctrine legislation and
is not a complete explanation of the
law as it relates to the use of deadly
force in self defense.
USE OF FORCE IN
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker”
or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the “attacker” or “intruder.”
NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of
the following apply:
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident
or has a right to be in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent,
grandparent or other guardian removing
a child from the dwelling, residence
or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a
law enforcement officer engaged in the
performance of his duties; OR
• the “attack” or “intrusion” is related
to criminal activity in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an
“attacker” breaks into a home to steal
drugs from a drug dealer).
USE OF FORCE OUTSIDE
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
Outside a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle,
the Castle Doctrine legislation eliminates
the duty to retreat and a person can “stand his
ground and use force,” including deadly force,
in self defense, if ALL of the following apply:
• the person has a right to be in the place
he/she was attacked;
• the person has a reasonable belief that the
use of force is immediately necessary to
protect against imminent death, serious
injury, kidnapping or rape;
• the person is not illegally possessing a firearm;
• the person is not engaged in criminal activity;
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon; AND
• the “attacker” is not a law enforcement officer
engaged in the performance of his
duties.
LIMITS ON LAW SUITS FOR
LEGAL USE OF FORCE
Any person who legally uses force in
self defense is entitled to protection
against civil lawsuits by his/her “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker”.
This protection allows the person to
recover attorney fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income if:
• the person uses force in compliance
with Pennsylvania law;
• the person is sued by the “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker” for an
injury to the “attacker” as a result of
that force; AND
• the person wins the lawsuit.
WHERE CAN I FIND THE FULL TEXT OF
THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE ” LEGISLATION ?
Act 10 of 2011 was signed into law on
June 28, 2011. Specific acts and the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
can be viewed on the General Assembly’s
Website: www.legis.state.pa.us.
NOTICE: Neither the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, nor any individual member or employee
thereof, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions
in the material contained in this document, or for the effect
on such material of the subsequent passage or repeal, after its
publication, of legislation dealing with the same subject matter.
Moreover, the above mentioned parties shall not be responsible
for mistakes in the interpretation by any person, of any statutory
provisions or case law decisions thereto. Any user of this document
shall consult with an attorney for advice on interpreting
the material contained herein before taking any action in reliance
thereon, which could affect his or her own rights or the
rights of others.
Here, try this:
Castle Doctrine summary
Here is Rep Metcalfe Castle Doctrine summary in little hand dandy one page tri fold flier
Print this PDF out, then you got your own copy to pass out to help educate people
PDF link for printable version
From Rep Metcalfe's Castle Doctrine summary
HB 40 now known as Act 10 of 2011
Act 10 of 2011, known as the Castle
Doctrine, addresses the right to use
force, including deadly force, in self
defense and the defense of others. It
contains several topics dealing with
self defense, including:
• Use of force in a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle,
• Use of force outside a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, and
• Limits on lawsuits for legal use of
force.
This is intended as a short overview
of the Castle Doctrine legislation and
is not a complete explanation of the
law as it relates to the use of deadly
force in self defense.
USE OF FORCE IN
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker”
or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the “attacker” or “intruder.”
NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of
the following apply:
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident
or has a right to be in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent,
grandparent or other guardian removing
a child from the dwelling, residence
or occupied vehicle;
• the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a
law enforcement officer engaged in the
performance of his duties; OR
• the “attack” or “intrusion” is related
to criminal activity in the dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an
“attacker” breaks into a home to steal
drugs from a drug dealer).
USE OF FORCE OUTSIDE
A DWELLING, RESIDENCE OR OCCUPIED VECHILE:
Outside a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle,
the Castle Doctrine legislation eliminates
the duty to retreat and a person can “stand his
ground and use force,” including deadly force,
in self defense, if ALL of the following apply:
• the person has a right to be in the place
he/she was attacked;
• the person has a reasonable belief that the
use of force is immediately necessary to
protect against imminent death, serious
injury, kidnapping or rape;
• the person is not illegally possessing a firearm;
• the person is not engaged in criminal activity;
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon; AND
• the “attacker” is not a law enforcement officer
engaged in the performance of his
duties.
LIMITS ON LAW SUITS FOR
LEGAL USE OF FORCE
Any person who legally uses force in
self defense is entitled to protection
against civil lawsuits by his/her “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker”.
This protection allows the person to
recover attorney fees, court costs and
compensation for loss of income if:
• the person uses force in compliance
with Pennsylvania law;
• the person is sued by the “attacker”
or the family of the “attacker” for an
injury to the “attacker” as a result of
that force; AND
• the person wins the lawsuit.
WHERE CAN I FIND THE FULL TEXT OF
THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE ” LEGISLATION ?
Act 10 of 2011 was signed into law on
June 28, 2011. Specific acts and the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
can be viewed on the General Assembly’s
Website: www.legis.state.pa.us.
NOTICE: Neither the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, nor any individual member or employee
thereof, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions
in the material contained in this document, or for the effect
on such material of the subsequent passage or repeal, after its
publication, of legislation dealing with the same subject matter.
Moreover, the above mentioned parties shall not be responsible
for mistakes in the interpretation by any person, of any statutory
provisions or case law decisions thereto. Any user of this document
shall consult with an attorney for advice on interpreting
the material contained herein before taking any action in reliance
thereon, which could affect his or her own rights or the
rights of others.
Thanks!
1/5/2012 9:50:57 AM
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
1/5/2012 10:28:35 AM
Is everyone on this site unable to use the proper form of "break/brake"?
WTF?
WTF?
1/5/2012 10:41:24 AM
I copied the information from another site and it seems exactly right out of the PDF.
If you want to be a grammar Nazi, call up Rep Metcalfe office over their in Cranberry and tell them that there pamphlet aint no good.
If you want to be a grammar Nazi, call up Rep Metcalfe office over their in Cranberry and tell them that there pamphlet aint no good.
1/5/2012 10:42:28 AM
Originally Posted By Derf:
I copied the information from another site and it seems exactly right out of the PDF.
If you want to be a grammar Nazi, call up Rep Metcalfe office over their in Cranberry and tell them that there pamphlet aint no good.
I copied the information from another site and it seems exactly right out of the PDF.
If you want to be a grammar Nazi, call up Rep Metcalfe office over their in Cranberry and tell them that there pamphlet aint no good.
I was referring to the OP's thread title.
1/5/2012 12:37:42 PM
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
1/5/2012 4:41:56 PM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
1/5/2012 4:54:21 PM
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Do you honestly feel your life is endangered? It all depends on the situation. A 70 year old woman could use deadly force against a 20 years old male that physically attacked her. It's really dependent on the situation.
1/5/2012 5:21:25 PM
Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:
Is everyone on this site unable to use the proper form of "break/brake"?
WTF?
Is everyone on this site unable to use the proper form of "break/brake"?
WTF?
I changed the title. I'm sorry it upset you.
1/5/2012 5:27:02 PM
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Very good question. Kathy Johnson's site is geared towards women but it covers this quite well. It's (A)bility, (O)pportunity and (J)eopardy. Read this.
1/5/2012 8:25:00 PM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Do you honestly feel your life is endangered? It all depends on the situation. A 70 year old woman could use deadly force against a 20 years old male that physically attacked her. It's really dependent on the situation.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Do you honestly feel your life is endangered? It all depends on the situation. A 70 year old woman could use deadly force against a 20 years old male that physically attacked her. It's really dependent on the situation.
According to this:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an "attacker”
or "intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the "attacker” or "intruder.”
great bodily harm is intended as soon as the intruder enters a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The part about the attacker having a weopon only applies to other situations, like if you were walking down a public street or area and approached by and attacker without a weapon. In that situation, if the attacker didn't show a weapon, I would think you are still obligated to try and flee/escape before any deadly force would be justified.or "intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the "attacker” or "intruder.”
1/5/2012 10:05:06 PM
Originally Posted By PAgunner:
According to this:
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Do you honestly feel your life is endangered? It all depends on the situation. A 70 year old woman could use deadly force against a 20 years old male that physically attacked her. It's really dependent on the situation.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
Originally Posted By BigCat100:
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, does the Castel Doctrine require that the attacker be armed before deadly force can be used? It seems to say that it does. (deadly weapon).
Would an assailant using his fists fall under the Castle Doctrine? How about a group of assailants?
It all depends. If a group of people jumped you and you were in fear of your life you could use deadly force. Things can go very bad very quickly as soon as you hit the ground.
How about an individual assailant, in your home, or breaking into your vehicle? If he is unarmed "all" of the requirements don't appear to be filled?
Do you honestly feel your life is endangered? It all depends on the situation. A 70 year old woman could use deadly force against a 20 years old male that physically attacked her. It's really dependent on the situation.
According to this:
The Castle Doctrine assumes that an "attacker”
or "intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the "attacker” or "intruder.”
great bodily harm is intended as soon as the intruder enters a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The part about the attacker having a weopon only applies to other situations, like if you were walking down a public street or area and approached by and attacker without a weapon. In that situation, if the attacker didn't show a weapon, I would think you are still obligated to try and flee/escape before any deadly force would be justified.
or "intruder” intends great bodily harm if
he/she either:
1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle, or
2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully
remove someone from a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle
Either of these circumstances results in an
initial presumption that a person (who is
aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is
justified in using deadly force in self defense
against the "attacker” or "intruder.”
So according to that if someone knocked at your door and when you opened they tried pulling you outside would lethal force be warranted?
ETA: Could some answer this for me. What exactly does this mean?
• the “attacker” displays or uses a firearm or
any other deadly weapon;
1/6/2012 7:35:14 AM
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
1/6/2012 8:07:00 AM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
1/6/2012 4:01:27 PM
Originally Posted By fargo007:
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Doesn't the castle doctrine protect us from civil lawsuits?
1/6/2012 4:15:49 PM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Doesn't the castle doctrine protect us from civil lawsuits?
Originally Posted By fargo007:
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Doesn't the castle doctrine protect us from civil lawsuits?
It does, but that doesn't mean that one cannot be filed, or they cannot attempt to claim that you are exempt from its protections because of x, y, and z. It only provides you an affirmative defense against it. That's what I mean by them having to work "uphill" at you.
––Fargo007
1/6/2012 4:22:49 PM
Originally Posted By fargo007:
It does, but that doesn't mean that one cannot be filed, or they cannot attempt to claim that you are exempt from its protections because of x, y, and z. It only provides you an affirmative defense against it. That's what I mean by them having to work "uphill" at you.
––Fargo007
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Doesn't the castle doctrine protect us from civil lawsuits?
Originally Posted By fargo007:
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
LD has a point, it will take some sorting out.
But it does do something for you off the bat, and that is slant the playing field well in the favor of the person using deadly force. This forces both prosecution and civil lawsuits to work steeply uphill at you.
––Fargo007
Doesn't the castle doctrine protect us from civil lawsuits?
It does, but that doesn't mean that one cannot be filed, or they cannot attempt to claim that you are exempt from its protections because of x, y, and z. It only provides you an affirmative defense against it. That's what I mean by them having to work "uphill" at you.
––Fargo007
Thank you.
1/7/2012 10:37:42 AM
Fargo is correct. In a thumbnail, the law reads that if your actions are deemed justifiable under the act, you would be exempt from civil litigation. Once again, as this is unproven in court it is still advisable to carry at least a one million dollar personal umbrella policy if you choose to own and carry firearms. You should also have a firearms attorney on retainer or at least know who you'd be calling God forbid you are involved in any shooting incident. You should have at leat $10,000 set aside for this expense. Lastly and most importantly memorize the follow and repeat as needed:
"I will be happy to cooperate with your investigation but on the advice of my attorney I will not be answering any questions without him present."
"I will be happy to cooperate with your investigation but on the advice of my attorney I will not be answering any questions without him present."
1/7/2012 1:20:59 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Fargo is correct. In a thumbnail, the law reads that if your actions are deemed justifiable under the act, you would be exempt from civil litigation. Once again, as this is unproven in court it is still advisable to carry at least a one million dollar personal umbrella policy if you choose to own and carry firearms. You should also have a firearms attorney on retainer or at least know who you'd be calling God forbid you are involved in any shooting incident. You should have at leat $10,000 set aside for this expense. Lastly and most importantly memorize the follow and repeat as needed:
"I will be happy to cooperate with your investigation but on the advice of my attorney I will not be answering any questions without him present."
Fargo is correct. In a thumbnail, the law reads that if your actions are deemed justifiable under the act, you would be exempt from civil litigation. Once again, as this is unproven in court it is still advisable to carry at least a one million dollar personal umbrella policy if you choose to own and carry firearms. You should also have a firearms attorney on retainer or at least know who you'd be calling God forbid you are involved in any shooting incident. You should have at leat $10,000 set aside for this expense. Lastly and most importantly memorize the follow and repeat as needed:
"I will be happy to cooperate with your investigation but on the advice of my attorney I will not be answering any questions without him present."
Thats some great information. I never thought of those things. Glad I know now. Thank you.
1/8/2012 6:12:43 AM
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
1/8/2012 12:11:36 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
That would be a huge help. I really wouldn't know where to start looking for a lawyer.
1/9/2012 12:52:15 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
The answers you receive here are irrelevant. The only useful answer will be the presidents created by case law. That is unless the posters are sitting on your jury. It is going to take years and lots of "questionable" applications of this law to sort out these types of questions. While this law is certainly better than nothing, the best defense is still avoidance.
Precedents.
1/9/2012 2:56:17 PM
Grammer Nazi! 
1/9/2012 6:05:26 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
I'm guessing your an attorney? Either way you seem well versed on the legal system.
What's your opinion on the 2A "insurance" lawyers that advertise, in like, the back of the American Rifleman?
It's basically insurance that you pay into in the event you would need a lawyer for any 2A rights. Including defence if you ever need to defend yourself in the event of a SD shooting.
1/9/2012 6:30:51 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Grammer Nazi!
Grammer Nazi!
Grammar.
1/9/2012 10:34:00 PM
Originally Posted By Beltfedleadhead:
Grammar.
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Grammer Nazi!
Grammer Nazi!
Grammar.
I guess that was too much of a softball huh?1/9/2012 10:42:52 PM
Originally Posted By 9mmRandy:
I'm guessing your an attorney? Either way you seem well versed on the legal system.
What's your opinion on the 2A "insurance" lawyers that advertise, in like, the back of the American Rifleman?
It's basically insurance that you pay into in the event you would need a lawyer for any 2A rights. Including defence if you ever need to defend yourself in the event of a SD shooting.
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
I'm guessing your an attorney? Either way you seem well versed on the legal system.
What's your opinion on the 2A "insurance" lawyers that advertise, in like, the back of the American Rifleman?
It's basically insurance that you pay into in the event you would need a lawyer for any 2A rights. Including defence if you ever need to defend yourself in the event of a SD shooting.
I am not familiar with this policy. On the civil side a personal liability umbrella will provide a duty to defend so you'd be covered there. That leaves any potential criminal charges. Does the American Rifleman policy cover that? I googled it and this is what I found:
Our Self-Defense Insurance protects National Rifle Association members who need extra protection not found in most homeowners' policies.
The coverage is a rider to the Excess Personal Liability coverage, and provides civil defense and liability and criminal defense reimbursement if you are involved in an act of self-defense.
What's Covered:
• Provides coverage up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs.
• Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.
• Criminal Defense Reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.
Liability Limit Options:
• $100,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
• $250,000 Combined Single Limit with $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit
Purchase your Self-Defense Coverage online.
So what happens if you are not aquitted? Guess they don't pay? What happens if you elect to take a plea? They don't pay? Too many unknows for me.
3/8/2012 1:45:07 PM
Originally Posted By LastDefender:
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Happy to help. Remember one thing, most DA's did not want this law passed. Why you ask? They want the discretion on who to charge and for what. Also, if you happen to find yourself in a more urban area, with a DA who perhaps might be running for higher office, they may wish to roll the dice and take a chance. Now you most likely will be acquitted, but it will be expensive. On the civil end, your personal liability policy should cover you assuming the shooting is not deeded an intentional act.
Note to our moderator: We really should develop a stickie with names of lawyers who are friendly to our side. 2:00am is not the time to be flipping through the yellow pages at the local PD hoping you pick the right one.
Bringing this back before archived. LastDefender makes a good suggestion here. How would we go about looking to make a list?
3/8/2012 5:14:06 PM
Aimless once posted about a lawyer that he knew that was very pro 2A and would take on 2A criminal defenses...and then blow the cases. IIRC, he recommended finding the best criminal defense lawyer that you could. The ones that the police would use if they had the need. I know that doesn't exactly make the waters any less muddy. 
3/8/2012 5:46:50 PM
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
3/8/2012 5:58:19 PM
Originally Posted By leonpiper69:
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
Interesting. Do you have more details about it? Where was the bad guy? On his property? A link to the story?
ETA: He shot him with a bow?? Weird.
3/8/2012 9:21:13 PM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Interesting. Do you have more details about it? Where was the bad guy? On his property? A link to the story?
ETA: He shot him with a bow?? Weird.
Originally Posted By leonpiper69:
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
Interesting. Do you have more details about it? Where was the bad guy? On his property? A link to the story?
ETA: He shot him with a bow?? Weird.
Uncle Ted, is that you?
3/9/2012 8:40:25 AM
Originally Posted By Schlange:
Aimless once posted about a lawyer that he knew that was very pro 2A and would take on 2A criminal defenses...and then blow the cases. IIRC, he recommended finding the best criminal defense lawyer that you could. The ones that the police would use if they had the need. I know that doesn't exactly make the waters any less muddy.
Aimless once posted about a lawyer that he knew that was very pro 2A and would take on 2A criminal defenses...and then blow the cases. IIRC, he recommended finding the best criminal defense lawyer that you could. The ones that the police would use if they had the need. I know that doesn't exactly make the waters any less muddy.
This is a good point. There is a vast difference between someone who can assist you with minor firearms issues like PICS rejections, LTCF issues, local ordanance fights etc and a criminal defense attorney who spends his/her life dealing with capital or "state time" cases.
3/9/2012 9:06:01 AM
Most attorneys know exactly where their wheel house is, and what is in it.
I would say most of the local and pro-gun attorneys with any type of non office poag specialties like tax law, etc. ARE capable enough to handle incident triage and protection of rights initially, but should the case move to a jury trial, some might refer you to a more experienced criminal law litigator.
Their first act when the investigator wants to question you should go something like this:
"You want to ask my client questions? Sure! We would be happy to cooperate. Forward us a complete list of questions in writing you want him to answer, and I will have a response to you within 24 hours." Of course the investigator will never do this.
They should also be asking the investigator questions that draw out evidence and reveal information, like: "Sir, can you please explain to me how it is that we arrive at you wanting to speak to my client in this investigation? How do we arrive at Jocko Johnson in all this?"
If your lawyer intends to grant the investigator unexpurgated access to you shortly after an incident like this, IMHO you need to get a different attorney.
––Fargo007
I would say most of the local and pro-gun attorneys with any type of non office poag specialties like tax law, etc. ARE capable enough to handle incident triage and protection of rights initially, but should the case move to a jury trial, some might refer you to a more experienced criminal law litigator.
Their first act when the investigator wants to question you should go something like this:
"You want to ask my client questions? Sure! We would be happy to cooperate. Forward us a complete list of questions in writing you want him to answer, and I will have a response to you within 24 hours." Of course the investigator will never do this.
They should also be asking the investigator questions that draw out evidence and reveal information, like: "Sir, can you please explain to me how it is that we arrive at you wanting to speak to my client in this investigation? How do we arrive at Jocko Johnson in all this?"
If your lawyer intends to grant the investigator unexpurgated access to you shortly after an incident like this, IMHO you need to get a different attorney.
––Fargo007
3/9/2012 12:15:35 PM
How would we going about finding a pro-gun attorney? Are they listed in the phone book? Just call lawyers in the phone book till I find one and keep his info?
3/11/2012 8:50:08 AM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
Interesting. Do you have more details about it? Where was the bad guy? On his property? A link to the story?
ETA: He shot him with a bow?? Weird.
Originally Posted By leonpiper69:
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
was reading the march shooting illustrated pg 11 alittle blurb title "defending the castle"
a somerset county PA man will not face charges after shooting an armed assailent form the porch of his house in the first test of PA's new castle doctrine law. it goes on to say the perp had a club and the homeowner shto him with a bow and killing him.
Interesting. Do you have more details about it? Where was the bad guy? On his property? A link to the story?
ETA: He shot him with a bow?? Weird.
thats all it says in the article i referenced. i dotn even know where somerset county is (not being from around here and all). i just noticed it said PA.
3/12/2012 3:30:45 PM
Originally Posted By D-RAS03:
How would we going about finding a pro-gun attorney? Are they listed in the phone book? Just call lawyers in the phone book till I find one and keep his info?
How would we going about finding a pro-gun attorney? Are they listed in the phone book? Just call lawyers in the phone book till I find one and keep his info?
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/ maintains a listing of pro-gun attorneys by state. I think you have to join to get access, though.
