Intruder breaking into shed - lawful to use lethal force?

[aardvarc]

And, you can't "rob" a shed. You can only rob a person. No person in the shed = no robbery. Burglary, sure. But even burglary isn't going to get anyone off on a homicide charge - not unless a burglary to an occupied dwelling turns INTO a robbery when an idiotic homeowner decides to escalate things INTO a potentially deadly confrontation.

 

[Ohiogal]

Now that we have done denigrated the poster for his alleged violations of morals, lets get back to the actual LEGAL issue.

The PA Castle/Stand Your Ground doctrine is expressed in 18 PaCS 505.

It's a little to lengthy to post http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

The synopsis is that PA's law is non unequivocal. There are restrictions and pretty much are limited to that which is IMMEDIATELY necessary to prevent unlawful force (to result in death, serious injury, rape, or kidnapping) against you.

No a shed that is not occupied is not a dwelling or residence under the statute.

Note, you don't even get to hold him at gunpoint unless you believe the above are happening either.

What I stated dealt with the legal issue. He doesn't have the right to do that. He didn't want to hear that however.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

If you cannot afford an LRAD try a pain field generator.

 

[swalsh411]

No it wasn't what I wanted to hear but I got the answer I was looking before. And just so there is no confusion to anyone who happens along this thread, an intruder in your home can be assumed to be a threat on your life and nothing further is needed to use lethal force.

 

[aardvarc]

No it wasn't what I wanted to hear but I got the answer I was looking before. And just so there is no confusion to anyone who happens along this thread, an intruder in your home can be assumed to be a threat on your life and nothing further is needed to use lethal force.

No one has argued that point; only that there's a big difference between the shed and the home.

 

[single317dad]

There's plenty of case law on this. This is a long but enlightening read.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/commonwealth-v-mouzon-2012-pa-lexis-1889-pa-2012/

Does PA consider holding someone at gunpoint "use of deadly force" or is it merely the "threat of deadly force"? (I know that here in Massachusetts, even thinking about shooting someone is considered a deadly sin)

They'd probably consider it unlawful confinement, or whatever PA's equivalent is.

 

[davew128]

There's plenty of case law on this. This is a long but enlightening read.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/commonwealth-v-mouzon-2012-pa-lexis-1889-pa-2012/



They'd probably consider it unlawful confinement, or whatever PA's equivalent is.

Unlawful confinement to hold a burglar who was caught in the act with force until law enforcement arrives? Maybe we should just call Wonder Woman and ask her to use her magic lasso.

 

[tranquility]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Makes-Citizens-Arrest-With-Gun-Montgomery-County-210437051.html
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/544963_Charges-dropped-against-man-who-made-citizen-s-arrest.html

 

[HighwayMan]

Unlawful confinement to hold a burglar who was caught in the act with force until law enforcement arrives? Maybe we should just call Wonder Woman and ask her to use her magic lasso.

I can't cite the case, but I do remember reading a bit of caselaw recently where the court ruled that using the magic lasso IS, in fact, using force.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

OH is trying to pass HB203 to remove the last vestige of the absurd duty to retreat in your own home. Several black organizations are protesting the laws revision with at least one saying it will make OH a rascist "shoot first" state. Googling HB203 will brink up substantiation of my post. It is based on fact, not ethnic bias.

 

[CdwJava]

In addition to the requirements of the PA law, one also has to consider that most ANY use of force will be considered through the evaluation of what is reasonable. And under PA law you have to ask yourself whether merely pointing the firearm at someone is considered "use of force." Arguably, it would be so. And, if so, then you would have to articulate the requisite reasonable fear for your safety or that of someone else. That might be exceedingly difficult to argue for a shed break-in.

Heck, I wouldn't even confront someone breaking into my shed with a firearm in my backyard and I have both the authority AND the training to utilize a firearm in such an apprehension. But, engaging in such an action against a suspect who may not be alone, who may or may not be armed, and who may or may not have a plan to act against me is something I do not wish to risk if I do not have to. It would be better for me to watch him with gun in hand and call for help. If he leaves before the cops get there - great! If I lose some stuff, I'm okay with that ... at least I'm much better with that than I might be if I chose to shoot him for theft! (Apparently that's only legal in TX, and only if a crotchety old neighbor does it ... God forbid the police execute a thief in broad daylight!)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Shoot BB's at them. Just don't take their eye out kid.

 

[Ohiogal]

OH is trying to pass HB203 to remove the last vestige of the absurd duty to retreat in your own home. Several black organizations are protesting the laws revision with at least one saying it will make OH a rascist "shoot first" state. Googling HB203 will brink up substantiation of my post. It is based on fact, not ethnic bias.

Several black organizations? Really? Several organizations and local governments are against it. Nothing to do with black, white or anything else. Your biased/prejudiced/ignorance is showing.

 

[swalsh411]

OH requires retreat from your own home? I have a very hard time believing that. I have an even harder time believing any jury would convict a person of shooting an intruder in their own home.

 

[cbg]

Depending on the specific circumstances, I don't have any trouble believing that a jury could convict someone for shooting and killing an intruder in that someone's home, if the facts show that the someone could have protected themselves adequately by shooting the intruder in, say, the leg instead of the head or the hear.