Castle Doctrine: Is it the right way to go?

[LSN80]

Looking forward to some great feedback on this one. I'll preface this thread by saying I'm a huge proponent of the recently passed law, as it's common sense to me. I'm not sure how anyone could look at it and say otherwise.

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into effect this very law, which widens the regulations of what home owners are permitted to do if someone breaks into their house uninvited. In essence, this law does two things:

1. It broadens the right of the homeowner to use deadly force if necessary.

Previously in Pennsylvania, and is still the case in 23 states, the use of force was not considered to be an appropriate first step if someone broke into your home. Instead, the previous law required home owners to flee, and only when unable to do so, they were able to use force.

2. It prevents the victims families from sueing the homeowners for wrongful death.

Previously, civil suits were the right and often times the norm in cases of death by deadly force during break-ins where the criminal was killed. Under the new law, if death by deadly force is ruled to be legal, the family of the deceased cannot take the homeowner to court if the death is ruled to be justifiable legally. In my opinion, this frees up many frivolous lawsuits amongst those whose family members were killed in the process of committing a crime. Fact of the matter is, if the criminal hadn't commited the act of breaking and entering, they wouldn't have put their life at risk.

ttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11330/1192749-58.stm

In this case from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, a 30 year old man was shot and killed while breaking into a Pittsburgh home around 4:30am Thanksgiving morning. In this case, 46 year old homeowner Martin Swarrow woke up to find 30 year old Elijah Marinosky breaking into his garage. After firing a warning shot at Marinosky, Swarrow shot Marinosky in the chest after Marinosky didn't retreat., Marinoksky expired shortly after.

County District Attorney Steven Toprani indicated that the shooting was justified under the new Castle Law, Swarrow was justified in the shooting and no charges were filed. It should be noted that Marinosky was not armed, but did make advances towards Swarrow in a threatening manner.

I tend to agree that Swarrow was justified in shooting Marinosky, despite the fact that the latter wasn't armed. I believe that in any cases of uncertainty when it comes to someone breaking into your home, it's best to air on the side of assuming the worst, and taking severe action. Personally, if someone broke into my home, with my pregnant wife also being there, Id shoot first, not to kill, but to stop the intruder. If he kept coming, Id kill him without remorse. Ive never fired my gun other then at a shooting range, but protecting my family would be first and foremost. Personally, I can't understand why all states haven't adopted this law.

But this isn't about me and what I believe, it's about your opinions. Some questions to jump start the discussion:

Do you agree with the Castle Law? Why or why not?

Do you believe Swarrow was justified in shooting Marinosky, or should he have tried less extreme measures?

Why do you believe this law hasn't been passed in all 50 states? Should it be?
Any other thoughts, feedback, or discussion are welcome as well.

 

[klunderbunker]

This law has been around in Kentucky for a few years now. I remember listening to a popular radio show here in town when it went into effect. This was what brought it up (I don't remember if this was what got the Castle Doctrine into law or if it just brought it up again).

Two friends went out drinking and got wasted. They got back home and one was staying at the others' house. He fell asleep in the home owner's truck until about 4am. At about 4am, he stumbled out and tried to go into his friend's house, but went to the wrong door. He pounded on it for a few minutes, screaming to be let in. Eventually he kicked it and the owner woke up. The owner of the house got a gun that he had for self defense and fired at the door. The bullet went through the door and killed the drunk man.

I have zero problem with this and I don't see how the owner should be prosecuted for it. He had no idea who was knocking on his door at 4am. He heard a strange voice and someone clearly trying to get into a place that they didn't belong. The owner had no idea what was going on but he knew that he and potentially his family and property were in danger. This is exactly the kind of thing that the law is in place for. he had a reasonable feeling that he was in danger and he defended himself.

As for the Penn case, he had no knowledge of what the intruder had. He didn't know if he was being threatened but the intruder had already broken in or was attempting to. There's no way to know if you're actually in danger there or not, but as LSN said, if the other person hadn't broken in, they wouldn't be in danger of self-defense in the first place. He fired a warning shot and the invader didn't run. I have no problem with what happened here at all.

I'd have no problem with the law being enacted in all 50 states, but it should be state by state, as most laws should be.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I have zero problem with this and I don't see how the owner should be prosecuted for it. He had no idea who was knocking on his door at 4am.

Hindsight is a such a beautiful thing, no? Law enforcement authorities (or a jury of your peers) get together after a home invasion has resulted in the poor intruder being wounded or killed and try to determine what the accused person should have been doing, thinking or saying at the time of the action. Very often, they're unable (or unwilling) to take into account things like the element of surprise, adrenalin, the fact that at 2:30 AM, the homeowner was probably bleary from sleep.....and numerous other factors that might have explained why the homeowner acted as he did.

Instead, without accounting for pressure, indecisiveness and other factors, their verdict or investigation winds up telling what the guy should have done, even if they know inside that it's not what they would have done in the same situation. We're all authorities in telling other people what they should be doing, after all.

But, hey! If you're woken up at 2:30 AM and find a stranger in your house, be sure to ask him what he's there for rather than cancelling his ticket with a shotgun. Ask pertinent questions like:

"Sir, are you here to kidnap my 6-year-old daughter, or are you just looking to burglarize my house? Because there's a big difference between the two and I don't want to hurt you if I don't have to. Let's convene a seminar to discuss causes and effects. Thank you for your cooperation, sir."

Ugh.

 

[LSN80]

I'd have no problem with the law being enacted in all 50 states, but it should be state by state, as most laws should be.

Im curious as to why you believe this. Im not saying I disagree, in fact, i tend to agree. My thought process tends to go to as to why all states haven't adopted this law. It would be one thing if the law had never been previously brought to the table, as many states have rejected this law. I know in Pennsylvania, former Governor Ed Rendell whom preceded current Governer Tom Corbett, rejected the Law.

My curiosity here, in playing Devil's Advocate in some semblance, is to if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why this law has yet to be adopted by all states. Thoughts on this?

Hindsight is a such a beautiful thing, no? Law enforcement authorities (or a jury of your peers) get together after a home invasion has resulted in the poor intruder being wounded or killed and try to determine what the accused person should have been doing, thinking or saying at the time of the action. Very often, they're unable (or unwilling) to take into account things like the element of surprise, adrenalin, the fact that at 2:30 AM, the homeowner was probably bleary from sleep.....and numerous other factors that might have explained why the homeowner acted as he did.

So my question to you, Sally, is what would you do in this situation? Would you run, or would you take the intruder out? I'm not sure of the law in your state, but suppose Castle Law hasn't been passed. Would you take the intruder out if you felt threatened, or would you try to get away?

 

[Larry]

My curiosity here, in playing Devil's Advocate in some semblance, is to if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why this law has yet to be adopted by all states. Thoughts on this?

I think it comes to an issue of what is and isn't reasonable or excessive force regardless of the situation. I think most staunch conservatives heavily in favor of gun rights and such would back this wholeheartedly, but on the flip side of the coin you have some real liberal lefties who deplore said action whether you or your family is in harms way which has probably been the main blockade is this getting through all 50 states. I think some of it is the idea on the liberal left that no one has the right to take another persons life, even when their own is threatened or if someone isn't just threatening your life but attempting to take it because "that's not the humanitarian way to handle it".

I don't really like the solution of "Oh just run away from your own house, let the burglar have free reign over your house in that manner, and hope to God THEY don't have a gun and decide to leave no witnesses". It completely undermines the rights of the homeowner and their personal safety. Why in the hell should I of all people, the homeowner, have to leave my own house if an intruder is there? Shouldn't they be the one leaving? And shouldn't I be allowed to compel them to leave with a shotgun or a 9milli if I see fit since I AM in danger at that point?

Would you take the intruder out if you felt threatened, or would you try to get away?

I would put that fucker in a world of hurt and make them wish to God THEY had gotten away before this crazy bastard with a Stun Gun hit them with a few million volts and started beating the shit out of them and hog tying them. Or if I simply had a regular gun it's "knee-caps-be-gone-time", you ain't running bitch, you're going to jail. You never know if they are there looking for more than expensive goods to steal, you might have some sick bastard looking for a rape victim while your son is sound asleep in the room across the hall, defenseless prey. You don't know if THEY have a gun either, so what do you do? You protect your family and yourself, in that order by the way.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

If you dont want to get fucked up, do not break into another persons home.

Fucking hello.


Love this law, would fully support it.

 

[LSN80]

I think it comes to an issue of what is and isn't reasonable or excessive force regardless of the situation. I think most staunch conservatives heavily in favor of gun rights and such would back this wholeheartedly, but on the flip side of the coin you have some real liberal lefties who deplore said action whether you or your family is in harms way which has probably been the main blockade is this getting through all 50 states.

I guess I stand staunchly in the middle. I'm certainly no liberal who believes peace is the answer in every situation, but I'm not a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of person either, in most situations. If there's a way out to ensure my family is protected, Ill take it. However, in a situation where someone breaks into my home, how much time do I really have to rationally assess a situation? I think that's a big piece of what's being missed here by those against the Castle Law. How rational would you be thinking if someone broke into your home? I surely wouldn't be. I'd be in a "flight or fight" mentality, and in my current situation, I wouldn't even give a second thought to flight. So what does that leave me with? Fighting to save my wife(8 months pregnant) and myself. If that means taking out the bastard who broke into my house, who's to tell me otherwise? He broke into MY home.

I think some of it is the idea on the liberal left that no one has the right to take another persons life, even when their own is threatened or if someone isn't just threatening your life but attempting to take it because "that's not the humanitarian way to handle it".

Screw the humanitarian way of doing things when it comes to protecting yourself and your loved ones. I know what I'm about to say isn't the attitude they share, but it feels at times like it's a "If it means sacrificing your life and those around you, at least YOU didn't take a life. Yeah, you tried to run, sorry about your luck that you saw his face and didn't get away because he didn't want to leave witnesses." Where's the humanity in that? I know all states provide laws that do allow for some kind of protection, but they encourage the least amount of use of force as possible. Why shouldn't force be the first line of defense when faced with the unknown of a stranger breaking into your home? How are you to know his intentions, or if he intends to use force? You don't. Better safe then sorry in these situations, I say, and I'm hardly affiliated with any political rhetoric or group that advocates being able to tote guns in every situation. I just believe people should be able to defend themselves by whatever means necessary in these situations.

I don't really like the solution of "Oh just run away from your own house, let the burglar have free reign over your house in that manner, and hope to God THEY don't have a gun and decide to leave no witnesses". It completely undermines the rights of the homeowner and their personal safety. Why in the hell should I of all people, the homeowner, have to leave my own house if an intruder is there? Shouldn't they be the one leaving? And shouldn't I be allowed to compel them to leave with a shotgun or a 9milli if I see fit since I AM in danger at that point?

Perfectly said. I have nothing to add here. Rep coming your way, my friend, when it reloads.

I would put that fucker in a world of hurt and make them wish to God THEY had gotten away before this crazy bastard with a Stun Gun hit them with a few million volts and started beating the shit out of them and hog tying them. Or if I simply had a regular gun it's "knee-caps-be-gone-time", you ain't running bitch, you're going to jail. You never know if they are there looking for more than expensive goods to steal, you might have some sick bastard looking for a rape victim while your son is sound asleep in the room across the hall, defenseless prey. You don't know if THEY have a gun either, so what do you do? You protect your family and yourself, in that order by the way.

That would be my ideal here. I wouldn't WANT to kill someone, I'd prefer to see them suffer, not as a means of torture, but to send a warning and keep them at bay. I can't condone killing someone just for the sake of they broke into my house. Ideally, I'd take a leg, an arm, a shoulder even. My only fear here is that it wouldn't be enough, and even in their state, they would have a weapon & be able to get off some shots. Why should they have that right or opportunity if they broke into my house?My hope would be that I wouldn't have to resort to taking someone's life just because they broke in. Id like to see it settled where they go to jail rather then killing them. A small part of me wouldn't mind seeing them suffer as a precaution, but I'd rather not resort to violence unless necessary, not just becase they broke into my house.

I do have a gun for safety precautions, and I'd be willing to explain exactly why I used it in the manner in which I did to any authorities. Fortunately, I live in a state where Castle Law is in effect, so Id likely have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, there are many(23 states, I believe I wrote earlier), who don't have the same luxury as I do. And people have both gone on trial and been sued civally for acting in self-defense, instead of running away as is the first recommendation in those states. And as I stated before, I'm not some gun-toting loon who believes in firing it in all situations. In fact, outside of the shooting range, I've NEVER used it. But I use the range for practice in situations such as these once a week(and to relieve stress), but I've never fired it elsewhere, and hope I never have to. But if put in the situation, I would without second thought, if I felt my wife or self was in physical danger.

I'd like to keep this thread open and going before starting a new one, just in hopes of generating more discussion here. As an aside, Id really like to see someone with a differing opinion weigh in here.

 

[Dagger Dias]

A man's home is his castle. Cliche'd or not, this expression still holds true. If someone breaks into your home, your castle, they are invading. What happened to invaders in the castles? They either retreated from the defenders or got killed. This is exactly the same thing only it's a modern home. If someone broke into my apartment with intentions of hurting my wife or my dogs then they better run for their life. I have a katana and a kitchen full of knives ready to use if needed. I really need to get a gun so I can be more prepared for such a situation.

Swarrow was completely justified in his actions because Marinosky invaded his home. Marinosky had no business being there and the shooting is not Swarrow's fault. This law protects these types of actions which are meant to defend one's family and property from those with harmful intentions. It needs to be passed in all 50 states and the fact that it hasn't is ridiculous. What's the point of having the right to bear arms if we cannot use them to defend ourselves?

 

[Mustang Sally]

So my question to you, Sally, is what would you do in this situation? Would you run, or would you take the intruder out? I'm not sure of the law in your state, but suppose Castle Law hasn't been passed. Would you take the intruder out if you felt threatened, or would you try to get away?

It depends on the situation. Who can say what a person will do when faced with something like this? How dark is it? Is the intruder staring at you or is he running away? Are you the only one in the house, or do you have family members who count on you to protect them? If you're holding a gun, can you use it.....or has adrenalin turned your arm into a licorice stick that instead winds up with you shooting your own foot off?

This is my point; For law enforcement officials or a jury of your peers to determine whether you were wrong to shoot the intruder would require them to put themselves in your shoes.

Can they do that?

I highly doubt it. People are concerned with their self-preservation, not yours. If they were caught in the middle of a home invasion, they might react exactly as did the person who shot the intruder.....but at the same time, will vote to convict the homeowner who did what they would have done.

I've said this before on this forum: people today, with political correctness to "guide" them, are fabulous at displaying sympathy. Gosh yes, we are so terrific at feeling sorry for people we've never seen and will never meet.

But empathy? That's entirely different; empathy being the condition in which you say: "How would I handle it if it happened to me?" We're not so good at that, imo.

If other states pass this law, some semblance of sensibility will encouraged in those who are determining whether the homeowner did wrong.....because at least the law will be on their side. It's a good step.

But the question you're asking is; what I would do? It's hard to say, of course, but my guess is that I'd drop the gun and run as fast and far as I could. That's just me.

But if someone else in the situation would shoot the intruder, it would be nice to know the homeowner didn't have to spend the rest of his life in jail because he dealt with a situation that he didn't ask for in the first place.

As to the notion of the intruder suing the homeowner and recovering damages that occurred as a result of his home invasion; it's such an absurd product of our justice system as to be sickening. No matter how you cut it, you're rewarding a person for committing a crime.

That these lawsuits have been initiated is amazing.

That they sometimes succeed is insane.

Pass the law.

 

[SalvIsWin]

As an aside, Id really like to see someone with a differing opinion weigh in here.

Here it comes.

My curiosity here, in playing Devil's Advocate in some semblance, is to if anyone can come up with a justifiable reason as to why this law has yet to be adopted by all states. Thoughts on this?

Here's a reason: this law protects people who intentionally deciding to kill or injure someone. The United States has self-defense laws, and the United States give you protection to use reasonable force to repel someone that is going to injure you, and if the reasonable force you use happens to kill the attacker, you're not going to be charged.

What this law does is protect the people who purposefully decide to kill someone because they're breaking into their property, not for reasons of survival but for reasons of vengeance. Having someone break into your house is one thing, and if there's no other option and you shoot and kill that person, you would be covered under self-defense. However if someone is breaking into your detached garage for example and you go out there and shoot them, you're covered - they broke into your garage and you shot them, and that's perfectly fine according to this law - maybe they had a gun, maybe they didn't, maybe you were about to be shot yourself and you had to shoot him, it's easy to justify.

There should be a reasonable expectation for everyone to prioritize survival without violence over survival with violence. If someone is breaking into your garage and you call the police and wait with your gun, I really don't see how that's any less safe than going to your garage with your gun in order to shoot the intruder - you're doing it because you want to kill the person breaking in, not because you're worried about your survival.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

I would put that fucker in a world of hurt and make them wish to God THEY had gotten away before this crazy bastard with a Stun Gun hit them with a few million volts and started beating the shit out of them and hog tying them. Or if I simply had a regular gun it's "knee-caps-be-gone-time", you ain't running bitch, you're going to jail. You never know if they are there looking for more than expensive goods to steal, you might have some sick bastard looking for a rape victim while your son is sound asleep in the room across the hall, defenseless prey. You don't know if THEY have a gun either, so what do you do? You protect your family and yourself, in that order by the way.

That isn't about survival, that's about revenge, vengeance, and fucking blood-thirst and there shouldn't be a law that protects people who want to go beat the shit out of someone or kill them because they stole something from them. There's even provisions to castle law which states that you have to try to run away or at least reasonably look for a non-violent way to survive without resorting to violence, but the Pennsylvania law doesn't require that, as long as they're breaking into your house, you can shoot them and it doesn't matter at all - totally fine.

Law is flawed, shouldn't be passed.

 

[LSN80]

Ill respond here, as I appreciate your perspective. I don't agree with it, but I do see where youre coming from.

Here's a reason: this law protects people who intentionally deciding to kill or injure someone. The United States has self-defense laws, and the United States give you protection to use reasonable force to repel someone that is going to injure you, and if the reasonable force you use happens to kill the attacker, you're not going to be charged.

My question is this- Doesn't anytime someone fire a gun at another human being constitute intent to injure/kill? It doesn't matter if the person is trying to scare the person off by injuring them, there's still intent to injure, at best. What I find to be difficult is how to differentiate between intent to injure/kill because of self-defense, and what constitutes unreasonable measures. The problem that arises is that it's near impossible to read someone's mind in the moment. Myself, I'd be panicked, admittedly because I have a wife who's eight months pregnant. If it was just myself in the house, I may vacate and call the police, but Im not going to take ANY chance with my wife. It's also hard to know what the intention is of the person breaking in, and I'd prefer not to wait to find out.

What this law does is protect the people who purposefully decide to kill someone because they're breaking into their property, not for reasons of survival but for reasons of vengeance. Having someone break into your house is one thing, and if there's no other option and you shoot and kill that person, you would be covered under self-defense.

Not necessarily. The law widens the parameters for the homeowner, and lessens the right for the criminal. Isn't this the way it should be? Shouldn't the home owner have more rights then the person breaking into their home? It doesn't give free reign to the home owner- Its not as if the home owner can stand guard, wait for someone to break-in, and shoot them. They have to have reasonable cause that harm is coming. As for killing someone purposefully, isn't that what every killing is, be it self-defense or cold-blood?

However if someone is breaking into your detached garage for example and you go out there and shoot them, you're covered - they broke into your garage and you shot them, and that's perfectly fine according to this law - maybe they had a gun, maybe they didn't, maybe you were about to be shot yourself and you had to shoot him, it's easy to justify.

Why isn't this the way it should be? I see alot of "maybe's" here, and that's the problem. Maybe the person breaking in is a threat to kill you, and possibly they're just a thief. But how is one to know? Should they wait around until more danger presents itself to take action? Further, it's hard to judge motive. Who knows what a person is thinking when someone breaks into their house? There's no true way of knowing what the motive of the person breaking in is at the moment they do, so should we blame them for assuming the worst out of self-preservation of themselves, and maybe others? What if this person has a family? Should they wait until actual threat is presented to take action? There are so many "maybes" and what ifs" here to account for, & motive is impossible to truly assess here.

The best solution is to look at the physical evidence and see if there was another way for the home owner to escape the situation, family intact, without violence. I can't imagine many home owners wanting to resort to violence if there's another way out. But it's damn near impossible to know in the moment.

There should be a reasonable expectation for everyone to prioritize survival without violence over survival with violence. If someone is breaking into your garage and you call the police and wait with your gun, I really don't see how that's any less safe than going to your garage with your gun in order to shoot the intruder - you're doing it because you want to kill the person breaking in, not because you're worried about your survival.

I disagree. In this case, the home owner went into the garage to scare the intruder off. He fired a warning shot, and the intruder still advanced. Going into the garage may have been poor judgment, but again, it was an in the moment decision. I don't see how the homeowner is wanting to kill the intruder, there's a survival instinct along with fear that comes in with these situations.

Further, how is one to know if the intruder isn't carrying a gun of their own? In the example I provided, the man fired a warning shot, and the intruder advanced with malice. Shouid the homeowner have waited for the police to come and taken their chances? To me, the man was acting out of self-preservation. What other solution would you propose he would have acted under?

That isn't about survival, that's about revenge, vengeance, and fucking blood-thirst and there shouldn't be a law that protects people who want to go beat the shit out of someone or kill them because they stole something from them. There's even provisions to castle law which states that you have to try to run away or at least reasonably look for a non-violent way to survive without resorting to violence, but the Pennsylvania law doesn't require that, as long as they're breaking into your house, you can shoot them and it doesn't matter at all - totally fine.

I agree- The attitude that someone broke into my home automatically gives me the right to act in any way I choose is without a doubt a flawed one. But under PA Castle Law, there isn't free reign. It's simply a case of giving more rights to the homeowner to protect themselves. In each case, as in this one, an investigation is launched as to whether the shooting was justifiable. The law simply loosens the laws on what is justifiable and what is not. Sometimes, people are going to get away from plain blood-thirsty attack, but Id rather see the majority of people who do act with proper intentions be protected along with the select few killers be protected then innocent people go to jail for just acting out of self-preservation. I don't condone those who hold the attitude of "If you break into my house, Ill kill you", but isn't there a large level of responsibility for the person who broke in? Don't they give up many of their rights by intruding in the first place?

Law is flawed, shouldn't be passed.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. The "flawed" law protects the majority, the victims in this situation, where without this law, many more problems could arise. One, you could have the home owner freeze with fear over getting into legal troubles, resulting in harm coming to themselves or their family. Second, without the law, the intruder has the same "right to life" as the homeowner, when they're the ones causing the situation in the first place. The major point is this: If the intruder doesn't break in, they don't put their life at risk. Hopefully, the Castle Law will make intruders think twice next time they consider breaking into a home.

 

[JWGunslinger]

I'm pretty surprised this one passed actually, considering all the folks out there that are getting so soft and PC but I am damn happy with this one. Coming from a state that has some of the shittiest laws pertaining to self defense and gun control I am used to some strict bullshit when it comes to this kind of stuff, I hear so many cases where someone breaks into someones house and the homeowner shoots them in self defense, yet they still get in trouble. If you break into somebody's house you're fucking asking for it, when you break the law like that in such a manner and enter another man's home whether to hurt someone or steal from them your rights go out the fuckin window in my book and the homeowner is within their rights to shoot them if needed. Obviously if you can avoid it then do so, hold them at gun point and call the cops or something but if it comes down to it I fully support the homeowner and I think this law is a great step forward.

I do think that the guy in this situation could have attempted to do something a bit differently, but at the same time there was a man in his house and he probably felt threatened, for all he knew this guy had a buddy who could walk up behind him at any minute and do harm to him.
I know from personal experience, one time a while back ther was a guy in my front yard by my garage and when my dad approached him he got freaked out and defensive saying that he didnt know anyone was home and they were trying to "Boo" us. For those of you who are not familiar with the term it's a neighborhood thing where you put a sign on someone's door that says Boo! and they leave candy with it around Halloween. So when we asked where the candy and paper were he didnt say anything, he turned around and ran up the street and jumped in a car that quickly sped away. Just from something small like that I can tell you that it's an unsettling feeling when someone attempts or succeeds in breaking into you house or invading your property, so if this guy had someone full on in his garage taking his shit I can only imagine the fear and insecurity.

I believe that it should be in all 50 states, but there are enough people who think it's wrong and that you don't have the right to defend yourself in you own home and that you should wait for the police or flee. I respect everyone's opinion on a matter like this, but if you don't want to defend yourself and wait for the cops please be my guest, but don't make laws to keep me from doing so if I chose to or let the intruder's family sue the homeowner for wrongful fucking death, this shit is ridiculous. I know there are plenty of people who would not believe in shooting an intruder, even those who don't have a problem with it sometimes say that they would never be able to personally shoot someone, I understand that but a man should have the right to defend himself, his family and his goddamn home if he wishes.
I partially lack of education of the subject for it's not being passed in all states, I think people hear about civilians with guns commiting crimes, they figure its bad for anyone other than law enforcement to have guns and that the police should just be left to deal with home invasion problems. Well the fact of the matter is that the cops dont always come in time, they arent superheros who can fly to you ASAP after all, and as Americans we should be able to defend ourselves in our own homes.

 

[SalvIsWin]

My question is this- Doesn't anytime someone fire a gun at another human being constitute intent to injure/kill? It doesn't matter if the person is trying to scare the person off by injuring them, there's still intent to injure, at best. What I find to be difficult is how to differentiate between intent to injure/kill because of self-defense, and what constitutes unreasonable measures. The problem that arises is that it's near impossible to read someone's mind in the moment. Myself, I'd be panicked, admittedly because I have a wife who's eight months pregnant. If it was just myself in the house, I may vacate and call the police, but Im not going to take ANY chance with my wife. It's also hard to know what the intention is of the person breaking in, and I'd prefer not to wait to find out.

I would say that there is a difference between you hear someone breaking into your house, they enter your house, and they start to come upstairs and you shoot them; versus, you hear someone breaking into your garage outside, you go get your gun, go to your garage, and shoot them. I don't have a problem if someone shoots and kills another person in self-defense in a scenario where they're breaking into their house, what I am saying is that if you're upstairs for example, and the only way to get to you is to go up someones staircase, I see a difference between waiting upstairs with your gun while you call the police, and going downstairs with the gun to search for the intruder so you can shoot them.

If you go out of your way to search for the person, that's not necessarily self-defense in my opinion. If you hear a noise, you go to investigate, and you see a person and you get scared and shoot, sure, but if you know someones in the house and you go to find them so you can shoot them, I'm not OK with that, you're not protecting your safety, you're trying to kill someone - two different things.

Not necessarily. The law widens the parameters for the homeowner, and lessens the right for the criminal. Isn't this the way it should be? Shouldn't the home owner have more rights then the person breaking into their home? It doesn't give free reign to the home owner- Its not as if the home owner can stand guard, wait for someone to break-in, and shoot them. They have to have reasonable cause that harm is coming. As for killing someone purposefully, isn't that what every killing is, be it self-defense or cold-blood?

The home owner does have more rights than the person breaking into their home. I feel like this law does give free reign. Unlike other states, which specifically say that you have a duty to retreat if possible without surrendering your safety, Pennsylvania's law does not require this. In fact, in this version of castle law, it specifically states that you're not obligated to retreat if possible.

Hypothetically, if someone was breaking into your garage and you see this from your window, you could call the police and wait and see if they try to enter your actual house, or you just go out the side door to a neighbours for example, there are other options. In some versions of castle law, as long as your not in immediate danger, you're obligated to stay safe by getting away from the situation, this version of castle law almost encourages you to go shoot them because it says that even if a safe violence free alternative was clearly presented, you can choose to ignore it.

This protects people that are more concerned with making sure their shit doesn't get stolen and I'm not OK with someone killing another person because they might lose some property.

Why isn't this the way it should be? I see alot of "maybe's" here, and that's the problem. Maybe the person breaking in is a threat to kill you, and possibly they're just a thief. But how is one to know? Should they wait around until more danger presents itself to take action? Further, it's hard to judge motive. Who knows what a person is thinking when someone breaks into their house? There's no true way of knowing what the motive of the person breaking in is at the moment they do, so should we blame them for assuming the worst out of self-preservation of themselves, and maybe others? What if this person has a family? Should they wait until actual threat is presented to take action? There are so many "maybes" and what ifs" here to account for, & motive is impossible to truly assess here.

I don't think someone should be allowed to shoot someone else because they might lose some of their property. This law is essentially, "You can shoot someone if they're trying to steal your stuff" - I'm not OK with that, that's ridiculous. There's a difference between immediate danger being brought to you, and you going out to look for immediate danger. If you see someone breaking into your detached garage, they're not even in your home, how are you in immediate danger? You're putting yourself in more danger by going out to confront them, but this is the exact type of thing the law is encouraging by saying, 'go ahead, confront intruders, find them and shoot them, it's totally fine.'

You're saying to look at the evidence to see if there was a clear way to escape the situation without violence, but that doesn't matter, the law specifically says you don't need to take that alternative. If you're presented with a clear escape, and you decide to stay so you can shoot this guy when he enters the house, that's totally cool.

I disagree. In this case, the home owner went into the garage to scare the intruder off. He fired a warning shot, and the intruder still advanced. Going into the garage may have been poor judgment, but again, it was an in the moment decision. I don't see how the homeowner is wanting to kill the intruder, there's a survival instinct along with fear that comes in with these situations.

Further, how is one to know if the intruder isn't carrying a gun of their own? In the example I provided, the man fired a warning shot, and the intruder advanced with malice. Shouid the homeowner have waited for the police to come and taken their chances? To me, the man was acting out of self-preservation. What other solution would you propose he would have acted under?

He probably didn't want to go shoot the intruder, but that poor judgement wound up costing someone their life, regardless if the person was an asshole for their illegal activity. I'm not suggesting the homeowner should be required to see that the person has a gun, or a weapon, that's ridiculous, what I'm saying is that the homeowner should have a responsibility to avoid violence as long as it's possible without sacrificing their own safety. Going outside to the garage isn't increasing his safety, it's the guy purposefully searching out the intruder, it's doing the exact opposite.

Maybe the intruder would get scared and run off and then the homeowner saved his property, maybe the intruder wouldn't get scared and the homeowner shoots him - that risk is not worth the life of a person, the homeowner should have stayed inside or fled his house - two actions that were much safer than what he did and would have cost no one their life.

I agree- The attitude that someone broke into my home automatically gives me the right to act in any way I choose is without a doubt a flawed one. But under PA Castle Law, there isn't free reign. It's simply a case of giving more rights to the homeowner to protect themselves. In each case, as in this one, an investigation is launched as to whether the shooting was justifiable. The law simply loosens the laws on what is justifiable and what is not. Sometimes, people are going to get away from plain blood-thirsty attack, but Id rather see the majority of people who do act with proper intentions be protected along with the select few killers be protected then innocent people go to jail for just acting out of self-preservation. I don't condone those who hold the attitude of "If you break into my house, Ill kill you", but isn't there a large level of responsibility for the person who broke in? Don't they give up many of their rights by intruding in the first place?

They do have free-reign, I don't see how they don't. The law specifically says even if a safe violent free alternative presents itself, you're not obligated to take that alternative. It's encouraging the homeowner to seek out the intruder by not obligating this - it's total horseshit. They can launch as many investigations as they want, but when the criteria is:

• Was he in/on your property?
• Did you feel like you were in immediate danger? (Regardless if you went looking for that danger)]/list]
  There's not going to be a lot done. As long as you have a legal firearm, it's your home, and he was trying to get in - you're fine.
  
  

  Hopefully, the Castle Law will make intruders think twice next time they consider breaking into a home.

  
  For their sake, and the absolute free-reign that people have now to shoot someone on their property, I hope so too. As a student of Psychology though I'm quite sure you know as well as I do that this isn't going to discourage anyone.
  
  ---
  
  

  Obviously if you can avoid it then do so, hold them at gun point and call the cops or something but if it comes down to it I fully support the homeowner and I think this law is a great step forward.

  
  How do you feel considering that there is no obligation to avoid violence, in fact the law specifically states you don't need to take any violent-free alternatives. It's now your right to shoot them if you feel threatened and it's your property - regardless if violent-free alternatives are available.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I have zero problem with this law and others like it. I feel it's how the law should be in every state. The simple truth of the matter is that there are dangerous people in the world that have little regard for the property or physical well being of others.

This is one of those issues that I have some experience in due to my job. I've had several people pass through the correctional facility where I work serving sentences for burglary. The vast majority of those break ins were motivated by drugs. Few things in like quite as scary as a meth head going through the DTs and in desperate need of a fix and some of them will do ANYTHING to get it. If they have to break into your house and steal your tv to pawn or trade, they'll do it. If they have to bash your head in with a crobar in order to get out of your place with your tv and to keep you from calling the cops, or "fleeing" or possibly identifying them, they'll do it and not have a moment's hesitation or regret.

Let me tell y'all a little story. Fairly recently, within the past 7 months, an inmate was brought to where I work sentenced to a term of 25 to life for muder committed during an attempted robbery. He'd broken into the home of a couple, both in their late 60s, for the purpose of stealing something in order to try and pawn. He was carrying a .38 caliber stub nosed revolver along with his lock picks and whatnot. While he was doing his thing, the man of the house woke up and decided to head to the kitchen for a little something to drink. On his way, he happened to run into the guy that broke into his house, who pointed the gun at him. The older man raised his hands and started to back away while telling the guy to take what he wanted, just not to hurt anyone. He tried to talk to him a bit, just kept asking him not to shoot and all that. His wife was awoken by them talking and got out of bed to see what was going on. As she came to where they were located, in a hall leading into the kitchen I think it was, she asked her husband what was going on. The robber was startled and pulled the trigger, shooting the old man in the stomach and causing injuries he eventually died from. The robber fled from the house but they were eventually able to catch him due to fingerprints and the elderly woman's eyewitness accounts. The whole point of this situation is that in spite of what some of these idealistic lawmakers think, you can't plan for every scenario. This elderly man wasn't able to flee from his home. He wasn't able to just keep quiet and hope that the man trying to rob him would just suddenly go away. Now that man, married for over 40 years with 4 children & 8 grandchildren was dead. I talked to the robber after he was sent to us and asked him if he was sorry. He replied that he was sorry he'd gotten caught but he did what he thought he had to do.

If you try to break into someone's house, then you're taking your ass into your own hands as far as I'm concerned. You don't want it filled with holes, then don't go where you shouldn't be going.

 

[SalvIsWin]

The whole point of this situation is that in spite of what some of these idealistic lawmakers think, you can't plan for every scenario. This elderly man wasn't able to flee from his home. He wasn't able to just keep quiet and hope that the man trying to rob him would just suddenly go away.

This is your reasoning for being in support of this law? You're story and point would make sense if the current law stated that you couldn't kill an intruder and that you were obligated to run away or hide no matter the circumstance - but that's not what the law is. If you're under the reasonable impression that a man is going to injure or kill you, you can fight back, and if whilst fighting back you kill the other person, that's self-defense.

This law broadens self-defense laws to a degree that they don't need to be broadened to. A homeowner doesn't need a broadening of this law, they're already covered, all this law does is further the protection to people who decide they're going to go shoot the intruder because they're pissed off their shit might get stolen.

 

[LSN80]

I would say that there is a difference between you hear someone breaking into your house, they enter your house, and they start to come upstairs and you shoot them; versus, you hear someone breaking into your garage outside, you go get your gun, go to your garage, and shoot them. I don't have a problem if someone shoots and kills another person in self-defense in a scenario where they're breaking into their house, what I am saying is that if you're upstairs for example, and the only way to get to you is to go up someones staircase, I see a difference between waiting upstairs with your gun while you call the police, and going downstairs with the gun to search for the intruder so you can shoot them.

I agree with you here, someone shouldn't go searching for someone in their house in an attempt to hurt them. But there are so many exigent circumstances here. What if the homeowner has a family, and said intruder is blocking the only way out? When most intruders break into a home, they don't just stay put, they attempt to get into the house in order to get what they want. As much as I don't condone senseless violence, I do believe the homeowner has the right to protect themselves and their family. When the circumstances are unknown, and there are family members involved, I'm supportive first and foremost of the homeowner being the aggressor
when it comes to saving ones family. If that means shooting the intruder, so be it.

If you go out of your way to search for the person, that's not necessarily self-defense in my opinion. If you hear a noise, you go to investigate, and you see a person and you get scared and shoot, sure, but if you know someones in the house and you go to find them so you can shoot them, I'm not OK with that, you're not protecting your safety, you're trying to kill someone - two different things.

Again, this isn't a blanket situation, it's a case by case basis. If you're sure you and your family can get out alive and safe, then Im a huge proponent of avoiding violence at all costs. But if there's uncertainty about that, why shouldn't the homeowner go looking for the intruder and do what's necessary to save their life? Again, this comes down to making your family is safe, first and foremost. If that means launching a preemptive attack against the intruder, so be it. Didn't they put their lives at risk in the first place by breaking in? Why should they be given any benefit of the doubt?

If it's a situation where it's a single person in the house, that's one thing. But when you have others who could possibly be in danger, isn't it better to act before they do? You can't exactly predict what the intruder is going to do, and I damn sure wouldn't take the chance of predicting their behavior and rolling the dice with regards to my family.

The home owner does have more rights than the person breaking into their home. I feel like this law does give free reign. Unlike other states, which specifically say that you have a duty to retreat if possible without surrendering your safety, Pennsylvania's law does not require this. In fact, in this version of castle law, it specifically states that you're not obligated to retreat if possible.

Actually, this law isn't exclusive to Pennsylvania, PA is just the last state to adopt said law. When it's all said and done, 32 states have adopted some variation of the law. And it's erroneous to believe that this law gives free reign. In fact, the law states explicitly that the occupant/homeowner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. While this law no longer forces homeowners to flee in any case of intrusion, homeowners can still be prosecuted if there wasn't good reason for them to use deadly force. In the case I presented, what else could the homeowner have done? The man wasn't scared by a warning shot, so should he have just let the intruder to proceed at him with malice? In my eyes, this is a perfect example of why this law is a necessary thing.

Hypothetically, if someone was breaking into your garage and you see this from your window, you could call the police and wait and see if they try to enter your actual house, or you just go out the side door to a neighbours for example, there are other options.

Agreed completely, and I'm not arguing this point. If there is a guaranteed way out being safe that doesn't require violence, it should be taken. And Castle Law does touch on this, as it does state that the occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat if not faced with immediate danger. I emphasizemay, because it leaves open more room for interpretation and judgment calls by the homeowner. The law here isnt as cut and dry as it used to be.

This protects people that are more concerned with making sure their shit doesn't get stolen and I'm not OK with someone killing another person because they might lose some property.

Not necessarily, or each shooting wouldn't be investigated by both police and the DA. If people were just given free reign, there would be no need for a DA to even determine if charges should be filed against the homeowner. If it was as you suggested, the homeowner could kill, and that would be the end of it. No investigation would be launched, as it is in every case where death occurs to an intruder from breaking in.

If you see someone breaking into your detached garage, they're not even in your home, how are you in immediate danger? You're putting yourself in more danger by going out to confront them, but this is the exact type of thing the law is encouraging by saying, 'go ahead, confront intruders, find them and shoot them, it's totally fine.'

You're right here, and it's hard for me to argue. I find it to be foolish if the homeowner does go looking for danger when they hear an intruder, instead of fleeing. But again, the situation changes when it comes to a homeowner with a family. It may be impossible for them to alert all family members as to the intruder, and the homeowners best course of action may be to stay and evaluate the situation. Taking action may be their best in-the-moment decision if they feel they can't protect their family, even if this is a dangerous route. The law gives homeowners the discretion to try and save their family rather then fleeing as a group, which could present even more danger. It's not what I would do, but I can empathize with the homeowner who does take chances. This law provides options that weren't formerly provided.

You're saying to look at the evidence to see if there was a clear way to escape the situation without violence, but that doesn't matter, the law specifically says you don't need to take that alternative. If you're presented with a clear escape, and you decide to stay so you can shoot this guy when he enters the house, that's totally cool.

But that's not what the law says. The law spells out protocol for what the homeowner should do, including assessing to see if they're in immediate danger. If they're able to escape, they're encouraged to do so. The only difference is that according to the law, they're not forced to. But if they simply acted out of unwarranted violence, they do face the possibility of prosecution themselves.

He probably didn't want to go shoot the intruder, but that poor judgement wound up costing someone their life, regardless if the person was an asshole for their illegal activity. I'm not suggesting the homeowner should be required to see that the person has a gun, or a weapon, that's ridiculous, what I'm saying is that the homeowner should have a responsibility to avoid violence as long as it's possible without sacrificing their own safety. Going outside to the garage isn't increasing his safety, it's the guy purposefully searching out the intruder, it's doing the exact opposite.

But we don't know what the homeowner was thinking, or what was going through his head. We don't know what kind of noise he believed he heard. I'd assume he thought it was a burglar due to him taking a gun, but why shouldn't a man have the right to protect his home? The better course of action would obviously to get the hell out of the way and call the police, but at the same time, many don't want to take the chance of having their homes destroyed and the intruder possibly getting away with it. Can't say I blame them.

Maybe the intruder would get scared and run off and then the homeowner saved his property, maybe the intruder wouldn't get scared and the homeowner shoots him - that risk is not worth the life of a person, the homeowner should have stayed inside or fled his house - two actions that were much safer than what he did and would have cost no one their life.

But the homeowner did take precaution to attempt to scare the intruder off- He fired a warning shot. His intent, it seems, wasn't to kill anyone, it was simply to scare the intruder off. When that didn't work out, and the man came at him with malice, he took the only action he could- he shot him. The man had no idea what the circumstances were behind the intrusion, perhaps the intruder had broken into the house with the intent of killing someone. In a perfect world, no one would get hurt and the homeowner would flee or make every effort to ensure safety. But in that same world, homeowners wouldn't have to worry about intruders with motives they're unsure of. That's a dangerous place to be- Trapped in a place with an intruder whose intentions ae unknown, all-the-while likely thinking in survival mode. It's not an easy, cut and dry situation. Hence the need for this law.

For their sake, and the absolute free-reign that people have now to shoot someone on their property, I hope so too. As a student of Psychology though I'm quite sure you know as well as I do that this isn't going to discourage anyone.

You're right, it's unlikely. As a psychologist, most people's motives and actions don't change, from my experience. They just work harder for an opportunity to get away with what they want to do. But let's not villify the homeowner who takes action against those who do work harder to get away with breaking the law.

How do you feel considering that there is no obligation to avoid violence, in fact the law specifically states you don't need to take any violent-free alternatives. It's now your right to shoot them if you feel threatened and it's your property - regardless if violent-free alternatives are available.

I feel this way- Human behavior is unpredictable. I feel that a person should do everything in their power to avoid violence in these situations, such as hiding or fleeing. However, it's not so simple in these cases. Take into account state of mind of the homeowner in the situation, and what their perception of threat is. It would be nice if everyone thought completely rationally and all got out safe, but that's an unrealistic expectation. I don't know if this law takes that into account per se, but there is allotment for judgment calls. Id like it if everyone did the right thing all the time, but the right thing isn't so easy to define here. The right thing is determined on a case by case basis, which makes this law a good thing. The good certainly outweighs the bad here.