PA maintains "duty to retreat"

This is a discussion on PA maintains "duty to retreat" within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Sorry, I've been thinking about this thread for three hours and I can't get my head around Jon's thoughts. If someone came into my house ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: PA maintains "duty to retreat"

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Sorry, I've been thinking about this thread for three hours and I can't get my head around Jon's thoughts.

    If someone came into my house illegally they would be DRT. I'll take my chances with the legal system rather than the hospital or coroner.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    The only time I would retreat, is if it is the best tactical move. We don't have those silly retreat laws here. Justifiable homicide is authorized to prevent an attempted felony.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Elect Democrats........Get stupid laws

  5. #19
    3D
    3D is offline
    Senior Member Array 3D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Although it might seem foolhardy and cowardly, I would consider retreating, even in my own home, if that were possible. Of course, this depends entirely on circumstances. If I had access to an outside door, and the weather was not bad, and also assuming that no family members were around (generally the case), then I would go outside (armed), and call the police.
    So my question is: once you're "outside" how does the castle doctrine law protect you?
    "It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end"____Leonardo da Vinci 1452-1519

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,073
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Yes, this is true too. I'm just saying I would consider these options first.
    It's one thing to consider the option on your own...it's a wholly different thing when you are mandated by the state to retreat first. I'll take the option that gives me the advantage and works best for me. It might be a "retreat"....it's might require me to go head-to-head, toe-to-toe
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array ctsketch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    2,319
    I would assume that if a BG invades my occupied home with a weapon and intent to do me harm, he is smart enough to have someone watching the exit... It is wise to assume your adversary is as smart if not smarter than you. I feel in many cases it would be safer to stand your ground in a room where you can see the exits and entrances and have a phone (if you live alone with no kids at least) than to run outside into the unknown.
    Glock 19
    Kahr PM9
    LMT-M4
    Mossberg 590
    Shodan, Jujutsu

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    Since I am still on my property (I have several acres), the castle doctrine would seem to apply to me there as well. It just seems to me that sometimes (I'm not saying always), the option to retreat may be a better one.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    -- Benjamin Franklin

  9. #23
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,302
    Governor elect Corbett has stated publicly & on the record and more than once that he will sign "Stand Your Ground" into law.

    It passed the state Senate, 45-4, in October and the state House, 161-35, earlier this month Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett has said he would have signed it.

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    I might retreat as far as my bedroom. That's where my Mossberg, Home Defense 12 ga. loaded with 00 buck lives.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    There's a ton of misconception flying around on this subject. We have "Castle Doctrine". The legislation vetoed by Rendell would be more accurately described as a "Stand Your Ground" law. Every article, blog, and opinion piece I've seen talks about how it would have "allowed" us to use deadly force outside our homes, as if we're not allowed to do that under current law. HB 1926 would not have changed the standard for justification one bit. It simply would have removed the "duty to retreat" (which only exists in public), and provided protection from civil action in the case of justified use of force.

    I really wish all the so-called journalists, and columnists, that are spouting a bunch of nonsense would knock it off.

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Governor elect Corbett has stated publicly & on the record and more than once that he will sign "Stand Your Ground" into law.

    It passed the state Senate, 45-4, in October and the state House, 161-35, earlier this month Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett has said he would have signed it.
    Yup. I'm expecting either it goes thorugh the State House and Senate again during the next session and Corbett signs it, or a veto override vote.

    Fitch

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by unloved View Post
    There's a ton of misconception flying around on this subject. We have "Castle Doctrine". The legislation vetoed by Rendell would be more accurately described as a "Stand Your Ground" law. Every article, blog, and opinion piece I've seen talks about how it would have "allowed" us to use deadly force outside our homes, as if we're not allowed to do that under current law. HB 1926 would not have changed the standard for justification one bit. It simply would have removed the "duty to retreat" (which only exists in public), and provided protection from civil action in the case of justified use of force.

    I really wish all the so-called journalists, and columnists, that are spouting a bunch of nonsense would knock it off.
    I do too. Getting rid of the civil liability for performing a justified act is a big benefit.

    Until it's passed it worth noting that we only have to retreat if we can do so with out increased risk to ourselves or those we would be justifiably protecting from death or grevious injury.

    Fitch

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    People have such a poor idea of what a duty to retreat is that it is almost funny.

    It is the duty to avoid conflict if you can do so with complete safety.

    People who like to think with their 1911 instead of their head totally miss the point - it's not self defense if you could have avoided the situation, but instead put yourself in a position to make the use of force a more likely outcome.

    People are not so handicapped in "duty to retreat" states as they like to believe.

    Gee. Maybe seeking out quality information on this subject rather than news articles written by biased (Left or Right...) authors, or by instructors who's educational or training background in terms of law is questionable would help clear this stuff up?

    I have no pitty for anyone who owns more than $1,500 of firearms, carries a gun, but hasn't taken a quality class in the use of lethal force if they end up on the wrong end of a prosecution.

    Training is costly, but ignorance...that seems to be more precious than a diamond.

    People don't want to be slapped in the face by the fact they aren't well informed. Too bad.

    Get to learning if you don't want to be retreating.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    Until it's passed it worth noting that we only have to retreat if we can do so with out increased risk to ourselves or those we would be justifiably protecting from death or grevious injury.
    Kind of.

    Here's the actual language of the statute.
    (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
    (i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
    (ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
    (A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
    (B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    That statute is such form language that it leaves the field wide open for people to be justified in the use of force that you effectively have to be an agressive, ignorant fool to get screwed under that law.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Duty to retreat jurisdictions vs no CC
    By Thanis in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 4th, 2009, 10:25 PM
  2. Charter Arms "off duty"
    By Joe70 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2007, 11:48 AM
  3. Oregon (court) -- No duty to retreat for use of lethal force
    By ccw9mm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 09:46 PM
  4. Nebraska has high hopes for a good pro-gun "no-retreat" law
    By peacefuljeffrey in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2007, 11:57 AM
  5. Castle Doctorine & Deadly Force or "Please Don't Shoot Me On Duty!"
    By Mark Garrity in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 07:53 AM

Search tags for this page

does pennsylvania have duty to retreat law

,
duty to retreat in pennsylvania
,

duty to retreat pa

,
duty to retreat pa laws concealed carry
,
duty to retreat pennsylvania
,
is the no retreat rule good or bad
,

pa duty to retreat

,
pa retreat law
,
pa. - duty to retreat
,

pennsylvania duty to retreat

,
pennsylvania law duty to retreat
,
pennsylvanis retreat rule
Click on a term to search for related topics.