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; Originally Posted by F350 I seem to have noticed a pattern in the thread......The retreater's are all from the North East quadrant of the country....HUMMMMMM ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 66

Thread: PA maintains "duty to retreat"

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    I seem to have noticed a pattern in the thread......The retreater's are all from the North East quadrant of the country....HUMMMMMM

    In Missouri someone breaking into an occupied residence is PRESUMED BY THE LAW to present an immanent danger of death or grievous bodily injury and it is the burden of the state by preponderance of the evidence to prove otherwise, and the law provides immunity from civil action. Missouri just extended castle doctrine to our property line as well, although I haven't had the time to research the actual limits of the law, but I do know the law states that when confronting a trespasser there is no duty to retreat.
    Duty to retreat doesn't mean you have to run away and can't defend yourself. I have castle doctrine in NY with no duty to retreat, but that also doesn't give me the right to become the agressor and kill someone either.

    Here is what I've been taught, have talked about with other instructors and have read in regards to an intruder to your home while you are occupying it.

    You're on your living room couch and someone breaks through the door, you're going to defend yourself right there right? Even in a retreat state, it's only while you can reasonably do so and you don't want to turn your back on an attacker, that wouldn't be reasonable especially if you have family in other parts of the house, you don't want to lead the attacker to them.

    Now lets say you are upstairs and you hear someone down stairs (more than just a "bump in the night", but you know someone is down there by sight/sound). You can't hunt him down in the darkness and shoot him, that would make you the agressor and you'd likely be prosecuted. Plus you don't want to go shooting the drunk teenager from next door who just came home from his prom and went into the wrong house. Instead you take a defensive position, call 911, tell them you have an intruder in your house, you are afraid for your life and you have a gun, leave them on the line to record and issue the intruder commands to get out. As one instructor said "Get out of my house now. I have a gun, if you come any closer I will kill you!" usually does the trick. If they make entrance into your "safe" room then you defend yourself. Unless you took a defensive position at the top of the stairs or hallway, what would someone in a retreat state do differently other than making their stand in an actual room with no escape route?


    On a side note... my "Self-Defense Laws of all 50 States" by Attorney Mitch Vilos just arrived yesterday and I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it looks really good with is plain talk summaries, similar to the NY book I have that had commentary from a former DA and retired NYSP LT.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    Many of those things are dependent on the laws in the particular area one resides. In some areas, it don't mean squat if you're the aggressor if they are commiting a felony in your house or otherwise.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  4. #48
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Guantes View Post
    Many of those things are dependent on the laws in the particular area one resides. In some areas, it don't mean squat if you're the aggressor if they are commiting a felony in your house or otherwise.
    I'm sure that's true, it's what I was taught for NY/CT. But there is also the safety aspect to it, unless I'm wearing body armor I'd rather not engage someone who I know is in the house, there could be more I'm not aware of. Same reason running outside would be a last choice. Plus to a jury it looks good that you took reasonable measures not to shoot someone.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    Engaging and going outside are individual choices, to each his own.
    With a clear cut statute, it should never be seen by a jury.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  6. #50
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by fastk9dad View Post
    I'm sure that's true, it's what I was taught for NY/CT. But there is also the safety aspect to it, unless I'm wearing body armor I'd rather not engage someone who I know is in the house, there could be more I'm not aware of. Same reason running outside would be a last choice. Plus to a jury it looks good that you took reasonable measures not to shoot someone.
    Due to the rules and regulations governing this website I don't have the ability to respond with the appropriate tone or vocabulary. All I can ask is. Does the color yellow make you sad?

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Due to the rules and regulations governing this website I don't have the ability to respond with the appropriate tone or vocabulary. All I can ask is. Does the color yellow make you sad?
    What is your problem? That's the second time in this thread you've called fastK9dad (who seems to be a perfectly reasonable individual, unlike a lot of the internet tough guys posting here) a coward.

    From the DC.com rules:
    2. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts or PMs. Trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are strictly prohibited. You are welcome to disagree with opinions other than your own, but flaming other members will not be allowed. If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip and don't post it.

  8. #52
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    If you folks can't somehow manage to post a comment or your personal opinion in this thread without poking other forum members in the eye with a stick then possibly it would be better if you just moved on to a different thread.

  9. #53
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by unloved View Post
    What is your problem? That's the second time in this thread you've called fastK9dad (who seems to be a perfectly reasonable individual, unlike a lot of the internet tough guys posting here) a coward.
    Thanks. :) I won't respond to the attacks from the other poster. Like road rage drivers, just let em go.

    But I will say this, if, to some, staying and defending my position makes me a coward, so be it. Leaving a safe position and my family behind so I can start clearing rooms and confront an intruder could get me killed, so much for protecting my family. And really if I'm in a safe place do I really need to go and risk my life and my families over my TV? Safety of my family is first, material things are just that and easily replaceable. I'm not running away from anyone, instead I'm taking a defensive position. Obviously things would be different in a single floor house or if everyone were all spread out and not in one area, I'd want to get to them and deal with anyone in the way. Lots of different situations, my original example was just one, if you had the time and space to get to a safe room.

  10. #54
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,025
    Quote Originally Posted by unloved View Post
    Simply reading, and understanding the law(s) regarding use of force in one's jurisdiction doesn't cost a cent, yet many seem to be incapable of even that. I don't get it.



    ^^^^^^^^YEP^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    Heres Michigan's:

    MCL 600.2922b, MCL 600.2922c, &
    MCL 777.21c
    The Self-Defense Act
    Effective October 1, 2006
    Public Acts 309 – 314 of 2006 comprise the “Self-Defense Act.” The Act affects criminal and civil liability for those who use force to defend themselves or others. Prior to this Act, the law of self-defense was gleaned primarily from the common law (judge-made law).
    General Provisions of the Act
    A person may use deadly force with no duty to retreat if (PA 309):
    1. They are not engaged in a crime
    2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
    3. They honestly and reasonably believe deadly force is necessary
    4. The deadly force is used to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of the person or another
    A person may use force other than deadly force if (PA 309):
    1. They are not engaged in a crime
    2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
    3. They honestly and reasonably believe force is necessary
    4. The force is used to prevent imminent unlawful force against the person or another

    Self-Defense Act, continued
    Honest and Reasonable Belief
    The Act (PA 311) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person using force has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault will occur if the person using force honestly and reasonably believes the person against whom force is used is any of the following:
    1. In the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business
    2. In the process of committing a home invasion
    3. Has committed a breaking and entering or home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business
    4. Is attempting to unlawfully remove a person from a dwelling, business, or vehicle against his or her will
    The presumption created by the Act does not apply in the following circumstances:
    1. The person against whom force was used has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or vehicle
    2. The person being removed from a dwelling, business, or vehicle is a child in the lawful custody of the person removing the child
    3. The person using force is engaged in a crime or using the business, dwelling, or vehicle to further a crime
    4. The person against whom force is used is a police officer attempting to enter a dwelling, business, or vehicle in the performance of his or her duties
    5. The person against whom force was used has a domestic relationship with the person using force and the person using force has a history of domestic violence as the aggressor
    Effect on the Common Law
    In circumstances not addressed in the Act, the common law of self-defense still applies with one exception: There is no longer a duty to retreat when a person is “in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.” This exception applies even in cases where the rest of the Act doesn’t apply (PA 313).
    Civil Liability
    A person who uses force in accordance with the Act is immune from civil liability for damages caused by the use of such force (PA 314). Additionally, courts must award attorney fees and costs to an individual who has been sued for using force and the court finds that the force was in accordance with the Act (PA 312).
    Criminal Liability
    Under the Act (PA 310), no crime has been committed when a person uses force as authorized. If a prosecutor believes that the force is not justified, he or she must provide evidence that the force used was not in accordance with the Act. Such evidence must be presented at the time of warrant issuance, preliminary examination, and trial.
    Effect on Law Enforcement
    The overall effect of the Act on police practice is minimal. Officers should still process suspected crime scenes as in the past. However, because of the duty imposed upon prosecutors by PA 310, officers should immediately consult with their prosecutor when investigating a case where self-defense has been claimed by the suspect or where the circumstances indicate that such a defense might be used at trial.
    In the absence of guidance from a prosecutor, officers should attempt to gather circumstantial or direct evidence that might show that use of force was unjustified, i.e., the circumstances listed in PA 309 did not exist.
    Public Act 309 of 2006 Public Act 310 of 2006
    Public Act 311 of 2006 Public Act 312 of 2006
    Public Act 313 of 2006 Public Act 314 of 2006
    LEGAL RESOURCES
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  11. #55
    Member Array Joeface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Carolina, Cabarrus Co.
    Posts
    237
    At a vote of 161-35 you would think they have enough votes to overturn the veto?
    NRA Endowment Member
    USCCA Member
    Certified Glock Armorer
    Patriot Guard Rider

  12. #56
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Joeface View Post
    At a vote of 161-35 you would think they have enough votes to overturn the veto?
    There wasn't enough time left. The veto was announced just a couple of days before the end of this year's legislative session.

  13. #57
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    I'm sure that sort of timing was not coincidental.

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    People who are hung up on if they do or do not have a duty to retreat are those who have no understanding of use of force.

    Educated & well trained people do not worry about this issue because they understand how it applies (99% of the time it simply doesn't...) and in the cases where it can be remotely construde as an issue, how to deal with it effectively.

    Simply asserting "we have the castle doctrine" does not mean you will not run afoul of your state's use of force laws, because from what I'm reading, most people, with or without a castle doctrine, have little clue as to what they can or cannot do in any given situation.

    Life is an "assertive, overbearing woman"...and a cold, unforgiving one at that.

    You have an easier time dealing with her if you do some training and learning before you encounter her.

  15. #59
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by unloved View Post
    There wasn't enough time left. The veto was announced just a couple of days before the end of this year's legislative session.
    Seems to be the tactic of a chicken _____ governor; in Missouri we have a specific veto over ride session just for such stuff.


    fastk9dad
    Duty to retreat doesn't mean you have to run away and can't defend yourself. I have castle doctrine in NY with no duty to retreat, but that also doesn't give me the right to become the agressor and kill someone either.
    I didn't say anything about legal requirement; I just noted the retreat first crowd all seemed to be from the NE.

  16. #60
    Member Array Pinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    90
    Retreating in the face of a dirtbag only encourages the dirtbag, IMHO. It rewards and reinforces their bad behavior. As a committed Christian I feel a duty to protect my family and to stand up against evil, at the same time trying to resolve the issues without undue escalation. I'd hold a weapon on the dirtbag first and order them to stop and get down on the ground and wait for police. If they choose to continue to threaten me and\or my loved ones they'll find someone who won't retreat and they will find an unpleasant end to what they themselves started.

    I wonder what these public officials who say we have to retreat would say if they are told they have to retreat as well (they and their bodyguards) when they are attacked. I can imagine the caterwauling.
    The first rule of self-defense is to avoid the situation. The second rule is Train and Prepare.

Page 4 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.