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; Current law: No duty to retreat inside your home. Proposed law would expand this to other places besides the home. Vetoed by the guvner. http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun...astle-doctrine...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66

Thread: PA maintains "duty to retreat"

  1. #1
    Member Array merlin82plus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Buffalo NY
    Posts
    116

    PA maintains "duty to retreat"

    Current law: No duty to retreat inside your home.
    Proposed law would expand this to other places besides the home.
    Vetoed by the guvner.

    http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun...astle-doctrine

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array stevem174's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    749
    Makes me wonder what he was thinking.
    Don't do things you don't want to explain to the Paramedics!

    Stupidity should be painful.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    The idea of retreating is doodie.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array mr.stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    usa-southeast texas
    Posts
    1,694
    I find it interesting that Castle Doctrine 'allows' a person to use deadly force.Strange.Perhaps castle doctrine gives a better legal position for an individual.I read this statement in many news articles,does this mean if you are not 'allowed',you must stand at attention and be murdered?

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    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.

    Of course, I would take a defensive stance if forced to, but I have a much better chance of surviving the ordeal by *not* engaging the BG. Also, the legal ramifications look so much better to a jury if it appears I tried everything in my power *not* to shoot first. Self defense looks much more plausible if there was truly no choice.

    Besides, here in NY, the law is very clear. One must be in imminent danger of bodily harm before lethal force is warranted.
    "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

  7. #6
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,101
    Well, Governor Rendell now has a Duty To Retreat. The citizens of Pennsylvania Vetoed him & he lost as Governor and PA will now have a Republican taking over his job.

  8. #7
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    He might just want to give back because he has to leave.
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Besides, here in NY, the law is very clear. One must be in imminent danger of bodily harm before lethal force is warranted.
    Actually the law reads that you need to "reasonably believe" that you are in imminent danger, or if you are preventing arson, rape, robbery or burglary.

    2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
    under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
    use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
    use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
    as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
    except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
    (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
    (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
    officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
    section 35.30; or
    (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
    attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
    robbery; or
    (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
    attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
    use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
    section 35.20.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by fastk9dad View Post
    Actually the law reads that you need to "reasonably believe" that you are in imminent danger, or if you are preventing arson, rape, robbery or burglary.
    Yes, you are correct. I would just not want to be the one to have to defend the word "reasonable." My definition, and the DA's definition I'm sure would be totally different from each other.
    "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

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Yes, you are correct. I would just not want to be the one to have to defend the word "reasonable." My definition, and the DA's definition I'm sure would be totally different from each other.
    I agree not a theory I want to test, I'll do whatever I can to avoid going down that road.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    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.

    Of course, I would take a defensive stance if forced to, but I have a much better chance of surviving the ordeal by *not* engaging the BG. Also, the legal ramifications look so much better to a jury if it appears I tried everything in my power *not* to shoot first. Self defense looks much more plausible if there was truly no choice.

    Besides, here in NY, the law is very clear. One must be in imminent danger of bodily harm before lethal force is warranted.
    You're right, it is foolhardy and cowardly. When the BG comes outside where are you going to retreat to next? When do you stop retreating? Just trying to get my head around this...

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    You're right, it is foolhardy and cowardly. When the BG comes outside where are you going to retreat to next? When do you stop retreating? Just trying to get my head around this...
    You also need to consider that maybe the BG has an accomplice outside waiting.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    You're right, it is foolhardy and cowardly. When the BG comes outside where are you going to retreat to next? When do you stop retreating? Just trying to get my head around this...
    Well, as I mentioned, I would retreat first, if possible. If the BG follows outside, then I have no choice but to defend myself. I would just try and take all non-lethal actions first!
    "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

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    Yes, this is true too. I'm just saying I would consider these options first.
    "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

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    Here in the good ol' Sunshine State, there is no duty to retreat. I wouldn't take any additional risks to not run away in a home threat situation, but I would not retreat. That's just me. I refuse to be a slave to an aggressor in my own castle. He/she chose to start this; I must now end it. I have no obligation to him, and he is an immediate, deadly threat (IMO). If he wanted to live, he should not have committed an act of severe violence against my home, my family, and myself.

    However, if I lived in a state like NY, I would do everything I could to retreat. No respect for citizens in states like that.

Page 1 of 5 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.