NBC’s 3 Steps for Home Invasion Defense: Use Wasp Spray Illegally, Treat Invader ‘Like Royalty'

a reply to: rogue7573

Let me tell you this one.. It has been completely buried by the media and police.. and this is a small town.
A pastor was found dead in the basement of his church with apparently his left hand and genitals removed as well as a slit throat. All those facts came out quick... then all of a sudden it was being called a suicide. Lot's of speculation on topix. People think maybe he was ratting out drug dealers in the community, but who knows. The fact that they just closed it and never went any further is bizarre and it was only like 4 or 5 years ago.

I have considered writing about it because I love true crime, i write short stories, and I lived just a few miles from where it happened.

The other local murder that comes to mind was that woman from the 70s (well before I was born) her and her son were at the grocery store (the one my mom worked at a few years later. Some guy grabbed them in the parking or drove them to a backwoods rode, made the kid stand far away with his head turned and cut the wifes throat (this one got alot more media attention, husband implicated, handyman seemingly fled to Oregon. Case was never solved.


Sorry if I am going off topic, just sharing two unsolved murders from my town since the poster and I got onto the subject of small town crime.

a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not trying to put anyone down by saying "we can wait," so please don't get so defensive. I read your post, and I visited your links (except Wikipedia, which is not reliable).

To reiterate, a person is interpreting the law in an extreme absolutist manner if the person believes that as soon as an intruder enters your home you can use deadly force to kill the intruder (which can be murder in some cases). Your comment of concern was: "In all of your scenarios, the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside... Pennsylvania."

You are using Wikipedia to define the so-called "castle law" which was written into the code for self defense.

This is the law in Pennsylvania relevant to self defense:
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Chapter 5. General Principles of Justification, § 505. Use of force in self-protection

First, if you go here you will see there is no law specifically excusing murder of an intruder simply for entering the home. This was my first point in response to you claiming above "In all of your scenarios,the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside... Pennsylvania." Remember that "force" is not the same as "deadly force," especially the kind of deadly force being discussed above (three shots to the intruder, one in the head, etc.), If you carefully read the limitations (which you do not cite) you will see there needs to be more reason to kill the intruder than the person unlawfully entering your home.


Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Pa.C.S.)
TITLE 18, CRIMES AND OFFENSES
PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Chapter 5. General Principles of Justification
§ 505. Use of force in self-protection

[Note below the "actor" is the person engaging in the act of self-defense.]

(2.1) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other’s will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

--if we stop here, it looks like you can use deadly force to kill an intruder as long as you have a "reasonable belief" that the intruder is going to physically harm you or kidnap you. Note that this would not apply IF (as I noted in my scenarios) the intruder began to run away once discovered and you shot and killed him anyway. It would also not apply if an intruder was discovered, didn't resist being arrested once restrained, and you shot and killed the intruder anyway. Hence, THE WILL to immediately kill the intruder in all scenarios (based on prior posts above advocating immediately killing an intruder) is not congruent with the law.

But we cannot stop there because the law says: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2.2)

(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does not apply if:

(i) the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee

--e.g., A man who has kicked out his girlfriend from an apartment in which they are both named on the lease shoots her one night because she tries to sneak in to get her possessions. The guy could be found guilty of murder.

(ii) the person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the protective force is used;

--e.g., a father kicks his son out of the house and some time later the son tries to get in because he wants to speak with his mom and the father shoots him calling him an intruder.

(iii) the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity;

--A guy is raping his girlfriend in his own house and someone breaks in to stop it. The guy who shoots and kills the "intruder" cannot claim self defense in the name of any "castle law."

(iv) the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

--you can't shoot a person who you know is a police officer in the act of entering your house as an "intruder."



My point is that any other "absolute" use of the self defense law, as is implied in saying, "In all of your scenarios, the person breaking into your home can be shot dead legally in the state in which I reside" is an abuse of the law. Let's look at the scenarios I posted one more time:

1. Person breaks into the home to steal something without the intention of physically harming the owner.

2. Person breaks into the home to steal something with the intention of harming the owner if discovered.

3. Person breaks into the home for the purpose of harming or killing the owner or family inside.

4. Person breaks into the home to steal something but upon discovery would run away.

If you shoot the person in numbers 1 and 4 above you may find that you end up first in front of a jury and then in jail, perhaps not with a charge of murder, but it depends. You may not be able to stand on the "castle law" or laws governing "self defense." This doesn't mean people who abuse the self-defense laws can't get away with murder.

I'm also reminded that just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. Which may be why this section, which is all you cite, was added:

(2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor’s dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other’s will from the actor’s dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit:

(i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or

(ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.

Section 2.5 was undoubtedly added to the statute so that in the event that a pro-gun advocate who wants to immediately shoot the intruder and kills him is not guilty of MURDER, per say, but may be guilty of a lesser charge such as voluntary manslaughter (believed justified). You have killed the intruder no matter what you call it.

a reply to: Petros312
Do tell........ How does one differentiate 1 and 4 from the rest? So someone shoots a person with low enough character to break into someone elses' house, and they say "Well shucks, I wasn't gonna hurt no one!", they should be taken at their word? That is if they are lucky to live, if it's my house, they won't be leaving alive probably. .50 caliber will leave a mighty big hole in the torso.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Petros312
Do tell........ How does one differentiate 1 and 4 from the rest?

As I said:

Note that this [self defense law] would not apply IF (as I noted in my scenarios) the intruder began to run away once discovered and you shot and killed him anyway. It would also not apply if an intruder was discovered, didn't resist being arrested once restrained, and you shot and killed the intruder anyway.

I am only referring to the law. I am not trying to instruct someone how to differentiate an intruder intending to harm someone from one that only wants to steal from you. At least in PA, section 2.5 of the laws for "Use of force in self-protection" protects a person who immediately shoots and kills someone who was an intruder from perhaps a charge of murder, but the intruder is still killed and the person who shot the intruder can in some cases be guilty of a lesser charge.

I am also reiterating that THE WILL to immediately kill a person who breaks into your house based on entering unlawfully is not congruent with the laws governing self defense, not even in Pennsylvania.

a reply to: Petros312

You are using Wikipedia to define the so-called "castle law" which was written into the code for self defense.

I provided the PA law.

--if we stop here, it looks like you can use deadly force to kill an intruder as long as you have a "reasonable belief" that the intruder is going to physically harm you or kidnap you.

Then this...

Note that this would not apply IF (as I noted in my scenarios) the intruder began to run away once discovered and you shot and killed him anyway.

This is where you are incorrect.
See Section 2.5 that I asked you to pay particular attention to in my previous post... I even posted it. What if the intruder runs away from you to take cover around a corner so that he can draw a weapon and return fire??? This is why 2.5 is there.

Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit: (i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or (ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.

You are not expected to quiz an intruder that breaks into your home as to why they are there or if they mean bodily harm to you.... The law allows for that presumption.

Now tell me:
Which of your four examples covers this situation???

--you can't shoot a person who you know is a police officer in the act of entering your house as an "intruder."

or this one?

--A guy is raping his girlfriend in his own house and someone breaks in to stop it. The guy who shoots and kills the "intruder" cannot claim self defense in the name of any "castle law.

or this?

--e.g., A man who has kicked out his girlfriend from an apartment in which they are both named on the lease shoots her one night because she tries to sneak in to get her possessions. The guy could be found guilty of murder.

And on this one....

--e.g., a father kicks his son out of the house and some time later the son tries to get in because he wants to speak with his mom and the father shoots him calling him an intruder.

How old is the son? If he is an adult and he has been 'thrown out', he doesn't live there any more. If the father wants to shoot him after he breaks into the house, he can and will most likely not be charged.
Is this example 1,2,3 or4?

a reply to: butcherguy

I made sure to address section 2.5 of the statute for the state of Pennsylvania above. From all my posts, I noted three things:

1. You don't have the "license to kill" like a military person because of section 2.5 of the self defense laws.

2. You can't only focus on Section 2.5 without considering the limitations and prior sections of the state code.

3. Despite section 2.5, because you kill the intruder, and don't get charged specifically with murder, you can be charged with something like manslaughter depending on the case, particularly if the intruder gives up and you shoot the person anyway, or if you pursue the intruder who runs away once discovered and you shoot the intruder anyway.


I don't know what you mean when you ask: "Which of your four examples covers this situation??? "

I think you may be overlooking that my interest in this discussion was justice vs. what some people want to do to the intruder. I then brought up the law to show how THE WILL to kill (or murder in some cases, re-read some of the above posts advocating shooting an intruder) is not congruent with the laws governing self defense.

I'm not having any further arguments here because I'm not a fan of debating back and forth. I clarified my position, and I've said enough.

a reply to: Petros312

I don't know what you mean when you ask: "Which of your four examples covers this situation??? "

Really? You don't understand?

I'm not having any further arguments here because I'm not a fan of debating back and forth. I clarified my position, and I've said enough.

Then don't respond. But you already did that.
You gave four examples in your original post that I replied to, and my reply was based on those examples.
Here they are to refresh your memory.

1. Person breaks into the home to steal something without the intention of physically harming the owner.
2. Person breaks into the home to steal something with the intention of harming the owner if discovered.
3. Person breaks into the home for the purpose of harming or killing the owner or family inside.
4. Person breaks into the home to steal something but upon discovery would run away.

I am asking you which of the four original examples that you provided cover this scenario (that you envisioned):

--you can't shoot a person who you know is a police officer in the act of entering your house as an "intruder."

Is the cop breaking in to steal something?
Is the cop breaking in specifically to harm or kill you?

IOW, I would be guilty of murder if I shot a cop in my house, but I wasn't arguing that point, you provided those four examples and that is what I was commenting on. Now you want to say that I am suggesting that shooting police officers is legal?
Section 2.5 was specifically written into the law to give the resident leeway to shoot intruders in their home without requiring the intruder to fill out a questionnaire before the shooting is justified. You can understand why they put that in there right?

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
eh; by assets I mean like a car... how many burglars take the bus?

I linked a thread where one was living a few blocks from my house, in the woods, and had no vehicle.

And honestly, unless they are driving a brand new, very expensive car, you are not getting much from seizing a vehicle.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I remember a case where a bank robber borrowed his friend's car to use as a getaway vehicle.

They have been known to use taxicabs also.

You can bet it is for sure the law down South here to "shoot the burglar"...it happens down here when it is necessary and it is legal in most scenarios. Of course, shooting an un armed burglar in the back if he chickens out and is leaving throws a "monkey wrench" into that dealy or shooting someone outside can be "iffy" but not always if there are weapons involved and a property owner feels threatened. That testosterone comment....hey guys, I'm a chick and I like lace and perfume and roses as much as I like my guns. My shotgun is still my favorite!! Second only to having my mother-in-law around. She scares the hell outta everyone!

Ever see "Throw Momma From The Train a Kiss" with Danny DeVito? That scary actress with the horrible personality IS my mother-in-law...no guns needed then...most head for the hills, LOL. Seriously. I still like my guns best of all.

I have a sign in my window that says "Forget the dog, beware of owner" as well as one with crossed guns on it that says, "We don't call n*ne one one. Nuf said.

I really do like the "shoot the burglar" law down South here in comparison to the Sullivan Law we had in NY.

Being a chick, like I said, I like kitties and pretties and flowers and teddy bears and such but I also like my pump shot gun, my 38 special with the 6 inch barrel, my 380...not so much...not enough to it and accuracy. I enjoy my 30/30 Savage bolt action rifle and my snub nose 38 as well as my 22 pistol for certain times...a 22 can be more deadly than folks think because of how the bullet can travel around inside. The 45 Llama is ok but I like the 38 better...seems better for accuracy.

The first time hubby taught me proper stance...placing feet in best position to help in balance and aiming and showed me how to hold the gun hard into me and how to look properly down the barrel and site on target...no scope...I hit target dead on and it all just felt natural to me and with much practice, it is. No worries about recoil issues or whatever when holding guns properly, proper stance and paying attention and using common sense.

They aren't toys and aren't for showing off or waving around and one should never point one unless they intend to fire. I hope I never need to use one but I will if my family/self is in real danger. It's not a game. Make love not war. Some scenarios cause the opposite and that is that...unfortunately.

originally posted by: shrevegal... That testosterone comment....hey guys, I'm a chick and I like lace and perfume and roses as much as I like my guns. My shotgun is still my favorite!!

Do I need to remind the forum that a) the female body also contains testosterone, b) women may have less testosterone but have receptors that are more sensitive to the effects of testosterone, and c) in competitive situations (fight or flight response initiators) a woman's testosterone levels increase even more than some males?

originally posted by: shrevegalI really do like the "shoot the burglar" law down South...

The "shoot the burglar" law?!

Enough said.

a reply to: Petros312

Do I need to remind the forum that a) the female body also contains testosterone, b) women may have less testosterone but have receptors that are more sensitive to the effects of testosterone, and c) in competitive situations (fight or flight response initiators) a woman's testosterone levels increase even more than some males?

No.

But you might want to remind us again how much sympathy you have for burglars.

The "shoot the burglar" law?! Enough said.

The Alday murders are a notorious case. If the two men had had guns to confront the intruders, it might have ended differently. a reply to: butcherguy

Don't know how I would react, but I've seen some shootings on youtube where there was a high level of fear and panic. I have been shot at; but not from close range. a reply to: butcherguy

Here are the steps.

Good strong locks on the doors. Have dogs. Have your whole family trained in self-defense. Have a shotgun ready. Know your neighbors so they'll be looking out for each other and you. Have the shotgun ready. Have other weapons and training. pepper spray, tazers, sticks and knives. and train in all of them.

originally posted by: butcherguy
But you might want to remind us again how much sympathy you have for burglars.

--I have demonstrated no "sympathy" for burglars. If anything, I demonstrated why it's important to respect the law, instead of abusing it. It speaks volumes that something like a law governing self defense is being turned into a "shoot the burglar" law.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I can't say I have heard of throwing up or soiling yourself to ward off a rapist. I personally would tell them I was HIV positive. If fighting off an attacker..scratch... you have then, most of the time...got your attackers DNA.

Also in the UK where I am, I'm pretty sure that if I attacked an intruder with a weapon with fatal consequences and wasn't in the gravest of danger I would be in a huge amount of trouble. especially if the weapon I had used was put aside for protection..ie: a gun or knife in bedroom side table. premeditated. Unfortunately the law sometimes protects criminals rather than victims.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
a reply to: Metallicus

my options

Inside/outside intruders - Shotgun/.357/The weatherby or any sharp object
Inside if no gun - aerosol can and a lighter for ghetto flamethrower

outside - water baloons filled with gas or other flammable liquid ( the smell alone should give them an idea of what is coming after the water baloon ) Obviously a bit dangerous to yourself as well but effective for large groups of a-holes....

outside - Drop the bees nest on them ( bees are such a lovely home invasion deterrent ) easy to keep, of course in a breakable self contained unit high off the ground thats easy to drop down to the ground. Beekeeping has so many benefits...

Yes. The bees I'm most fond of keeping come in green round
boxes labeled Lake City ball. I believe they're all 170 gr. boattails.

For the wasp spray, there's probably as good as like that permanently
embossed can that says "TOWARD ENEMY". The containers however
for both are quite durable and don't do you any good if dropped....
like I'm doing to this thread soon.

I wonder if there's a bump stock market for field stripped BARs...

originally posted by: demondonna
I can't say I have heard of throwing up or soiling yourself to ward off a rapist.

Possibly the dumbest idea anyone ever suggested. Maybe I should take their advice and if someone breaks in to steal our things I can puke on my wife's jewelry and take a wizz on my watches.

Hah! Take that felons!