U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Local PA news outlet PennLive reported Friday, that a man who was forced to defend himself with a firearm will not face charges after defending himself with lethal force. The intruder illegally entered the man’s house shortly after midnight, kicking in the front door while wielding a revolver. After pointing the firearm at both the homeowner and his wife, the homeowner used his legally owned firearm to engage and defeat his assailant.
This comes in the wake of changes to PA’s Castle Doctrine that previously unjustly restricted the rights of PA gun owners defending themselves and loved ones. Under the original law, PA citizens had a duty to retreat before utilizing deadly force. The same insane requirement still stands in several anti-gun states like MA which places undue risk on citizen’s lives to protect criminals.
PennLive reports Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele stated that the homeowner was, “Fearing for his life and the lives of others in the residence.” and that he would not face charges or prosecution because “all necessary elements were met”. This is great news for PA residents who previously had to come to terms with the sobering reality that in the past defending their loved ones with a firearm would likely mean losing their freedom, livelihood, and savings.
Unfortuanly, Knute is right about this. Although in PA self defense insurance is legal, I know a guy that lost time from work and lawyer’s bill and spent the night in jail because he hit a person in the head with a golf club when the guy broke into his house. While he wasn’t criminally charged, the man brought civil charges against him for lost wages and medical bills. The man who was drunk took a wrong turn on the way home, claimed he thought his wife had locked him out again, so broke out a window to get into… Read more »
So he gets to keep his freedom. As for his livelihood and savings, the jury is still out. Did he lose his job as soon as the story hit the papers? Many do. DID he spend his savings defending himself against this absurdity? Probably.
If citizens must retreat before using deadly force, law enforcement should be required to do the same in the states that have that requirement for the common folk.
In those other “duty to retreat” States, can your relatives sue the State when you are shot in the back and killed while “retreating”?
Can you imagine having an antiquated law stating that you MUST allow the assailant the right to decide if he’s going to murder you and your loved ones, before you can engage him with lethal force? I am of the opinion that he made his intentions clear when he broke down the door and entered the homeowner’s domicile armed. According to the omnipotence of the whacky left, you have to prove this by adding your body to the assailant’s overall kill count. Only then, will they believe you. And even then, maybe because you COULD have said something to set… Read more »
Another Goblin bites the dust! Unfortunately, there are a lot more of them out there and this virus outbreak will bring more of them out to try to plunder, pillage and rape. As one of the other posters here says: Arm up, carry on.
Phil in TX
At least there appears to be some sanity in PA government. Kudos to the homeowner who shot the scumbag home invader DEAD!!!
Although l don’t hunt, I enjoy range shooting. But until recently I haven’t regularly shot or even owned a gun that l personally bought with my own money. Now that my kids are gtown and no longer live at home my wife of all people suggested we get a firearm. Now a year later I have 3 pistols and even acquired an AR. My next purchase will be a home defense shotgun and at that point I feel I’m adequately equipped. I also attained my carry permit and sticked up on ammo. All this just before this “Wu-flu” pandemic. Stay… Read more »
My wife and I have self defense coverage from USCCA. The core of their coverage is that you are covered in any situation by using any means to defend yourself.
In the litigious society we live in today it would be a catastrophe to find the money for legal fees in criminal or civil trials.
Don’t get me wrong that I’m trying to advocate business for them. We’ve done the research and are comfortable with their package. That’s all I’m saying in response to this article!