The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,523 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
re: force & property PA official comments

found this paragraph in the official comments to the statute:

This section is derived from Section 3.06 of the Model Penal Code, and is intended to define more precisely the circumstances under which force may be used to protect property.

Under existing law a person may order a trespasser from his premises, but has no right to follow him until an attack is made upon himself so as to make it necessary to kill the trespasser in self-defense. Tiffany v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. 165 (1888). Apparently one may use as much force as may be necessary to eject a trespasser but is not justified in inflicting serious bodily harm. In Commonwealth v. Pipes, 158 Pa. 25 (1893), the court indicated that a person may use deadly force where a felony was being attempted on his property. Where the owner reasonably believes that the trespasser intended to commit a felony "by force and surprise," he may be justified in inflicting serious bodily harm. See Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484 (1946). In Commonwealth v. Emmons, 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 495 (1945), which involved defense of personal property, the court stated that only in extreme cases may a person inflict great bodily harm or endanger human life in protecting personal property, and that while a person may use as much force as may be necessary in defense of his property, he may not inflict great bodily harm or endanger life unless the intruder uses force. Where two persons each claim the same personal property, the fact that one takes it into his possession does not justify the other in committing an assault to prevent the taking. Commonwealth v. Concordia, 42 Berks 119 (1949).

This section deals with the use of force against persons to protect property. See Section 510 which deals with the use of force against property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,399 Posts
Gee.......imagine that. No use of deadly force to protect property (other than in "extreme" cases)..........

Wish someone would have said that in the original posting. Oh wait......some people did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
Steve in PA said:
Gee.......imagine that. No use of deadly force to protect property (other than in "extreme" cases)..........

Wish someone would have said that in the original posting. Oh wait......some people did.
Lets see if we can get this one locked too.....

This is your exact quote from another thread about the same topic....."No, you cannot use deadly force to protect property."

but now you seem to add but with some extreme cases....


so which is it?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,683 Posts
You can in certain cases. It is much more believable if the defense is equal to or less than the offence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,399 Posts
Lifes2Fun said:
Steve in PA said:
Gee.......imagine that. No use of deadly force to protect property (other than in "extreme" cases)..........

Wish someone would have said that in the original posting. Oh wait......some people did.
Lets see if we can get this one locked too.....

This is your exact quote from another thread about the same topic....."No, you cannot use deadly force to protect property."

but now you seem to add but with some extreme cases....


so which is it?????
I still stand by what I originally said, which is a lot more correct than what you said. I don't remember you saying anything about "extreme" cases. You merely said, yes...you can use deadly force to protect property.

In 99.9% of the cases, NO..........you cannot use deadly force to protect property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,510 Posts
Steve in PA said:
Lifes2Fun said:
Steve in PA said:
Gee.......imagine that. No use of deadly force to protect property (other than in "extreme" cases)..........

Wish someone would have said that in the original posting. Oh wait......some people did.
Lets see if we can get this one locked too.....

This is your exact quote from another thread about the same topic....."No, you cannot use deadly force to protect property."

but now you seem to add but with some extreme cases....


so which is it?????
I still stand by what I originally said, which is a lot more correct than what you said. I don't remember you saying anything about "extreme" cases. You merely said, yes...you can use deadly force to protect property.

In 99.9% of the cases, NO..........you cannot use deadly force to protect property.
I think you better go back and read again.....I didnt say any such thing and I didnt say extreme either....I quoted the law but you continued on your You cannot use deadly force to protect property because YOU KNOW.

I never said you could blast someone running from your house with a dvd player....but you stood backing your comment that you can't use deadly force...even though the law was shown that you can.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top