Correction on Stand Your Ground Law in PA

[Gallo]

According to USA Carry (www.usacarry.com)

Quote:

Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Pennsylvania is a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand-your-ground law.

Definition of 'Stand-Your-Ground':

Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be.

Definition of 'Castle Doctrine':

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

I bring this up because USA Carry brings up the fact that Pennsylvania is both a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand-your-ground law. My understanding then is that under the Castle Doctrine I have a legal right to use deadly force to defend my home or business ("castle"), (see highlighted point in the Castle Doctrine definition).

However, I am a little confuse on the term 'stand-your-ground' when it applies to PA. From what I understand, it just provides me with the 'No Duty to Retreat' from my home or business (see highlighted point in the Stand Your Ground definition).

My confusion comes from the fact that the Castle Doctrine already gives me the right to use deadly force to defend my home or business. It would automatically imply that there is no retreat and makes the 'stand-your-ground' law portion unnecessary and confusing to the definitions of most states.

In many states the 'stand-your-ground' law provides a person with a 'No Duty to Retreat' from anywhere the shooter may legally be, including one's vehicle or a public place. I understand that PA does not have this part of the 'stand-your-ground' definition in its law as of yet.

Am I misunderstanding, or is this erroneous. According to what I have last heard, PA does NOT have a 'stand-your-ground law' but a 'Castle Doctrine'.

Just thought I would bring this up in order to clear any misunderstanding with regards to these 2 laws.

This is also related to this topic:

Immunity from civil lawsuit
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the shootings. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the shooter, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a shooting fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/shooter) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a shooter acting lawfully.

The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the shooter fired on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who fires in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the shooting.


Duty-to-retreat
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[2] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights and warning shots. Care should be exercised in studying your individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges.

Again, this is where the confusion comes in. If PA has a "Castle Doctrine", then you don't have a duty to retreat in your home. If you do not have a duty to retreat in your home, then why present a 'stand-your-ground' clause that would only cover your home?

From what I can understand then, the only reason for the 'Stand-Your-Ground' clause in PA is for Immunity from Civil Lawsuits, from intruders (or their kin) if they are wounded or killed by your use of a weapon in your defense.

Source use for definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

[knight0334]

PA only has Castle Doctrine as coded and common law. You have no duty to retreat in your home or place of work.


Stand your ground, that site is flat out wrong - all other places you do have a duty to retreat if you can do so in complete safety, or you face immediate risk of life/limb/rape/kidnapping. SYG is for places other than those protected by "Castle Doctrine". We do need a SYG clause added to our existing coded laws.

[Gallo]

That is what I thought.
The other site can confuse new gunowners (such as myself) as to the law.
Just thought I would bring it up for the benefit of all.

[knight0334]

I did a quick look through of some of the states.. ..they are wrong on a few others too. Like IL's open carry status. They say its not allowed, but it is legal in the rural parts of the state. And they say some others has SYG when they dont.

[jud4420]

Yea Pa does NOT have a stand your ground law. You actually have a duty to retreat from an altercation if you safely can - except in your home or place of business or a few other exceptions such as the protection of others.

But for the most part if you can retreat, you have to as long as it does not risk life to do so. If your attacked during a retreat you may defend yourself, but be aware you might have to be able to prove your attempted retreat.

Just something to think about.

[ChamberedRound]

One can defend themselves, their family, and their guests with deadly force from harm in their own home, there is no duty to retreat.

Outside the home, one can use deadly force to prevent bodily injury, kidnapping, or rape, but there is no "Stand your ground"; if you can diffuse the situation by retreating, your obliged to retreat. There are a few exceptions, but this is the general rule.

PA also doesn't have any civil immunity of any kind. If you make the decision to defend yourself or another for any reason, it's highly likely that you'll wind up in civil court even if no criminal charges are filed. It's also highly likely that if it was a justified shoot any civil actions will be dismissed, but you'll still have to go through the hassle and expense of obtaining legal representation to defend your interests. And, while unlikely, it is entirely possible that you could lose and get sued for a boatload of $$$ for defending yourself with deadly force.

There has been a movement for awhile in PA to pass legislation which more concretely defines "Castle Doctrine", as well as adding "Stand Your Ground" and civil immunity to the UFA. However, every time such legislation gets to committee, it gets tabled or dismissed for the session. So we wait.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

to the UFA.

just a small point of clarification.

the use of force laws (the existing ones plus any changes adding stand your ground) are actually *not* part of the UFA. they are a different statute.

the UFA is subchapter A of chapter 61 of Title 18.

the use of force laws are in chapter 5 of Title 18. (this is where the duty to retreat is defined...and where any changes to castle doctrine or addition of stand your ground would go.)

i think the confusion stems in part from the fact that the allegheny county sportsmens league has put both (along with some other statues from other chapters such as possession of weapons on school property, etc.) on the same page on their website and called the whole page "PA Uniform Firearms Act".

(that page is a great resource and it is nice to have all those related laws in one place, but it is a bit misleading in that it makes it appear they all fall under the UFA when they actually don't.)

prolly doesn't really matter at all, of course...

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

just a small point of clarification.

the use of force laws (the existing ones plus any changes adding stand your ground) are actually *not* part of the UFA. they are a different statute.

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

prolly doesn't really matter at all, of course...

It does matter, thanks for the clarification; it's important to make sure the information we present is accurate. I probably should have said "to the PA Code" or "to the PA Consolidated Statutes".