Only in Pa. In Fl. this would not have happened.

I would like to put in a good word for edged weapons .. the guy used a sword to put down a man armed with a firearm. I've got a handgun somewhere. I think it's locked in a steel case in my garage. Over my bed I've got a 100-year-old, razor-sharp sword I picked up in northern Thailand. I know how to use it.

When I lived in Philadelphia I had a similar setup, but with a well-sharpened Knights of Pythias sword. I found in the trash.

If things got rough, I'd probably get a dog as well.


As Iboos said, there may be more to the story.

jn

Nothing more to the story. Stabber has not been charged yet. Stabbee has/had a long record of these things. No obit yet. The guy was 22 not 44.

General feeling is that the police dept does not want to charge him but coroner does. May turn out to be a cat fight between the two. More news at 2100 hrs!

A FBI man told me one time that in order for you to use deadly force, the scene must meet the criteria of:

1. Means
2. Intent

In this case, the bad guy had a pistol (stolen) and body language of him was that he was going to use it. I do not know if the bad guy said anything. You might find something in GoErie.Com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tired Retired

Gunner, at least you have the Autobon!!! We still have a speeeeed limt

---

Unfortunately there are parts of the Autobahn - out in open areas, no less - now that have speed limits as low a 100 KPH (60 MPH). A real pain in the *** since I'm happier at 170 KPH!!!
Sarge

1. In no state does a coroner have the authority to bring charges of any sort. This is the role of the District Attorney. In many states, the coroner may not have any medical training and may also be an elected official.

2. The Castle Defense is base on English coomon law which is the basis of the juris prudence system in the US, and to some degree, in Canada. The key point is the reasonable fear of harm by an intruder.

3. Much of the yada yada has to do with passing state Castle Defense laws which absolve one of civil liability (try to get this to stick) in cases of questionable uses of deadly force.

Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.

Looks like the coroner is barking up the wrong tree.

thepriapus,
If some one break's into your home and has a gun [reasonable fear of harm] dosen't that in itself give you the right to shoot him, in any state?
I also diden't think that a coroner had the authority to bring charges of any kind....Thank's.

Actually in November 2009, they where trying to pass the bill. But i think they where gonna do it without the retreat part. And the definition of a loaded gun would be a loaded clip or bullets in seperate pouch or box.

I remember the advice a long time policeman gave me many years ago. Kill the intruder and funny thing when they go to take his statement he for some strange reason has nothing to say. His big thing was if you are not safe in your house where are you safe? He was a good cop, bucked the system a little but trustworthy. Here in Canada you probably would be charged and spend the rest of your life in Jail. I know of a retired policeman that has a long piece of iron pipe in the corner beside his front door, when asked if was for self-defence he said "hell no" after I shoot the ******* I'm going to put it in his hand. Go figure.

Canada is big on the use of "reasonable force". If a 150lb. crackhead breaks into my house armed with a knife and my wife shoots and kills him, she may not be punished. I am 6ft. 1in. tall and weigh 230lbs., if I do the same thing there is every liklihood that I would be charged because I should be able to physically subdue him. That is the way it was explained to me by a LEO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike webb

Canada is big on the use of "reasonable force". If a 150lb. crackhead breaks into my house armed with a knife and my wife shoots and kills him, she may not be punished. I am 6ft. 1in. tall and weigh 230lbs., if I do the same thing there is every liklihood that I would be charged because I should be able to physically subdue him. That is the way it was explained to me by a LEO.

---

Mike you are 100% correct about the law in Canada, the problem as I see it is one police oganization in particular are too quick to judge the "innocent" as the agressor. I believe I should be perfectly safe in my home but our "limp wrist" laws say I should wait for the police to arrive, like I have the time to try to baracade myself in my bathroom now that I am no longer a 30 year old. I remember the discussion on the radio a few years ago about legistlation being introduced in Oklahoma (?) about a home owner being legally protected if they kill a intruder. All to dogooders cried foul and that it would be abused by homeowners, well aparently it has not been abused at all and B&E's have been drastically reduced.