Stand Your Ground in PA Pennsylvania is one of 38 states that has either legislated or established through case law that you have no duty to retreat from anywhere you have a legal right to be.
See that’s the beauty of “not breaking into” someone’s home or destroying their property; ya don’t run the risk of bein greased.
The laws a little different if you’re breaking into someone’s home at night for sure…
You’re just fucking ignorant. Keep calling me a racist though. It’s entertaining,
They’re really not… at least here in Texas. Doesn’t matter what time it is… you can act in self defense. Of course in Texas, you can shoot in the back not on your property if there’s a reasonable chance you can’t retrieve your property.
You’re saying that you can shoot a fleeing burglar in the back…
Yes, yes you can. I don’t know how legal it is, but you certainly can shoot him. Biden says, just blow a hole right through your front door with a shotgun.
You just shot that man in the back. https://youtu.be/ZOCakZSHljI?t=4 A great memorable quote from the El Diablo movie - Billy Ray Smith: You just shot that man in the back! Van Leek: His back was to me.
Well sure, I know it’s feasible, but surprised if it’s legal.
Depends on what he’s doin’ at the time.
This seems to be an absurd argument –
@Montecresto1, is it your assertion that the majority of those looting & rioting (let’s separate this into 3 separate groups, protestors, looters, and rioters) are white?
Equally, @Jimsouth are you trying to compare the experience of white native born Americans with African Americans? There is a legacy of institutionalized inequality in America that is fairly easy to understand. It exists with policing, sentencing, job interviews, income, loans,. It is one of many reasons why the median white net worth is >$110,000 while the median black net worth is ~10% of that. Clearly the riots are about systemic issues and not just a bad apple.
No, but many of them are and they have nothing to do with the death of George Floyd…
I lived in Pottsville for 10 years; and many of my neighbors were black. Everyone went off to work in the morning, Everyone got along. All I can say is, in the PA Coal Regions, people have a different mind set. In all those years, I never saw a negative incident. Can’t say how the situation is today.
Wut? 
…
Right because affirmative action wasn’t enough to create those disparities and decry victimhood. Every one is deserving of an equal opportunity not an equal outcome!
Gotta weigh it. About 10% of whites live at the poverty level. About 20% of blacks live at the poverty level. Ballpark, but close. Now, several ways to view it. A poor white is just as hungry as a poor black.
White population is about 70% - - - - - black about 14 %. So math time. Poverty is poverty is poverty.
The law says that.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or
© the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Yeah, I wasn’t talking about “SELF” defense, but property defense…
Seems Texas needs to amend the law…