• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Robber shot dead ... in PA ...

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
During a news conference on Friday afternoon, Falls Township Police Lt. Henry Ward said Pennsbury Pharmacy owner Kenneth Lee "had no choice to do what he did. He was protecting himself and his business."
I thought you weren't allowed to protect your property with deadly force?????
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I thought you weren't allowed to protect your property with deadly force?????
Perhaps I'm reading the report wrong, but it seems he used deadly force more to protect himself than his property. However, being that his business is a pharmacy, there may be a difference as to whether or not lethal force is justified in preventing dangerous drugs from being stolen. One of our legal lights will have to expound on that one.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Perhaps I'm reading the report wrong, but it seems he used deadly force more to protect himself than his property. However, being that his business is a pharmacy, there may be a difference as to whether or not lethal force is justified in preventing dangerous drugs from being stolen. One of our legal lights will have to expound on that one.
Not responding as a "legal light" just a guy who tries hard to be a good guy!

Since when must one wait until actually shot/killed by the BadGuy before one can take action to lawfully defend themselves?

Perhaps due to his excellent (per report) surveillance system he saw the BG get out of a waiting vehicle from passenger side with shotgun and zip ties before entering the pharmacy then when BG failled to breakoff his advance when told to do so by the pharmacist/owner the businessman was fully justified in taking the action he took... and got the "congratulations" and thanks from the District Attorney for his actions.

Sure seems to me after reading the linked story that the BG had evil intent (failed to stop when warned repeatedly), was prepared with zipties to unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill any present within the building in his effort (unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill) to obtain possession of that which was not lawfully his.

As always I am sad the GOOD GUY was put in the position of taking the life of another, BadGuy in this case, but would much rather the good guy lives vs the bad guy.
 
Last edited:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Now That's A District Attorney Who Really Believes in The Second Amendment

Thug wants to rob a pharmacy. But pharmacist has a gun at hand. Business owners, keep a gun at hand just in case... way to go DA. We need more of them trusting us who carry.

http://6abc.com/1369834/
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
See section
§ 507. *Use of force for the protection of property.
(a) *Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) *to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=5
 
Top