I would say whos face is on the money.whos laws to i go by.I pay for this land with cash that I work for is on the bills of this country.it's not yours face this is what i pay for things i own by the face on the bill that bought and paid for this country its a piece of paper but it pays the bills get off my back

PGC officers have always had the authority to enter private property to conduct their work. After all, if they didn't there would be no way to enforce any game laws on posted ground.

Years ago, the state police used to contact the local game warden when they wanted to search a property without first having to obtain a signed warrant from the court or local judge. They would simply call the local PGC officer, and report that theperp was supsected of having illegally-obtained game animals on their premises. That way, the state police could accompany the PGC officer (as protection.) The PGC officerhad the right to open barns, homes, vehicles and other property without the need for a warrant. If the police or PGC officer happened to notice drugs, illegal weapons, bodies, animal carcassesor other damning evidence during the "legal search", it was admissible evidence that a crime was/is being committed.

The simple fact is that if the guy shot the bear over bait it was illegal! Doing something illegal on a section of land that happens to have posted signs on the surrounding trees does not make it legal.

If he used bait, Shame on him. If not, he should have nothing to fear from a PGC officer inspection of his private property.

- Gr8ful

Actually, I am a police officer, have been for over 10 years, and have risen high enough to turn down the LT's position 3 times now. My statement is not irresponsible, it's factual...you canshoot someone who breaks into your home in the middle of the night. You cannotshoot him for walking across yourback forty, or your lawn, unless he is firing at you from your driveway. The totality of the circumstancesis crucial in determining if deadly force can be used, and trust me, someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night is much different than someone walking across some part of your 200 acres in that same night.

Furthermore, you do not have to wait to see if the intruder in your homeis going to fire at you to shoot him, however, if that same subject was to walk across your driveway, you cannot shoot him unless he is firing at you, and even then, if you can safely retreat, you are directed to do so by law. Most States are pretty clear on this, and I gave the example as such to illustrate that going into someones home is much different than walking acros some part of their 20, or 200 acres.

Right here, the post before the one of mine you quoted, it looks like you did...in bold

OK maybe I didnt make myself clear on that one.I meant that entering either ought to require good cause and a warrant. The standard for enteringones home ought to carry the highest degree of probable cause. Perhaps higher than one to enter ones propertybut your land is still your land and IMHO, the present law flies in the face of the US and Pa bill of rights.I'm sure in your many years as a policeman, you have had to encounter frustrating situations where your gut tells you something is illegal going on in that car, house etc but you didnt have enough to get a warrant. I understand and can see why you take your position here. that being said, I still believe that a law that lets someone enter your private property just because they feel like it is a serious infringement on our individual rights.

I also agree that someone entering your house in the middle of the night is different than someone crossing your property at the same time. However, your statement "you can kill him because he is there" is just plain irresponsible.

What do you think is irresponsible, the statement, or the course of action (shooting an intruder)?

There is nothing irresponsible about the statement. The statement was made to illustrate the difference between having someone on your property, vs in your house. The phrase "you can kill him because he is there" means...since he is in your house (THERE), you can shoot, if he were outside (not THERE), you can't shoot...therefore, there is a big difference between someone coming onto your property, and someone, anyone, coming into your house. You implied there isn't any difference between someone walking on your property, and someone coming in your house. My response wasposted to show you just how differently those two actions are viewed by the Law.

As for the course of action...I believe self defense is, in it's most basic form, taking responsiblility for oneself and not hoping someone else will save you. That is not for everyone, but it is also not irresponsible either.

Have a happy new year.

The statement is irresponsible for several reasons. You've said you're a cop and you made a blanket statement implying that shooting someone just because he is there is a legal act. It's simply not in many places. In my home state, there has to be imminent danger. Your statement doesnt give any qualifiers at all. It would be bad enough for anyone to make that statement but you are a policeman. When you make a statement concerning the law, it would naturally tend to carry more weight in the minds of some. If I call 911 and tell them to come and pick up the body and the entry wound is in the back, he's unarmed etc, I doubt that it would help if I said some New Jersey cop told me this was a legal act "cause he was here"

On the other hand, If the dead guy is in my front yard and holding a gun, I have amuch better case.

A group of us had a discussion about this subject a few years ago. One of those in the group was a state policeman. What we were discussing was if we found a burglar or other invader in the house, what would happen if we shot him/her? The state policeman told us it would be much better if the perpetrator fell and died inside the house. If he was outside, some bleeding heart prosecutor might try to make the case that you weren't in danger. His take on it was that if someone is inside your house and you don't know them, you should presume that you are in danger. I would tend to agree.

I completely agree patrkyhntr. But my understanding is that Pa law doesnt give that presumption that freely.

Don't mean to take it off course, but I can't just sit back and listen on this one...although I know I should.

Unless you live in a state such as FL which just signed the "Castle Doctrine" earlier this year you'd better have a lot of money in the bank and a team of top notch defense attorneys before you choose to use lethal force against someone just because they are in your house. Just being in your house does not automatically imply danger to life or limb.

That defense team is going to have to work awfully hardto prove to the jury that.....

1. The perp was there toinflict bodilyharm. Most states do not allow the use of lethal force to protect property. (i.e. your house or anything in it)

2. You had absolutely no way to escape the perp's advances. Those three dirty little words..."duty to retreat."

3. It was 100% necessary to use lethal force. Why didn't you just grab a baseball bat?

4. The perp was armed. You better be darn sure that was a gun or knife in his hand and not a non-lethal tool he just used to break into your house.

5. The perp was not attempting to retreat when you fired.A body 2 stepsfrom the door or a hole in the back brings up a whole new set of circumstances.

6. Your mind/judgment was not altered in any way at the time of the shooting. If youwere drinking that night and still had booze in your system when the shooting occurred you better hope for a miracle.

7. There were no other extenuating circumstances that the state and civil lawyers will spend day and night trying to dig up to color you as a murderer.

8. There was a reason for you to have a gun in the house in the first place. Although your license gives you theprivilege to own a gun you'll have to prove to a jury that you needed to.

9.That your door was locked. Otherwise the victim just may very well have been a transient of some sort looking for shelter from the cold. Remember, this is an anti-gun prosecutor we're dealing with here.

And they'll have to defend you againsta slew of other things anti-gun prosecutors have brought up in the 100 or so other cases involving guns before getting to yours.

Beyond this you'll have to explain why you needed to use an "Automatic Weapon...Objection your honor...Sorry your honor, Semi-Automatic Weapon with 10+1 rounds instead of a simple revolver with 5 or 6." After all, we know only drug dealers and thugs carry big guns like that.

And "What was the name of those bullets you used? Extreme Shock Tactical Defense Rounds? That's apretty scary sounding bullet. Was that the only kind of bullet that fit in your gun? No? What purpose did that type of bullet serve?" Again, we all know only drug dealers and thugs use ammunition with scary sounding names like Cop Killers.

Now that we've established that you have a big drug dealer style gun and ammunitionin which the name alone scares some jurors "Were youplanning on murdering...Objection your honor...Sorry your honor,ending the life ofanyone who entered your home? I mean, what other reason is there for such a deadly combination?" Can you say establishing a Rambo Syndromefor the jury?

And you better hope you don't have mace or pepper spray in the house. Even if it's in the back of some cupboard or your wife's purse downstairs because the fact that you made a conscious decision to use your gun instead of the mace or pepper spray will really paint you as a murderer. After all, you kept the gun by your bed not the mace or pepper spray. That means you intended to kill any intruders from the start.

And lastly, you better make darn sure you remember exactly what you said and exactly what the perp said because otherwise your testimony starts and ends with you pulling the trigger on another human being.

These prosecutors do this for a living. You'll see the inside of the courtroom once while they've seen it many, many times and have dealt with many, many cases involving this same exact thing. "I was defending myself and/or my family from someone who entered my home."






[/align][/align]

BT, once again, you haven't been clear in one of your posts. Let me illustrate.

Here is my original post... I've bolded the qualifiers you say I didn't give. Forget burglary, because once the guy confronts a person, it becomes a robbery. And you are the one that accused me of not reading everything

Personally, I think you have realised you are on the wrong side of the coin with this issue, and are doing anything you can to cling to some issue you are right on, and to do that, you are trying to divert the discussion to me being irresponsible, instead of the difference between entering a home, and walking on someones land. Please knock it off.

We were having a discussion about the differences between entering someones house vs going into their hunting property. My statement was made to show the difference in the two, I didn't advocate anyone do anything...that might be irresponsible.

The statement I gave was an example, and did have quailfiers, in fact, as you can clearly see, I gave specific crimes. I didn't advise anyone to do anything. You like twisting things around pretty good but the fact is there was nothing irresponsible about my posts, youquoting things out of context, omitting other relevant details (like in both your post and mine) is what is irresponsible.

Have a happy new Year.