I recently came across this article:
In a nutshell it states a man returning from a walk enters his home only to find an intruder.
Home owner draws weapon and fires 2 warning shots running the intruder off.
The article doesn't say if the intruder was armed or not.
The statement was made that because of the "new law" in PA the home owner was justified in his action.
I'm only guessing that the "new law" is in reference to the Castle Doctrine in PA.
We usually see the argument for a justified use of force when a home is being broken into while the owner is in the home.
If you walk into your home and find an intruder and draw and fire a weapon who is really the agressor from a legal point of view?
And are warning shots ever a good idea?