§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes
that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against
the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although
the arrest is unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person
on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under
a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply
if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person
lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry
or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for
the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or
serious bodily injury.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable
if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the
use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling
or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place
of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.
(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable
belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death,
serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
if both of the following conditions exist:
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully
entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling,
residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or
is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will
from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act
is occurring or has occurred.
(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does not apply if:
(i) the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident
of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee;
(ii) the person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful
custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the protective
force is used;
(iii) the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or
occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(iv) the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance
of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known
that the person was a peace officer.
(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession
of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to
retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand
his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against
death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat;
and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences
for offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.
(2.4) The exception to the duty to retreat set forth under paragraph (2.3) does not apply
if the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance
of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known
that the person was a peace officer.
(2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.2) applies, a person who unlawfully
and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied
vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the
actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the
intent to commit:
(i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat.
(2.6) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person
justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in
making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to
perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance
or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is
directed.
(3) Except as otherwise required by this subsection, a person employing protective force
may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to
be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any
other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective
force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement
as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested
on a charge of crime.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "criminal activity" means conduct which is a misdemeanor
or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is related to the confrontation
between an actor and the person against whom force is used.
(June 28, 2011, P.L.48, No.10, eff. 60 days)
2011 Amendment. Act 10 amended subsec. (b) and added subsec. (d). See the preamble to Act 10 in the
appendix to this title for special provisions relating to legislative findings.
Cross References. Section 505 is referred to in section 506 of this title; sections 5322, 6304 of Title
23 (Domestic Relations); section 8340.2 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
304
cases (
81 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 9× “Prior to the court's instructions to the jury, Appellant requested a charge directing the jury to consider the castle doctrine, 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, which would inform the jury of a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary for Appellant to defend himself.”
Commonwealth v. Bracey, 795 A.2d 935 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 8× “In explaining what elements are necessary to establish unreasonable belief voluntary manslaughter, which is sometimes referred to as "imperfect self-defense," we have stated: This self-defense claim is imperfect in only one respectan unreasonable rather than a reasonable belief…”
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012).
· cites it 6× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 10 In fact, the Commonwealth contends, the record indisputably establishes that the victim posed no immediate threat of physical harm, and that Appellant violated his duty to retreat by pursuing the victim on the street.”
Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1990).
· cites it 12× “" 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 505 (Purdon Supp. 1989) (emphasis added).”
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” In so doing, the Superior Court examined the language of the trial court’s justification charge, as set forth supra, in light of the relevant statutory language applicable to “self-defense” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 8 “defense of others” under 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Section 505 states, in relevant part: § 505. Use of force in self-protection (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.”
Com. v. Jones, C., 271 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.”
Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998).
· cites it 12× “18 Pa.C.S. § 505. In short, the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant.”
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 10× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 & § 506. *303 The case proceeded to trial without a jury on December 9, 1986.”
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013).
· cites it 3× “§ 2503(b)), will only justify a voluntary manslaughter instruction in limited circumstances: where a defendant held “an unreasonable rather than a reasonable belief that deadly force was required to save [his or her] life,” and “all other principles of justification under 18…”
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012).
· cites it 3× “2d 441, 449 (1997); 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 2 Although the defendant has no burden to prove self-defense, see discussion below, before the defense is properly in issue, “there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify such a finding.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(a) — 105 cases
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2001).
“The use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 10 In fact, the Commonwealth contends, the record indisputably establishes that the victim posed no immediate threat of physical harm, and that Appellant violated his duty to retreat by pursuing the victim on the street.”
Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1990).
“" 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 505 (Purdon Supp. 1989) (emphasis added).”
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014).
“” In so doing, the Superior Court examined the language of the trial court’s justification charge, as set forth supra, in light of the relevant statutory language applicable to “self-defense” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 8 “defense of others” under 18 Pa.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b) — 37 cases
Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“Prior to the court's instructions to the jury, Appellant requested a charge directing the jury to consider the castle doctrine, 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, which would inform the jury of a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary for Appellant to defend himself.”
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 10 In fact, the Commonwealth contends, the record indisputably establishes that the victim posed no immediate threat of physical harm, and that Appellant violated his duty to retreat by pursuing the victim on the street.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(1) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(1)(i) — 12 cases
Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1990).
“" 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 505 (Purdon Supp. 1989) (emphasis added).”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(1)(ii) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(1)(ii)(C) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2) — 50 cases
Com. v. Jones, C., 271 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.”
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 10 In fact, the Commonwealth contends, the record indisputably establishes that the victim posed no immediate threat of physical harm, and that Appellant violated his duty to retreat by pursuing the victim on the street.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2)(I) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2)(f) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2)(i) — 20 cases
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1991).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 & § 506. *303 The case proceeded to trial without a jury on December 9, 1986.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009).
“Section 505 states, in relevant part: § 505. Use of force in self-protection (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.”
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012).
“2d 441, 449 (1997); 18 Pa.C.S. § 505. 2 Although the defendant has no burden to prove self-defense, see discussion below, before the defense is properly in issue, “there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify such a finding.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2)(ii) — 10 cases
Com. v. Jones, C., 271 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2)(ii)(A) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 505. In short, the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(3) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 505. In short, the law of Pennsylvania does not require one to stand by helplessly while he is injured or killed by an assailant.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(i) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(l)(i) — 10 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(c) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(d) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“Prior to the court's instructions to the jury, Appellant requested a charge directing the jury to consider the castle doctrine, 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, which would inform the jury of a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary for Appellant to defend himself.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.