Revised 'Castle Doctrine' successfully argued in arrow killing case
Somerset County prosecutors on Tuesday cited the revised "Castle Doctrine" statute as the basis for choosing not to pursue a homicide charge against a Stonycreek man who fatally shot his wife's lover outside his home with a compound bow.
Authorities said the Oct. 9 confrontation happened after the victim, Tony Bittinger, left a voicemail for Carl Woolley Jr.'s wife, saying he was going to "put a hole in (Woolley's) head."
Bittinger, 43, of Salisbury drove 37 miles with his two brothers to the Woolleys' home, bringing a 32-inch wooden club that he repeatedly swung as he climbed the front porch steps, state police Trooper Joseph Drzal said.
Witnesses described Bittinger as "intoxicated and basically out of control," said Drzal, who noted that Bittinger's blood-alcohol content was 0.18 percent, more than twice the legal limit for Pennsylvania drivers.
After repeatedly telling the construction worker to leave, Woolley, 38, retrieved a bow and arrow from his living room and shot him in the upper left chest, authorities said.
District Attorney Jerry Spangler acknowledged that the expansion of the so-called Castle Doctrine, which governs the right to use deadly force without retreat, played a role in the decision not to prosecute Woolley.
In June, Gov. Tom Corbett signed legislation enlarging the definition of one's "castle" to include a home's attached porch, deck or patio.
Previously, a person outside his home was required to take steps away from a potential assailant before having a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect himself.
"Because of the facts developed by the police investigation that (Bittinger) had been told repeatedly to leave the premises, that would be an unlawful presence, and because he was approaching this residence with a club, that would be a forceful entry as well," Spangler said at a news conference.
"What we want to make clear here is, this is a very limited factual situation, and this deals with a situation where there was an assault or an attack on the porch attached to the residence."
Woolley could not be reached for comment.
The new Castle Doctrine guidelines have been tested in a few cases in the state.
In Montgomery County, authorities are investigating whether a Dec. 17 shooting that left a 19-year-old man dead and his adoptive father wounded was justified.
The men were wielding baseball bats when they confronted the homeowner, who claims he shot them in self-defense after he was assaulted.
Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said investigators are looking at the Castle Doctrine provisions as part of their review of the case.
Kim Stolfer of McDonald, chairman of the group Firearms Owners Against Crime, said the prosecutors' decision in the Somerset County case was an appropriate interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.
"Citizens shouldn't live in fear of prosecution when they're also in fear of serious harm or death," he said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.