Pennsylvania Prosecutor Says Fatal Crossbow Shooting Was Self-Defense

A Pennsylvania prosecutor says the fatal shooting of a 24-year-old in late September was an act of self-defense. Of course, self-defense incidents happen dozens (if not hundreds) of times a day across the United States. What makes this incident stand out is that the self-defense shooting didn't involve a firearm. 

Police in Sharon, Pennsylvania were called out to the scene of a domestic incident early on the morning of September 24. When they arrived on scene, they found 24-year-old Billy Colwell critically injured from a crossbow bolt fired into his chest. Colwell was taken to a local hospital, where he passed away from his injuries.

On Monday, Mercer County District Attorney Jacob Sander announced that the person who shot and killed Billy Colwell with a crossbow in September acted in self-defense and will not face charges.

This is the first update from local media since the initial report of Colwell's death, and there's still a lot of information that has not (and will not) be made public. We don't know who was forced to act in self-defense or their relationship to Colwell, whether anyone else was inside the home at the time, or the nature of the domestic dispute. 

Since no charges will be filed, there's no reason for police to release that information, so unless the person who acted in self-defense chooses to speak out this is likely the last bit of news we'll ever hear about the incident.  

While firearms are by far the most common tool used in self-defense (we don't have a category of Defensive Crossbow Uses here at Bearing Arms), self-defense laws don't typically specify what can be used in to protect human life. New Jersey comes close, though, by prohibiting carrying anything other than a firearm or a small amount of chemical irritant for the purposes of self-defense.  

That bizarre law is currently being challenged, and stands a very good chance of being overturned, in my opinion. The Second Amendment doesn't just protect the right to own a firearm, after all. As the Supreme Court said in Wolford a few months ago, "arms" simply refers to "implements used for offense or defense." The Court has also said, however, that arms that are "dangerous and unusual" or are not in common use for lawful purposes may fall outside of the Second Amendment's protections. 

What constitutes "common use" will likely be specified when the Court releases its opinion on the constitutionality of "assault weapon" bans in Cook County, Illinois and the state of Connecticut next year, but the unusual nature of the self-defense weapon in this particular case has no bearing on whether or not the shooting itself was justified. 

The fact that a crossbow was involved might make this case unusual, but the underlying principle is about as ordinary as it gets. If someone reasonably believes they're facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, they're generally entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves, regardless of whether the weapon at hand is a handgun, a crossbow, or something else entirely.

This incident is a useful reminder that the right of self-defense is much broader than the debate over guns, and that the tools people use to protect themselves can take some unexpected forms.

I doubt we'll see any Pennsylvania lawmakers call for concealed crossbow permits, and I certainly wouldn't recommend one as your everyday carry option. But when your life is on the line, the best defensive weapon is generally the one you have available. And in this case, that apparently meant reaching for a crossbow instead of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.