Self Defense or Defense of Others

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Yes to both questions, however you do not need a LTC to possess a taser for personal defense purposes. Also, if you cannot own a firearm, you cannot own a taser.

§506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.—The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.


§908.1. Use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device.

(a) Offense defined.—Except as set forth in subsection (b), a person commits an offense if the person does any of the following:
(1) Uses an electric or electronic incapacitation device on another person for an unlawful purpose.
(2) Possesses, with intent to violate paragraph (1), an electric or electronic incapacitation device.
(b) Self defense.—A person may possess and use an electric or electronic incapacitation device in the exercise of reasonable force in defense of the person or the person’s property, pursuant to Chapter 5 (relating to general principles of justification), if the electric or electronic incapacitation device is labeled with or accompanied by clearly written instructions as to its use and the damages involved in its use.
(c) Prohibited possession.—No person prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms) may possess or use an electric or electronic incapacitation device.

Section 505 contains the very important criteria (the "limitations") for use of deadly force, and it's incorporated by reference in the "defense of others" statutes; here's Section 505:

" § 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:
1. to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
2. 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:
1. the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) 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; and
(B) 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 required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of 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. "


Note the "castle doctrine" in 2(2)(A). Also pay attention to the duty to retreat in most places.
For a helpless person on the ground, being savagely beaten by multiple hostiles, I'd think that shooting active members of the crowd until the beating stopped would be defensible. My guess would be that the first shot would end the fun, although if they were armed it would escalate into general shooting; if you're in danger of being kicked to death, I'd roll the dice and risk being shot to death if it might scatter the gremlins.
Note also the prohibition on "provoking" an attack so that you can "defend" yourself. Most shootouts that you see in Westerns would end in prosecutions, even where the survivor provoked the other guy to draw first.
Society considers your shooting of the bad guys to be presumptively bad, so you never get a free pass, but sometimes you are excused.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by jdlv4_0

Dont't fire a warning shot, don't shoot for the leg, aim at the biggest target (center mass of the body) and squeeze, not jerk the trigger.

+1. If you're going to make the decision to fire, you have to commit all the way. Aim for the part of the body which is typically the easiest and most likely to hit: the torso.

[MiniDevil]

Originally Posted by showman

Thanks for the response. I have read some of the other self defense and defense of others posts and this would have definitely been the situation to use. I was in fear for mine and my uncles life. At least firing a warning shot to disperse them or clipping them in the leg would have been options.

What would you have done?

A warning shot is not a good idea. You don't know where it's going to land. Plus you just wasted a round of ammunition should the situation escalate. I think you did a great job of avoiding the situation, and I would have done everything you did up until the point they fired at me. The fear for my own life would have shown definately just, and I might have had no choice but to draw and fire to safe not only my uncle's life but my own as well. I would have gone down the line, 1 round in each, then go back over and send another round in each as necessary. If I miss and they all run away, great. Noone got killed. I'm not out there to kill people, just protect myself and those I love.

Stun guns and tasers would be useless in that situations. You don't want to melee three of them with a stun gun, and a taser is a one shot operation. Applying for a LTCF, purchasing a firearm, and getting good training (ALWAYS get training) is your best bet.

Sorry to hear about your uncle, and I hope he will be alright. Scum like that doesn't deserve to walk on this earth.

[MiniDevil]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Note the "castle doctrine" in 2(2)(A). Also pay attention to the duty to retreat in most places.
For a helpless person on the ground, being savagely beaten by multiple hostiles, I'd think that shooting active members of the crowd until the beating stopped would be defensible. My guess would be that the first shot would end the fun, although if they were armed it would escalate into general shooting; if you're in danger of being kicked to death, I'd roll the dice and risk being shot to death if it might scatter the gremlins.
Note also the prohibition on "provoking" an attack so that you can "defend" yourself. Most shootouts that you see in Westerns would end in prosecutions, even where the survivor provoked the other guy to draw first.
Society considers your shooting of the bad guys to be presumptively bad, so you never get a free pass, but sometimes you are excused.

Was the castle doctrine passed in PA?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by MiniDevil

Was the castle doctrine passed in PA?

"A) 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; and..."

Your home is your castle; the usual duty to retreat is weakened. This is different than the "stand your ground" doctrine, which allows you to stand your ground in public.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

"A) 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; and..."

Your home is your castle; the usual duty to retreat is weakened. This is different than the "stand your ground" doctrine, which allows you to stand your ground in public.

GunLawyer,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but although we do not have a duty to retreat our homes if we are in danger, it was still my understanding that we could be held liable for our actions. In other words, even though we have the right to shoot at an intruder in our home if our lives are threatened, that intruder still has the right to sue the homeowner for damages, hospital bills, etc.

As I read the proposed Castle Doctrine bill which went stale in the last State Assembly, it amended the PA UFA to protect the homeowner from such lawsuits, which IMHO would eliminate a huge hassle for those who wish to defend themselves.

I haven't read that bill in awhile, but I believe there's also some "stand your ground" wording in there too...

[Frenchy]

showman, im just up the street from where this ended... Beaver st is just one street down from mine... If your interested in trying out a 9mm or .357/38 get in touch, I am off today, tomorow and Friday!!! The perks of working so much OT lately.
We can go to the gameland in Wexford, it isnt too far, 30 min drive more or less.
I definately believe in try before you buy, If not the gun your buying at least a model similar to it or same type. My guns are not for sale... wait, every thing is for sale, (if the price is right) but i dont buy to sell, so i can safely say my guns are not for sale as I would only sell one if i could replace it.

That is mainly because I have tried every gun I own before I actually thought of owning one. No Sorry buys here. Good place in the area for try/buy is Anthony's... Its a ways a way, close to Century lll mall, but worth every cent of the price when you buy some thing you appreciate after.

For courses, you might look at TonyF, although I have never taken one of his courses, (and I was told that once by 27hand I believe, If you need quick info, the course is the way to go. Important thing about this type of course, there is usually Legal representation there to show you what is and is not legal in situations.

I will be going for my CCW soon also, I havent lived in the area long, and I needed to wait for 90 days. As it turns out, I thought i knew no one in Beaver, I know about 6 people I would trust to speak for me, most are from work, one is a ex-coworker.

[Fitch]

Originally Posted by showman

This has changed my life forever and is a wakeup call for the kind of world we live in today. On Tuesday I am going to apply for my LTC and will be on the market for a good practical self defense handgun. Any suggestions would be helpful or if anyone has one available for sale that would be great. I live in Beaver County and frequently travel to Harrisburg and Philly so I would be happy to travel to pick one up for the right price.

By all means, go apply for your LCTF tomorrow. But please do some reading and research on what gun is best for you while you wait for it to be approved. Running out and buying on impulse, regardless of how "motivated" you are, is a mistake. Take the time to figure out what will work for "you". Buy the weapon that works for you regardless of cost. The difference in price between two choices is peanuts compared to what you will spend on practice ammo and training.

The Gander Mt. within a couple blocks of the COSTCO in Harrisburg has a great selection of self defense handguns. Many of their used guns look like they were ridden hard and put away wet (shot a lot and put away dirty), but they have a terrific selection of new ones. Cabela's in Hamburg, PA, has a terrific selection as well. So does Redding's hardware in Gettysburg.

However, I highly recommend you go to a range that rents guns and try some out before buying - there is at least one such range I'm familiar with in Chambersburg (Shooter's Range). I'm absolutely certain there are others, I just don't know where they are. The counter guy at Shooter's Range is a retired SWAT officer and both very knowledgeable and supportive of folks who are planning to carry. He has been a huge help to me.

I'd also highly recommend that you read Maasad Ayob's book, In Gravest Extreme "before" you carry, and Chris Bird's book on concealed carry as well.

I think everybody that can get a LTCF should carry, but not with out getting a good understanding of what it means and the huge responsibility that goes with it. Firing a weapon at another person is an irreversible decision that must often be made in a split second - it is good to have as much reading and training as you can so you "know" what you should do.

Fitch

[Fitch]

Originally Posted by MiniDevil

Was the castle doctrine passed in PA?

No, as far I know it hasn't passed yet.

Fitch

[bradjc72]

You by all means did the absolute right thing in that case. Never take it lightly when someone states that they have a gun. Doesnt matter if they are lying or whatnot. Now, for future, get your LTCF, get a good carry piece and always have it on you. BG's never let you know when they are going to strike, so be prepared at all times. Training is very important. learn about your peice, how to take it apart, clean it, learn the parts on it, because it will make you a better firearms user, and owner.

I am glad to hear that everone came out alright in the situation, and hope the best for your Uncle.