Self Defense or Defense of Others

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by TaePo

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 ...

You guys are missing an important point. The bolded section regards giving up an item that someone else makes a claim of right to. In other words, disputes involving property must go to court, not end in gun fights. A robber has no legal claim of right to your property. You do not have to give it up freely, at least legally. It might behoove you to if he has the drop on you, however.

Absolutely.

But this does not mean that merely because someone has demanded one's wallet without a claim of right they are subject to being shot. The element of a reasonable belief that one is in immenent danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death must still be present.

As I said, in an armed robbery, that element is presumptively present. There may be some other factor that negates any such reasonable belief (e.g., it is obvious the "gun" is a cap pistol, or it is obvious the actor is joking or incapable of harming the victim).

Also, be careful of the distinction between the "use of force" and the use of "deadly force." A wallet is property. One can fight to keep their wallet, even if all that is at stake is the wallet. One cannot go to guns (or use any other form of deadly force) over the wallet alone.

The statute governing the use of force to protect property is found at 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 507. It is long, and is full of exceptions and conditions. Note the "force" referred to in this section is NOT "deadly force."

I would not "game" this. My orginal point is that decisions regarding the use of deadly force (and will not include the use of any force) have to be made too quickly and under circumstances where it is impossible to base the decisions upon statutory langugage or construction. The main difference is consequences of a mistake in the use of "force" are much less severe than a mistake in the use of "deadly force."

Here is the language of the statute:

§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property



(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:


(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:

(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and


(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or


(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.


(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:


(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.

(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.

(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.


(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--


(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:

(i) such request would be useless;

(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:

(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and

(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.


(d) 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 can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.


(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:


(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;

(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and

(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.


(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:


(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;

(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and

(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by reverserboy

Sorry Pete....I gotta disagree. The law should never require a crime victim to hand over what is rightfully his / her property to a criminal. If this were put to stare wide referendum I doubt it would pass.

It's my view that when a person commits ot attemts certain acts they should forfit their claim to safety. Sometimes it seems like elected officials want to make crime a safe occupation.

These BS requirements just give an anti gun.....anti self defense DA another legal tool to use against the defender.

The law does not require a victim to hand over what is rightfully his. One can legally resist, with force if necessary. One cannot, however, lawfully shoot a thief merely because the thief demanded that the victim hand over a wallet.

I can assure you that demanding my wallet is not a "safe occupation." (Nor will it become a safe occupation in the event some future legislature deems it should be; some laws are so stupid they must be resisted.) But that is not because I will try to kill anyone over my wallet.

Put a knife into the equation, and circumstances change.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by PeteG

The law does not require a victim to hand over what is rightfully his. One can legally resist, with force if necessary. One cannot, however, lawfully shoot a thief merely because the thief demanded that the victim hand over a wallet.

Pete, you do seem to be advocating making a criminal's life danger free. I propose to you the demand of a wallet, or other object also conveys an implied threat, that any competent lawyer could argue and show just cause. I.e."Give me your wallet fool" carries the implication of if you don't bad things will happen to you, not "If you don't I'll just leave you peacefully alone". ergo, if I hear "GIve me your wallet" and I don't comply I can reasonably expect to be put in physical jeopardy, and justifiably be in fear for my life and or limbs

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by theshadow

Pete, you do seem to be advocating making a criminal's life danger free. I propose to you the demand of a wallet, or other object also conveys an implied threat, that any competent lawyer could argue and show just cause. I.e."Give me your wallet fool" carries the implication of if you don't bad things will happen to you, not "If you don't I'll just leave you peacefully alone". ergo, if I hear "GIve me your wallet" and I don't comply I can reasonably expect to be put in physical jeopardy, and justifiably be in fear for my life and or limbs

I'm with you on this.

Lets put some responsibiltiy where it belongs here. It is not my responsibility to ensure that the law breaker is not armed. It is the BG responsibilty to not break the law and try to rob me. If they happen to still be alive when the police get there great, if not, oh well. I guess they should have made a different choice.

I should note I'm fully aware that is not how the law works, it is how I feel it should work.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by theshadow

Pete, you do seem to be advocating making a criminal's life danger free. I propose to you the demand of a wallet, or other object also conveys an implied threat, that any competent lawyer could argue and show just cause. I.e."Give me your wallet fool" carries the implication of if you don't bad things will happen to you, not "If you don't I'll just leave you peacefully alone". ergo, if I hear "GIve me your wallet" and I don't comply I can reasonably expect to be put in physical jeopardy, and justifiably be in fear for my life and or limbs

Don't tell me. Tell it to the jury. See if they believe that is "reasonable belief." Let us know how that works out.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by brewguy

I'm with you on this.

Lets put some responsibiltiy where it belongs here. It is not my responsibility to ensure that the law breaker is not armed. It is the BG responsibilty to not break the law and try to rob me. If they happen to still be alive when the police get there great, if not, oh well. I guess they should have made a different choice.

I should note I'm fully aware that is not how the law works, it is how I feel it should work.

I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the difference between your personal point of view and what the law requires. So this is now an academic discussion. I would like to make the discussion about "responsiblity," and where it gets placed.

If someone walks up to me and says "give me your wallet," I hold him responsible for the consequences of that action. But that does not mean I no longer am responsible for the consequences of my own actions and decisions.

I move from "relaxed awareness" to "I might have to shoot this guy." And I have a decision to make. Am I absolved of responsiblity for that decision because this guy is breaking the law?

If you think so, there is precedent for your idea. In the middle ages in England an "outlaw" was someone the King declared to be "outside the law." He could be hunted or killed or enslaved without legal penalty, as the "outlaw" literally had no legal rights.

A nice idea, so long as you are the King - meaning the person who gets to decide who is and who is not an "outlaw." Not surprisingly, this concept was subject to considerable abuse by those with the power to declare people "outlaws."

The FACT is, we ALL break the law. [Footnote: and the more laws there are, the more laws we break. Which is how the "security" appratus gets rich either looking the other way or obtaining ever fatter budgets to control all us law-breakers.] No sane person would suggest we all deserve to be shot as we exceed the speed limit or inadvertently carry our concealed sidearm into a state park. So there must be more to your notion of "putting responsiblity where it belongs."

But back to my problem. A fellow half my size, in a T-shirt and shorts, and apparently unarmed, and 30 feet away, says, "Hey man, give me your wallet." I am in no apparent danger, but he is definitely breaking the law. Further, he has the temerity to direct his illegal demand to ME (of all the nerve). So I shoot him.

Would you really absolve me of any moral responsiblity by saying, "he was breaking the law, so he got what he deserved"? Is the the mere possiblity that this guy MIGHT, under some conceivable set of circumstances, present a threat to me, the extra "push" that makes it right to shoot him?

If so, would you open firea on every jackass who gives you the finger or curses you in traffic? After all, he MIGHT be armed, and he MIGHT be angry enough to attack you.

Or is it only a capital offense if it involves robbery?

My own feeling is "let every punishment fit the crime." That comports with my own believe that all parties in any exchange have responsiblities.

You could tweak the facts: Make him closer and have his hand in his pocket. Or make him closer and have his hand in his pocket and say he has a gun. Or make him closer and have him pull the gun. But all of those scenarios beg the question. The question is not whether one has the legal (and moral and ethical) right to use deadly force to counter a deadly threat; we all agree one does.

The question is actually whether one is morally or ethically entitled to presume the existence of a deadly threat by virtue of the fact the would-be robber is a robber.

Personally, I think we should put some responsiblity where it belongs here.

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by PeteG

I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the difference between your personal point of view and what the law requires. So this is now an academic discussion. I would like to make the discussion about "responsiblity," and where it gets placed.

If someone walks up to me and says "give me your wallet," I hold him responsible for the consequences of that action. But that does not mean I no longer am responsible for the consequences of my own actions and decisions.

I move from "relaxed awareness" to "I might have to shoot this guy." And I have a decision to make. Am I absolved of responsiblity for that decision because this guy is breaking the law?

If you think so, there is precedent for your idea. In the middle ages in England an "outlaw" was someone the King declared to be "outside the law." He could be hunted or killed or enslaved without legal penalty, as the "outlaw" literally had no legal rights.

A nice idea, so long as you are the King - meaning the person who gets to decide who is and who is not an "outlaw." Not surprisingly, this concept was subject to considerable abuse by those with the power to declare people "outlaws."

The FACT is, we ALL break the law. [Footnote: and the more laws there are, the more laws we break. Which is how the "security" appratus gets rich either looking the other way or obtaining ever fatter budgets to control all us law-breakers.] No sane person would suggest we all deserve to be shot as we exceed the speed limit or inadvertently carry our concealed sidearm into a state park. So there must be more to your notion of "putting responsiblity where it belongs."

But back to my problem. A fellow half my size, in a T-shirt and shorts, and apparently unarmed, and 30 feet away, says, "Hey man, give me your wallet." I am in no apparent danger, but he is definitely breaking the law. Further, he has the temerity to direct his illegal demand to ME (of all the nerve). So I shoot him.

Would you really absolve me of any moral responsiblity by saying, "he was breaking the law, so he got what he deserved"? Is the the mere possiblity that this guy MIGHT, under some conceivable set of circumstances, present a threat to me, the extra "push" that makes it right to shoot him?

If so, would you open firea on every jackass who gives you the finger or curses you in traffic? After all, he MIGHT be armed, and he MIGHT be angry enough to attack you.

Or is it only a capital offense if it involves robbery?

My own feeling is "let every punishment fit the crime." That comports with my own believe that all parties in any exchange have responsiblities.

You could tweak the facts: Make him closer and have his hand in his pocket. Or make him closer and have his hand in his pocket and say he has a gun. Or make him closer and have him pull the gun. But all of those scenarios beg the question. The question is not whether one has the legal (and moral and ethical) right to use deadly force to counter a deadly threat; we all agree one does.

The question is actually whether one is morally or ethically entitled to presume the existence of a deadly threat by virtue of the fact the would-be robber is a robber.

Personally, I think we should put some responsiblity where it belongs here.

I'm not suggesting that someone 30 feet away yells give me your money and you pop him.

But someone close, who is perhaps blocking your way and appears they might have a weapon.

How do you suggest handling that? What if they attempt to grab you?

It is reasonable to assume anyone who is smaller than me and attempts to rob me has a weapon. Hell if I was going to rob someone I would want to have a weapon. I don't feel you should have to be seconds from death to react. maybe you just draw your weapon and they run away.

I've said it before I'm glad I don't live in an area where these things happen.

Pete you also mention existance of deadly threat. I'm still of the opinion that is some is trying to beat me I should be able to shoot them..

I also don't think you can compare speeding to a threat of physical violence. If the person in your example flips you off, then jumps from the car and comes after you, then yeah assume they could be armed and shoot them.

I think you should be able to use what ever means you have to protect yourself. If that is pepper spray, matial arts training, a club, or a gun. The BG should assume you are armed as well. If someone blocks my travel and tells me to hand over my wallet and I spray them, I don't feel I should be charged with assult. I also don't think I should have to carry every possible weapon so I can match what the BG chooses to show.

If people were not out trying to steal this wouldn't be an issue. I would be acting to defend myself as a direct result of their action.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by PeteG

Don't tell me. Tell it to the jury. See if they believe that is "reasonable belief." Let us know how that works out.

That's what I love about our system, I would be telling it to a jury, not someone who's already made up his mind not to hold criminals responsible (or at least that's the appearance you give). Remember, not all is black and white, as you're trying to paint it. Give me your wallet, conveys a explicit threat of violence, speeding is not a crime of violence, or a crime against people. Each response must be taken in context of the real or implied threat. For example, if I were to type in this thread "we should kill all (insert favorite) group here" the threat could probably be ignored as the rant of an idiot, however the exact same words uttered in person, while possessions the means to carry out said threat should be reported to the police (if the tone wasn't joking). The difference in the two, means, opportunity and disposition. In the case where the guy is 30' away the guy saying give me your wallet may have means and disposition, but due to distance the opportunity is easily removed. Same person, 20' away, between you and the only exit, now has all three.

Too many people are too easily to say there is NEVER a reason, and just cooperate. Sorry, just cooperating gets people killed, look at the Justice department's reports. The more you resist the less likely violent crimes are to succeed against you (but also the more likely you are to be injured in the course of the crime).