Escalation.

[donotknowme]

I blame the police.

[GunLawyer001]

Phil is not enjoying the choice of hypothetical names here...

That being said, Phil doesn't completely lose the justification defense in any intentional homicide trial, not when he had no intent to provoke Tony into pulling that weapon:

(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

Further, there are lesser offenses (unintentional ones) that may apply, and he may have some trouble there:

When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.

If Phil had a way to retreat from the threat, then Phil was obliged to try, prior to using deadly force. Beating up Tony probably counts as "criminal activity", so his waiver goes bye-bye.

[Carson]

Is either guys wife hot?

One husband is dead, the other husband in prison. Both wives are now available.

Impress us, hook up with both and at the same time.

[Carson]

We will never know they both got a third boob job and shot each other over who had the bigger boobs.

They can't be that big, since they do have three now. (.Y.Y.)

[Greywolf]

Phil is charged with voluntary manslaughter (murder without premeditation). He pleads self defense, since he believed he was about to be stabbed when he decided to shoot Tony. Do you know if the Court will accept the plea?

Phil initiated the conflict. You can't start a fight and then claim self defense when you're losing.

Not sure about PA, but most states have something in the law about "mutual combat," and not being allowed to claim self defense if you engage in mutual combat. "Mutual combat" is when two tough guys agree to step out back and settle [this] like men. This case was not mutual combat. Phil did not ask Tony if he wanted to fight -- Phil assaulted Tony.

Tony's wife then sues civilly for wrongful death. Do you know what his chances are?

IMHO Phil's chances of prevailing on the civil suit are somewhere south of zero.

[Greywolf]

Seriously though, the way I see it, both are at fault but Tony escalated a simple fist fight by pulling a deadly weapon. If he would have pulled the knife to stop the confrontation and wouldn't have charged I would say Phil was on the hook for murder. But with Tony charging Phil did what he had to do, I don't see a murder charge but since he started the fight probably manslaughter.

I see it differently. Phil initiated the assault. Tony did not voluntarily agree to engage in physical combat. Tony might have felt he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, in which case he was legally justified in using deadly force (a knife) to defend himself.

[Frenchy]

Tony and Phil get into an argument over a parking space. Tony pushes Phil's "buttons," Phil decides to smack Tony around a little to teach him a lesson, and a fist-fight ensures.

Thirty seconds and two bloody noses in, Tony pulls a knife. Phil is taken completely by surprise, as he did not know Tony was armed. Phil is armed, but had no intention of using his gun over a parking space. Nevertheless, with Tony in a rage and only three steps away and closing, Phil correctly discerns there is no time for a discussion. Phil pulls his pistol and fires, striking Tony in the heart. Tony dies two minutes later.

Phil is charged with voluntary manslaughter (murder without premeditation). He pleads self defense, since he believed he was about to be stabbed when he decided to shoot Tony. Do you know if the Court will accept the plea?

Tony's wife then sues civilly for wrongful death. Do you know what his chances are?

Note: All of this occurs in Pennsylvania.

Did one person own a Mercedes that costs $50,k and was one person an elder gentleman with dementia? Where are the golf clubs, where the tires on the car black™ and was it late at night or 2 hours before or after?

[elweasel]

Does Phil use the handle Toddinator716?

[mosseater]

I object to the oft misused terminology, " simple fistfight".

Plenty of people have been killed with one punch. I presume if this were the divining line in court of whether deadly force was used, and one could show examples that fistfights HAVE in fact caused death, then responding to prevent this use of deadly force against one's self would be legitimate. Do we need to let him actually punch our guts out before we decide if he's able to lacerated our liver? To see if he's an effective puncher so we can decide if it's deadly or not? I've read and have been councilled by others that a broken bone or permanent/long-lasting, disfiguring injury constitutes deadly force or manifest intent to apply deadly force. Will his breaking my jaw merely confer TJM issues the rest of my life, or will he dislocate a cervical vertabrae and paralyze me from the chest down? Don't know about you, but that's not a "simple fistfight", and I'm not waiting to let him do it.

[donm]

. . . Tony might have felt he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, in which case he was legally justified in using deadly force (a knife) to defend himself.

Can we all please stop using the term "feel." Nobody will much care how you "feel." The legal standard is:

§ 505.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably 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: . . .

The "reasonably" part comes from the definitions section

§ 501. Definitions.
Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this chapter which are applicable to specific provisions of this chapter, the following words and phrases, when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:
"Believes" or "belief." Means "reasonably believes" or "reasonable belief."
. . .

Somebody (or twelve somebodies) who wasn't there gets to decide if what you did was reasonable, given the circumstances and what you knew at the time.