Escalation.

[Greywolf]

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.

I agree with you completely that one punch can kill, or cause serious bodily injury. But in the incident described, which "him" are you going to shoot, and which actor are you putting yourself in place of? Phil was the assailant. Tony might have pulled the knife to defend himself against Phil's assault. IMHO that would have been justified under the law. Having initiated the assault, I don't think Phil gets a free ride when he suddenly finds that his intended victim doesn't want to be a helpless victim.

[Bang]

"Tony pushed Phil's buttons" and "Phil decided to teach Tony a lesson".

Tony was the initial aggressor in verbal form. Ergo, he had a hand in what followed.

It's just common sense that confronting another in a manner calculated to stir emotions may lead to an escalating exchange. Tony elected to push buttons. Who knows if he thought that he would prevail in a verbal exchange, or was intentionally setting Phil up for a fight he expected to win.

In any case, Tony did not only agree to a fight, he applied the pressure to almost ensure it would happen.

Did Tony have a responsibility to avoid, retreat, or do something other than confront in an in-your-face aggressive assault on another's psyche?

[PeteG]

It sounds like Tony was trying to defend himself by drawing his knife on the idiot who started punching him over a parking spot.

Phil lost his self-defense claim when he STARTED the physical altercation.

Tony not only pulled the knife, but advanced with it, to the point where Phil was fearful of being stabbed. Tony did not retreat. Nor did he "stand his ground."

Does that make any difference?

And does it make any difference if Tony started the verbal altercation, provoking Phil in the fist place?

[TaePo]

If we cannot have verbal disagreements without it becoming physical, then we may as well throw in the towel and give up the concept of individual rights and expressing our selves.

The expression, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me", comes to my mind.

Let us allow ourselves to express our opinions verbally. If we slander (or libel in writing) there are venues to seek damages for that. If we don't allow verbal disagreements then we do not allow for any disagreements which is unrealistic.

So each party can pretty much say what they want without inviting physical contact unless threats are made and a means to achieve the threat is brought into play. But now we are entering into a physical altercation.

The men can express themselves (unless this becomes 'disorderly conduct' to those around them) but neither can physically assault the other without a threat and means to carry out the threat.

Phil has a big uphill criminal and civil case once he makes physical contact with Tony. The state will probably add that Phil knew he was armed so began a physical contact because he knew he could finish the contact as victor even if Tony began to get the upper hand. The state would probably paint Phil as a coward who would not have initiated a physical altercation without the guarantee or advantage the firearm provided.

It would be unreasonable to expect Tony to sit back and take a beating and hope Phil doesn't accidentally injure or kill him, or that Phil will stop once he thought Tony learned his lesson or suffered enough. There is no way for Tony to understand Phil's intent.

It is reasonable to expect Phil not to physically attack Tony in any way (especially while armed with a gun). I don't see how one can defend oneself from a verbal assault in a physical way. It escalates the situation unnecessarily.

If I were on the jury, it would always be falling back on Phil's actions to introduce a physical altercation into the situation when none needed to have taken place and was not justified.

18 Pa.C.S. § 503: Justification generally

(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:
(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

(b) Choice of evils.--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.

[PeteG]

As a rule, if someone provokes an altercation, they cannot later claim self defense if things get out of hand and they are charged with aggravated assault or homicide. If you started it, you own it.

However, at common law, there was a doctrine of unforseen escalation. Someone who either provokes an altercation, or enters into an altercation with another by mutual consent, may still assert the defense if he had no reason to believe the altercation would involve deadly force, and, when surprised by the escalation in force attemps to end the altercation by retreating, surrendering, apologizing or some other manifestation of a desire to end the fight.

There are tricky parts in this example. When we say "provoked" the fight: did Tony provoke it by deliberately riling Phil up, or did Phil "provoke" it by throwing the first punch? When did the "altercation" start?

Also tricky is the fact that Phil had no time to throw up his hands and say "okay ... I quit ... this is over" or words to that effect. Now what?

The example does not state whether Phil could have ended the fight by safely retreating. But, assuming he could, would he be obliged to under the current "stand your ground" law?

The obvious lesson, as many have said, is to stay out of altercations. But another lesson is that one can quote the statutes backwards and forwards, and still not have the answers they need.

[StingyGunner]

Phil should fry. He was carrying (which puts him on a different level than non-carriers, requiring increased judgment, prudence, and wisdom), and chose to initiate a fight through a physical hostile act toward someone else instead of simply walking away. From this situation we can see that Phil was mentally unfit to carry a firearm (though I'll defend to the death his right to do it). People who decide to carry need to stop thinking it does not change how they must act.

[Hazle Mike]

I'm not in the habit of arguing with people over parking spaces, and I avoid altercations of any sort because I'm usually armed. I choose to avoid dangerous places, also. I know that my actions and behavior will be scrutinized by strangers who will decide my fate if I'm ever in a situation where I'm forced to use my firearm, so I take every reasonable precaution to avoid having to do so.

Having said that, it follows that I would let Tony (or Phil) have the parking space, and I'd get to go home later that day instead of sitting in a cell somewhere second guessing myself. I think Phil deserves what ever comes his way, because I don't consider his actions reasonable. You can't go through life slapping people around just because they 'push your buttons'.

[rady8um]

Tony was shot in the heart and died 2 mins later?

I'm pretty sure it was much quicker than that.

It was a 9mm.

[Greywolf]

There are tricky parts in this example. When we say "provoked" the fight: did Tony provoke it by deliberately riling Phil up, or did Phil "provoke" it by throwing the first punch? When did the "altercation" start?

You seem to be adding new, secret information to your original example. In the opening post, you wrote:

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.

Nowhere in the statement that Tony pushed Phil's buttons do I see anything to suggest that Tony deliberately and intentionally riled Phil up. If Phil is such a hothead that he would decide it's a good idea to slap someone around over a parking space, it may not take much to "push his buttons," and his buttons could easily have been pushed by Tony simply saying "Bugger off" and starting to walk away.

We have precisely zero information about who did what and in what sequence. All we know is that Phil assaulted Tony, Tony pulled a knife, and Phil shot Tony.

IMHO, if you want to discuss your original story, stick to discussing the facts as originally presented. You might learn from that that what you viewed one way is not viewed the same way by objective critics.

[SSG Retired]

As phil is the only one left ALIVE, his story is all that matters. He can just say tony pulled the knife from the start.