When to pull a gun... or not

[Nate]

When is it legal to pull a gun?

Obviously common sense enters here, for example don't pull in on some guy who gives you the finger, do pull it on a would be robber pointing a gun at people.

but what about some of the gray areas? can you pull a gun to soon? etc.

[Buckmark.35]

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/question-...f-defense.html

You may want to check out this thread in regard to when it is or isn't legal to draw and shoot

[bsb]

Unfortunately, the most correct answer is--it depends.

A general rule of thumb is that you should only use deadly force (and I would include simply pulling a gun in that category, as you shouldn't be drawing if you aren't prepared to fire and deal with the consequences--legal, emotional and otherwise) if confronted with equally deadly force and unable to reasonably retreat.

The tricky part is, what seems justified to one person who is in the middle of a bad situation may or may not look the same to the folks who have to decide whether to file charges and which ones to file.

Personally, I'd never pull a gun or even suggest that I were armed unless I was pretty certain I would be killed if I didn't. There are a million hypothetical situations someone can run through within that context, and it's probably not worth running through all of them here.

Just remember, if you pull a gun:

-Know that you need to use it to save yourself (or your family) from death or serious injury, and that you have no other options.

-Be prepared to be arrested and charged with one or more crimes in connection with the incident.

-Be prepared to be sued if you fire on your attacker.

[danp]

Originally Posted by Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18) PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS. CHAPTER 5. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION § 505. Use of force in self-protection

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.

That is the meat of the law, but there's a lot more to it. The whole "General Principles of Justification" law can be found at this url: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html

[phillyd2]

Other than the legal definition I would say that you pull out a gun only when you intend on pulling the trigger. You only pull the trigger when you intend to shoot to kill. You only intend to kill when you have no other choice.

You may be charged with a crime and even convicted by a jury but you will be alive to talk about it.

Otherwise, keep it holstered. IMHO

[Spectre6]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

You only pull the trigger when you intend to shoot to kill.

Still depends. I would argue some circumstances dont require absolute lethal force, and a shot to the legs or arms would do the job.

Although, I see this sort of circumstance occurring less in self-defence situations, and more in law enforcment IMO

[Siobhra]

Originally Posted by Spectre6

Still depends. I would argue some circumstances don't require absolute lethal force, and a shot to the legs or arms would do the job.

Although, I see this sort of circumstance occurring less in self-defence situations, and more in law enforcement IMO

Spectre6, your right, but you could be dead right. If right now I were to shoot you and kill you then only I get to tell the courts what happened. If I wound you you are going to tell your side of the story. And I could go to jail. If you later die from the wounds I might get the death sentence based on you 'death bed' statement.

[danp]

Originally Posted by Spectre6

Still depends. I would argue some circumstances dont require absolute lethal force, and a shot to the legs or arms would do the job.

Although, I see this sort of circumstance occurring less in self-defence situations, and more in law enforcment IMO

If you aren't in enough fear for your life to warrant lethal force, why are you shooting at all?

That's what the jury is going to ask, and I think it's a valid question.

If you're justified in using lethal force, use it. If you're not, escape.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by danp

If you aren't in enough fear for your life to warrant lethal force, why are you shooting at all?

That's what the jury is going to ask, and I think it's a valid question.

If you're justified in using lethal force, use it. If you're not, escape.

I agree 100%

[er2006]

The information that Dan has posted is rock solid ( it is a direct link to law ) if you can run then run , make sure that you and your family can get to safety , then call 911, otherwise if you miss you shoot some innocent , make very sure that you are in the "right", , never lose control of your emotions. remmeber there are always people who will panic right in front of your sights , then bang , they are dead.
Ed from er2006