Check this out !! Incident in Carlisle , Couple pulls " gun " from baby stroller

[son of the revolution]

WOW !!
From this past weekend

http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?x2099093861&f=2415

[fingers80002]

Retreating with a stroller, and 7 assailants?

Sounds like they should not be charged.

[CommonHighrise]

Wife and 3 month old baby in harms way? Half of the 'fight or flight' question just got removed. Bring ziplock baggies.

[Mike]

The DA said there is a duty to retreat in PA law - is this true??

[US Militiaman]

Yes, there is a duty to retreat...as much as you are physically able to without endangering yourself. So retreating with a fiancee and baby while surrounded by seven guys...very low probability of being to retreat safely.

If you can get away safely you need to, but if not then you can use force as outlined under the law...

[son of the revolution]

I hope someone from here might know them , or a friend of a friend does and can reach out to them and tell them to STFU and get a good lawyer . Based on the news article and the DA's comments this sure sounds like its shaping up to be another questionable prosecution

[dsnover]

OK, I understand (but don't really like) the 'duty to retreat'. However, in a possible fight 7 to 2, with the 2 having a baby, sure, you can run, but will likely be overtaken. Is it that much of a big deal that the 'gun' was used to diffuse and thus allow for a retreat, where it may not have otherwise been possible?

(recognizing that we likely don't have a full and accurate account of the story)

[US Militiaman]

OK, I understand (but don't really like) the 'duty to retreat'. However, in a possible fight 7 to 2, with the 2 having a baby, sure, you can run, but will likely be overtaken. Is it that much of a big deal that the 'gun' was used to diffuse and thus allow for a retreat, where it may not have otherwise been possible?

(recognizing that we likely don't have a full and accurate account of the story)

It really depends how escalated the argument was. Two people with a child would have almost no chance of outrunning seven guys, and therefore could stand their ground and fight if they truly thought their life was in danger.

What is really lacking is an account of what was being said...if it went something like "Where's my money" followed immediately by wielding a firearm, not too good for the parents...

If, however, it escalated and there were threats of imminent or immediate danger, then pulling out a firearm would be justified, as they have no hopes of a safe retreat.

The true meat of the charges lie in the conversation/argument that was occuring, and whether the firearm was pulled before they were in true danger for their life...

[son of the revolution]

The true meat of the charges lie in the conversation/argument that was occuring, and whether the firearm was pulled before they were in true danger for their life...

I would say a reasonable argument could be made that a rational person could conclude a likelyhood of serious bodily injury or death merely based on the groups gestures , body language and the fact that the couple was outnumbered 2 to 1 plus had a defenseless infant with them . The test of being " truly in danger " is wholly subjective to each individual person and set of circumstances . A guy thats a 6'4" 240lb Linebacker trained in MMA may not have felt he was in danger from 7 unarmed people . A couple with an infant to protect ? Different story
__________________

[tlgpa]

The true meat of the charges lie in the conversation/argument that was occuring, and whether the firearm was pulled before they were in true danger for their life...

Assuming the couples story is true:
"There were seven guys. I had my fiancee and my 3-month-old baby daughter with me," Rhoades said. "The biggest guy was coming at me."

The conversation was irrelevant.