Would SD be justifed in this situation?

[Pro2A]

I can't get into great details... but long story short there is a guy that wants to kick my ass. I got caught up in the middle of something trying to help a good friend out of a bad situation and now I have a guy that wants to kick my ass.

The facts are this. He has incessantly called and left me threatening voice-mails. He knows where I work and has threatened to come there too. As far as I know he does not know where I live. I have contacted my boss and he took it to HR. Right now we are basically on heightened security at work. Our security department at work has gotten involved with local PD as well.

We have filed reports with both the borough and state police and allowed them to listen to the threatening voicemails. Basically they said they can't do much pro-actively, but can do patrols etc... I've also blocked his number and saved the voicemails etc...

From what I have been told by people who know him he has no handguns, but does have clubs, baseball bats etc...

He has a wrap sheet as long as my arm and he told me in the voice-mails he is going to find me and "beat me down". Assuming it comes down to that in public someplace, my assumption is that it would be justifiable to defend myself (with force if need be) due to the fact that I have made every effort possible to keep this cretin off my back. What do you think?

[Connal]

The one thing I am going to say, is that I think the police should be called. If he is leaving these messages, you have all the proof you need to get him for terroristic threats (as far as I know).

The problem with is it justified, he might show up at work and just puff his chest out. He might show up with a baseball bat. He might show up and say "Hey, sorry about all that. I was having a rough day, and I shouldn't have taken it out on you."

Each situation is different. In this case, in might be. Depending on the circumstances.

IANAL

[ehidle]

I am going to agree with Connal. I would call the US attorney for your federal court district and ask to have terroristic threats charges filed. If he is threatening your person, I believe a crime has already been committed, so I don't know why the police are telling you there's nothing they can do.

They charge high school kids with "terroristic threats" for saying shit like "I fucking hate my teacher. I wish he would die."

You should demand more from those who are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution.

[Pro2A]

Well work really isn't my concern. We're pretty tight in there. That part was taken care of. Police have been called and we are in the process of getting hard copies of the voicemails.

Again, if he finds where I live, I'm not concerned about that either. I feel safe in my own home, and I know what the laws are in regards to self defense in the home.

My concern is on foot. I know PA has a duty to retreat on foot, but if he is actively pursuing me and I have to stop the threat... my question is more or less, would that be justified given the fact that I have taken other avenues to deal with this threat?

[Connal]

Wow, I missed the part where you already called the LEOs. I guess that is what I get for jumping on the computer right after I wake up.

[Pro2A]

I am going to agree with Connal. I would call the US attorney for your federal court district and ask to have terroristic threats charges filed. If he is threatening your person, I believe a crime has already been committed, so I don't know why the police are telling you there's nothing they can do.

They charge high school kids with "terroristic threats" for saying shit like "I fucking hate my teacher. I wish he would die."

You should demand more from those who are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution.

I understand all this, and it is being done. I'm trying to understand in the rare chance he does find me before anything can legally be done... what my legal options are. How would a SD situation play out in the midst of everything else that is going on.

[donm]

Each situation is different. In this case, in might be. Depending on the circumstances.

This is pretty much it. Though the circumstances leading up to an incident would be considered since it shows what you knew at the time (his intent, background, etc.), it really depends on the situation at the time of the incident. Were you in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury? Did you do anything to escalate the encounter? Were Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy all in place? If he attacks you with a baseball bat, it's probably justified assuming you're completely innocent. If he's threatening you, cursing, and waving his arms around, definitely not. As others have said, let the "pros" do what they can but have a backup plan.

[gnbrotz]

IMO, all the details you have laid out are just filler. Regardless of all of the prior harassment, there is one legal standard that applies to the use of force. That standard must be met in order for the use of force to be justified.

You are required to retreat if you can do so "with complete safety". Whether or not such an option was appropriate could be a question a jury will answer.

[gnbrotz]

My concern is on foot. I know PA has a duty to retreat on foot,

The duty to retreat applies any time you are outside your home or fixed place of business. It has nothing to do with whether you are "on foot" or not. If you are driving in your car or chilling at a buddies house on the sofa, the same duty to retreat applies as when you are walking down a public sidewalk.

[ehidle]

IMO, all the details you have laid out are just filler. Regardless of all of the prior harassment, there is one legal standard that applies to the use of force. That standard must be met in order for the use of force to be justified.

Distinction between force and deadly force? If someone comes at me with non-lethal force (i.e. they just want to push me around something) it is my understanding that the duty to retreat does not exist before the use of equivalent non-lethal force in my defense is allowed. Am I wrong?

Excellent point though. Prior harassment has no bearing on whether the use of lethal force is justified. However, IMHO, OP should still be able to obtain remedy from the State if someone is threatening him.

One other pertinent question about the duty to retreat is at what point does it become clear that retreat is impossible? If someone has already been engaged and injurious physical contact made, it is reasonable to conjecture that it is then unlikely/impossible to retreat in complete safety. (that's a magical phrase, isn't it?)