when you can an cannot shoot

[zoey]

Hello I was wondering if someone could help me out. I have a ltc which I carry
everyday. My ? is if i'm in a store and its getting robb by a gunman even if the threat is not on me but the cashier could I shoot him in defense of me and that person working. Or I would have to wait to see if he turns the gun on me.

thank you
great website

[knight0334]

Since the employee has no duty to flee in their place of work, you do not either when using force in the protection of others. PA has a "as if you were in their shoes" type law. ...unless you know that the surrender of a thing or complying with a demand would sure the complete safety of the person you seek to protect(which would be extended to yourself).


Example1: You're in a store. A guy comes in and demands the loot.. The cashier gives it up, then the gunman turns to you - you must give it up first before shooting. If the gunman turns and runs out the front door, you cant shoot. If he turns to the cashier in a life threatening manner - you can go bang. Since the cashier isn't required to flee, you both gave up the goodz - you complied with the requirements of the law.

Example2: Gunman comes in and just starts shooting at people - bang, period.. Eminent threat to life or limb anywhere at anytime is justification to use force.

§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.
(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the
person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of
this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in
using such force to protect himself against the injury he
believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to
protect;
(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them
to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified
in using such protective force; and
(3) the actor believes that his intervention is
necessary for the protection of such other person.
(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this
section:
(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of
this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing
or to comply with a demand before using force in self-
protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for
the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can
thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.
(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect
would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat,
to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a
demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so
doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so
before using force in his protection if the actor knows that
he can obtain complete safety in that way.
(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to
protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling or place
of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.

[Thekatar]

Example1: You're in a store. A guy comes in and demands the loot.. The cashier gives it up, then the gunman turns to you - you must give it up first before shooting.

Just to make sure that I understand you, are you saying that if an armed man demands your money that you are supposed to give it to him? Just want to clarify, cause it sort of reads that way.

zoey, you should contact an attorney for legal advice.

[dgg9]

Example1: You're in a store. A guy comes in and demands the loot.. The cashier gives it up, then the gunman turns to you - you must give it up first before shooting.

I'm guessing you're misreading the statute. A robber is not someone you're "obliged" to give your property to. A repo man, taking your legally repossessed car, would be.

[Intrigue]

I'm guessing you're misreading the statute. A robber is not someone you're "obliged" to give your property to. A repo man, taking your legally repossessed car, would be.

Yep. You only have to surrender a "thing" if the person demanding it is legally entitled to it.

[knight0334]

I'm guessing you're misreading the statute. A robber is not someone you're "obliged" to give your property to. A repo man, taking your legally repossessed car, would be.

You are reading it wrong..

That law reads that you are obliged by law §505 to hand it over or comply with the demand, ....not hand it over to someone you are obliged to.

You must comply to a demand or hand over the goods if you know it will secure your safety.

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--
The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable
when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary
for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of
unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this
section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is
being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is
unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or
possessor of property or by another person on his behalf,
where the actor knows that the person using the force is
doing so under a claim of right to protect the property,
except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the
performance of his duties or a person lawfully
assisting him therein or a person making or assisting
in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed
of the property and is making a reentry or recaption
justified by section 507 of this title (relating to
use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death or serious
bodily injury.
(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
(ii) 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.
(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate
the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes
them to be when the force is used, without retreating,
surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no
legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) Use of confinement as protective force.--The
justification afforded by this section extends to the use of
confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all
reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he
knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been
arrested on a charge of crime.

[knight0334]

Yep. You only have to surrender a "thing" if the person demanding it is legally entitled to it.

Incorrect.. You must surrender it if demanded by an aggressor. Read my post above.

[knight0334]

Just to make sure that I understand you, are you saying that if an armed man demands your money that you are supposed to give it to him? Just want to clarify, cause it sort of reads that way.

zoey, you should contact an attorney for legal advice.

Yes. You have no duty to stand your ground in PA outside your home or place of work. You must flee, hand over the items, and/or comply with the demands so long as it doesn't endanger you or if you know it will deescalate the threat.

[Thekatar]

That is one of the most irresponsibile bits of "advice" I've ever read on the internet, and that's saying something.

If someone is threatening you with a gun, no matter the "reason", you are justified to use lethal force in response. Same applies if they are threatening you with a knife.

Usually I am arguing against the trigger happy guys who want to run out in their yard and shoot at someone who made a noise...

[knight0334]

Not irresponsible advice.. its how the law is written.

Why do you think we're trying to get the law amended to have a "Stand Your Ground" coverage?

PA has a duty to flee/submit/surrender before using force. Immediate threat of life or limb or other forcible felony is one thing, but if some jackhead has a gun at his side pointed to the ground/sky and demands your wallet - you are required to give it to him by law before shooting because you were not immediately at risk or life/limb. Now if he brings his weapon to bear on you, then you are justified.