Laws regarding protecting others?

[Dr Evil]

Hello Y'all,

New guy here, just bought my first gun today, Walther PPS 9mm. I bought it for CCW. I havent fired a gun bigger than a 22 since my time in the Coast Guard in 1999 so it was an interesting experience to just go a buy one.

Since I will be armed, I searched a lot about how best to handle situations. Castle doctrine helps clear up many things, and I would not hesitate to protect myself and my friends and family, but here is a for-instance that I would like feedback on:

If I saw someone assaulting another person, is it ok to use deadly force to protect the victim? If so, is it best to just draw and fire, or is it better and legal to brandish my weapon and try to order the assailant to stop?

Thanks for participating on this forum. It has been a great resource so far.

[sprrdhawk44]

You can legally protect a third person up to and including the extent which you could protect yourself if you were in their shoes. Generally, this is what is known as the alter ego rule.

That said, it's vitally important that you fully understand the situation at hand before engaging. Too many weird things happen. The best bet in that type of situation is to issue a command. If it's just funny business that's taking place, it will stop. If it doesn't stop and there is a legitimate threat, it's your call to use lethal force.


ETA: Good question, and welcome to the forum!

[coppery]

Just like sprrdhawk44 said, usually it's just friends dickin around in public, or just a pissing contest between two people. I have seen both happen in the not so usual places. Personally I would not intervene directly until I see a weapon being used to assault someone. I.e, just a guy or gal pulling out a knife when people are dickin around means they are gonna start stabbing people. You also have to know who is the aggressor. two people may be fighting, but is the guy with the knife or gun the good one or the bad one. What if they both have a weapon.

To me, it's a situation that is very gray. I'd call the cops first. If the altercation is black and white, like if you know that that women is about to be raped or that man beaten to an inch of his life, it's your call to use lethal force or not.

[Swarner793]

While I would not hazard an answer to the hypothetical you posted, here is the PA Statute on the matter:


18 Pa.C.S.A. § 506
§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 506
Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes Currentness
Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses
Part I. Preliminary Provisions
Chapter 5. General Principles of Justification
§ 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 (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) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the actor is not obliged to retreat to any greater extent than the person whom he seeks to protect.
CREDIT(S)

1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, effective June 6, 1973. Amended 2011, June 28, P.L. 48, No. 10, § 3, effective in 60 days [Aug. 29, 2011].


OFFICIAL COMMENT--1972


This section is derived from Section 3.05 of the Model Penal Code, and makes no substantial change in existing law.


Under existing law the same rules generally apply to conduct in defense of others as apply to conduct in defense of one's self. Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 263 Pa. 93 (1919). See also Commonwealth v. Paese, 220 Pa. 371 (1908).


Generally speaking, this section justifies the actor's use of force to defend third parties, including strangers, under the same circumstances and to the same extent that he would be justified in doing so to defend himself.


HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Act 2011-10 legislation

Act 2011-10, § 3, in subsec. (a)(1), deleted “of this title” following “section 505”; and rewrote subsec. (b), which prior thereto read:
“(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.”

Uniform Law:
This section is similar to § 3.05 of the Model Penal Code. See 10 Uniform Laws Annotated, Master Edition.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 506, PA ST 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 506
Current through 2012 Regular Session Act 14
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT

Be safe (and read all of Chapter 5).

Scott

[Dr Evil]

Chapter 5???

Thanks for the link to the actual law. I would be hesitant to use force on another's altercation unless I could be absolute that it were necessary. I agree with all the answers above. If tow are fighting with fists, let it play out. No biggie, not likely to lead to the death of one or the other.

[mpan72]

That is a case by case decision that you have to make for yourself. Any input from anyone is nice but dosen't meen much when the shit hits the fan. Great that swarmer posted the law you should read it and make sure you understand it. Hope you never have to make that decision.

[Keith A]

In the Army, our general rule of engagement was that we could not use deadly force unless we, or someone else in our charge, were in direct threat of loss of "life, limb, or eyesight". That is the rule of engagement I use in civilian defensive situations as well, as it cooincides with my morals, percieved social responsibilities, and I feel would be reasonable in the eyes of the law, as well.