What would do and when ?

**GunLawyer001** · March 15th, 2017, 04:39 PM

Crazy people who are abusing guns go to the head of the "stop the threat" line.

I would hate to have refrained from using a weapon (a gun, an ashtray, one of those ribbon stands), and then find myself on my knees with an armed lunatic pointing a gun at my head.

**streaker69** · March 15th, 2017, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by raxar

I don't see why you're blaming the dog, it was so friendly the cops didn't even shoot it.

My bet is the dog put him up to it.

**john9001** · March 15th, 2017, 05:47 PM

Is a bucket considered concealed carry?

**Gun** · March 15th, 2017, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

Of course, once you do shoot then you have to convince the police, the DA, the prosecutor, the jury, the judge, the protesters, the media, the ACLU, and anyone else that wants to second guess you.

I believe Ohio is the only state where one has to proclaim and prove imminent fear of death or bodily harm.

All other states, it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

And again, IANAL.

**Gun** · March 15th, 2017, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

Is a bucket considered concealed carry?

Wore like this

no.

Again, IANAL.

**CB57** · March 15th, 2017, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

You can only shoot if you fear death or great bodily harm, also in some states if you can leave the scene you have to leave.

Of course, once you do shoot then you have to convince the police, the DA, the prosecutor, the jury, the judge, the protesters, the media, the ACLU, and anyone else that wants to second guess you.

This was discussed at a meeting I attended about ten days ago. I remember the leader of the meeting had the law projected on the screen, and emphasized AND, not OR must have a deadly weapon.

**scruff** · March 15th, 2017, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by CB57

This was discussed at a meeting I attended about ten days ago. I remember the leader of the meeting had the law projected on the screen, and emphasized AND, not OR must have a deadly weapon.

Don't believe everything that you hear. Your attacker needs to have the means, the opportunity, and the intent to cause grave bodily harm or death. There are plenty of such situations where the attacker doesn't have a deadly weapon. Trayvon Martin only had Skittles and a drink, but he was battering George Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. That'll kill you dead just as much as a gun.

**john9001** · March 15th, 2017, 07:56 PM

CB57 are you saying the leader said the attacker must have a deadly weapon? What if the attacker is younger, bigger, better able?

**CB57** · March 15th, 2017, 08:03 PM

The Martin - Zimmerman case was Florida. I believe PA is different. Younger, bigger, better is known as disparity of force. Yes, that is the problem with PA law.

I hope I'm not overstepping by posting this, but the newsletter I recently got did state share, so:

**Gun** · March 15th, 2017, 08:25 PM

(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, except 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.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...5.005.000..HTM

No where does it state the perp has to be armed with a firearm.