Patron foils PNC bank robbery.

[jtwalker]

Am I the only one that thought tequila (Patron) somehow prevented a robbery upon first reading this post?

[knight0334]

Black letter law is NOT controlling. It would be useful to look up the case law but more importantly, the jury instructions, where that decision has been used in a defendant's trial where that decision has been used as the foundation for the self-defense claim. Might fly in Jefferson County , Philadelphia County?

That ruling is statewide, it came from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and is still standing precedence.

Use of deadly force isn't limited to self defense, or defense of 3rd persons.

See PA 18, Chapt. 5, 508 for example(below), now add 508(d)(1)(ii)(A) with Chermansky - shooting a person in the act of those enumerated forcible felonies is justified.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 508
§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement

(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:
(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.
(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or
(B) the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.
(2) The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive 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.

[TangoBravo605]

You wanna argue black letter law, be my guest, however, it doesn't mean squat in a court proceeding in the presence of a Prosecutor who is anti-2A, running for re-election or for elevation to a higher post; where the jury pool is as well anti-2A; where the attacker is in a racial/ethnic minority; and where the judge is on record as having said that "all folks who carry concealed for self-defense purposes are mentally ill; and where the firearm used was a "Mountain Gun" with ammunition designed to kill bears." That said: it's your choice as to how to proceed, Sir, and I respect that. I would only add that I've been in virtually the same scenario, ironically also in a PNC bank. Everybody went home alive. BG escaped. He was arrested some number of months later. He had the same weapon upon arrest: a Black and Decker lug wrench driver. Have fun with that in Court. Prosecutor: "You used that Mountain Gun to employ deadly force against somebody who had "just" a drill for taking a nut off a little bolt?" Pass the popcorn because that'll be the only thing that'll taste good. And also, have plenty of self-defense $ coverage. That one won't be cheap.

TB605

[JenniferG]

If there was no threat to life, why get involved in saving the bank’s insured money, at personal risk to yourself?

Was kinda thinking along those same lines. I'd take up a defensive position and if anyone else wanted my protection but everyone else just hand over the money. It's all printed and insured by the Federal Reserve.

[Berncly]

That ruling is statewide, it came from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and is still standing precedence.

Use of deadly force isn't limited to self defense, or defense of 3rd persons.

See PA 18, Chapt. 5, 508 for example(below), now add 508(d)(1)(ii)(A) with Chermansky - shooting a person in the act of those enumerated forcible felonies is justified.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 508
§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement

(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:
(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.
(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or
(B) the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.
(2) The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive 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.

I am pretty sure the bold text is saying the same thing I said earlier, that deadly force is only justified when a credible violent threat exists.
If a credible threat to life or limb cannot be demonstrated you may well be prosecuted for murder.

[knight0334]

I am pretty sure the bold text is saying the same thing I said earlier, that deadly force is only justified when a credible violent threat exists.
If a credible threat to life or limb cannot be demonstrated you may well be prosecuted for murder.

The act of robbery is a credible threat.

[JenniferG]

If you're in a PNC Bank and someone comes in to hold them up you have to take a look around and question which one of these people in this bank are really the robbers?

[Berncly]

The act of robbery is a credible threat.

Yeah, I get the premise of the argument, but I just don't see it playing out that way in the real world today.
These days there needs to be an element of violence or potential violence to justify the shoot.

If the criminal is armed then it's probably a good shoot, but if he is unarmed and shoplifting then you will likely be prosecuted for a bad shoot.

The only crime I am aware of where violence is implicit regardless of the criminal's demeanor or lack of weapon is a home invasion.
In a home invasion I believe the homeowner can claim the shoot is justified just because the criminal made entry into the house armed or not, and violent or not.
The presence of the criminal in the home is enough to justify deadly force.

Again I think your previous post spells it out fairly well, that deadly force is not justified in the public sphere without a credible threat of violence or potential violence:

(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons;

[Gun]

If you're in a PNC Bank and someone comes in to hold them up you have to take a look around and question which one of these people in this bank are really the robbers?

In most cases, it is a note that is being passed to the teller.

The teller complies, and the perp most likely gets away with around three grand, including the dye-pack, which will make the gamble even more fun.

[mosseater]

With the beloved 3-legged stool firmly in mind, I'm going to have to see a "threat". Demanding money, in and of itself, is rude and pretentious, but not a threat. If rude and pretentious is justification, I'd have no friends.

I'm thinking if I see it happening, make some strategic, casual distance preferably toward the door, know where the exits are, and become a good witness unless/until the need arises to make sparks. This is not my party until someone makes it my party.