Alleged Robber Gets Shot with .357 Magnum on Christmas Eve

[ExFlyinguy]

Self defense education is important for gun owners. I have tried to get reliable information (opinions) on when it is justifiable to shoot an intruder. My findings differ from those of you who feel as though that shooting was justified. Personally and morally I'm fine with it but I am neither the law nor the jury here. BTW, I wouldn't care if that perp had been killed.

Justifiable deadly force really isn't that difficult to understand. The shooter has to have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury for self or others.

I didnt read anymore than was shared here so I can't really say if it was a good shoot.

[Sandcut]

I like your interpretation much better than I like the interpretation I got from a lawyer at a seminar not too long ago (not by any of the lawyers that we know), who said that unless that lunger had a deadly weapon in his hand a shooting would not be justified.

If he was speaking soley about protection being automatically afforded by PA's Stand Your Ground law, he would be correct. SYG in PA must have a deadly weapon visible and fists/feet/disparity of force do NOT necessarily count. BUT, IIRC, the old "ability to retreat" aspect (Was it PA 18 Section 507?) has no such qualifier, As such, if SYG doesn't kick in, all is not lost. And rightfully so.

I like your interpretation much better than I like the interpretation I got from a lawyer at a seminar not too long ago (not by any of the lawyers that we know), who said that unless that lunger had a deadly weapon in his hand a shooting would not be justified.

I look at it as if a "reasonable" person would expect an aggressive forward motion to be an attack. By comparison, when my daughters were approached by feral dogs in our driveway back in 2010, the pistol.stayed holstered until the shepherd made an inappropriate movement forward toward me. I, therefore, "reasonably" interpreted that motion as hostile and cleared leather just in case. Based on this experience and the small amount of info in the OP, I would interpret them both in the same manner.

[57springer]

I like your interpretation much better than I like the interpretation I got from a lawyer at a seminar not too long ago (not by any of the lawyers that we know), who said that unless that lunger had a deadly weapon in his hand a shooting would not be justified.

I too attended a seminar and I agree . This was the scenario example " you hear noise in your backyard at three AM , you go outside and find someone carrying off tools from your garage . You shoot him , you are the one in more trouble ! '"

[Delkal]

I assume they ran a check on the guy who was shot and he was probably a career scumbag with many priors. If so i doubt charges will be filed.

Yes, I know it should not make difference........but it does.

[bortle]

.357 at point blank range......that's gonna leave a mark.

[SIGFAN86]

.357 at point blank range......that's gonna leave a mark.

Including skid marks in the perps shorts

[Berncly]

Including skid marks in the perps shorts

Considering the outcome, I think the shooter may have been absent on center mass day at the range.

[Carson]

.357 at point blank range......that's gonna leave a mark.

Good thing he didn’t use a .44 Magnum. “Would have blown his head clean off”.

[Fortytwo]

.357 at point blank range......that's gonna leave a mark.

Considering the outcome, I think the shooter may have been absent on center mass day at the range.

While it is clear that the gun involved was a .357 Mag from the OP, the perp could have been hit by only a .38 Special round. The article did not go into that detail.

[Berncly]

While it is clear that the gun involved was a .357 Mag from the OP, the perp could have been hit by only a .38 Special round. The article did not go into that detail.

That's possible.
At least they didn't report it as an AR.