PA. Law on the use of deadly force

[Steve in PA]

Once the person is no longer a threat, the justification for the use of deadly force ceases. Any further act on your part can cause you a lot of trouble.

If a guy threatens you with a knife, demanding your wallet and you shoot him.......he goes down, say hit in the shoulder......and drops the knife, you are not justified in continuing to put rounds into him.

If he makes a move towards the knife......then he can still be considered to be a threat to you.

[son of the revolution]

Seems to me the burdon of proof is too often on the wrong party. You might as well shoot the fool in the leg and then ask him what the heck he's doing attacking an armed man. If you're legal and the victim, it stands to reason that the burdon of proof is his cross to bear. What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

...but I guess if he's dearly departed there's no one to ask.

By the way, does anyone happen to know the legal ramifications to stopping an assailant rather than ending his life? i.e. shooting said attcker in the leg to get him to stop?

DO NOT TRY TO SHOOT AN ATTACKER IN THE LEG OR ARM OR ANYTHING OTHER THEN CENTER MASS!!!! Real life is NOT " hollywood" and trying such foolishness is full of unintended consequences and ramifications for you.

1) There are numerous reports from police involved shootings of BG's absorbing center mass shots and still coming, the ONLY "instantaneous " kill shot is to the brain stem, which if facing your attacker head on would be through the T box formed by the forehead and nose area. Its a very small area, difficult to hit under pressure, etc.

2) Shots to the arms or legs are not only unlikely to stop someone, they are much smaller targets easier to miss. You are responsible for every round fired and a miss or through and through shot that hits an innocent bystander is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

3) A DA can make the argument that you really werent afraid for your life to the point that justified using deadly force, since you didnt shoot for center mass to stop the threat as quickly and reliably as possible.

4) Aim for center mass and fire until the threat doesnt exist. If you MUST fire at another target area with a follow on shot if your first couple to the chest dont produce the desired result, then aim for the hip girdle area. Thats a relatively new tactic that has emerged over the last couple years. The idea being that fracturing the hip area should cause your attacker to immediately cease locomotion, since the hip girdle is the " foundation " that supports all of your upper body weight. Plus it may result in breaking or popping out of its socket the femur, which also means the perp wont be able to walk. While the hip girdle shot is certainly not as likely to produce a kill shot, if it stops the BG's ability to advance on you, it does give you the ability to relocate or retreat without being pursued.

[kevindsingleton]

Be safe (and have your Twp. Supervisors shoot at your house, I do ).

Just to be clear, they're not really shooting at your house, right?

[BeRandom]

DO NOT TRY TO SHOOT AN ATTACKER IN THE LEG OR ARM OR ANYTHING OTHER THEN CENTER MASS!!!! Real life is NOT " hollywood" and trying such foolishness is full of unintended consequences and ramifications for you.

1) There are numerous reports from police involved shootings of BG's absorbing center mass shots and still coming, the ONLY "instantaneous " kill shot is to the brain stem, which if facing your attacker head on would be through the T box formed by the forehead and nose area. Its a very small area, difficult to hit under pressure, etc.

2) Shots to the arms or legs are not only unlikely to stop someone, they are much smaller targets easier to miss. You are responsible for every round fired and a miss or through and through shot that hits an innocent bystander is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

3) A DA can make the argument that you really werent afraid for your life to the point that justified using deadly force, since you didnt shoot for center mass to stop the threat as quickly and reliably as possible.

4) Aim for center mass and fire until the threat doesnt exist. If you MUST fire at another target area with a follow on shot if your first couple to the chest dont produce the desired result, then aim for the hip girdle area. Thats a relatively new tactic that has emerged over the last couple years. The idea being that fracturing the hip area should cause your attacker to immediately cease locomotion, since the hip girdle is the " foundation " that supports all of your upper body weight. Plus it may result in breaking or popping out of its socket the femur, which also means the perp wont be able to walk. While the hip girdle shot is certainly not as likely to produce a kill shot, if it stops the BG's ability to advance on you, it does give you the ability to relocate or retreat without being pursued.

This is very interesting information and I thank you for the great info. Rep on the way

My question is, though, I thought the law always favored life? I am really picking at my brain here to remember what my one law class at Temple U taught me (I slept through it) but I remember he covered gun laws and what have you. But I could've swore the professor said if you have a choice between killing someone or just seriously injuring them at first, you should choose the latter, unless they continue to pursue. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, though, it was a few years ago.

So my next question is..

What if you are at home and someone breaks in and the person goes to attack your dog? Can you shoot at the person for fear they're going to kill your dog? I read someone's post earlier in this thread where you can't shoot to protect property.. Are dogs solely property? My dog is naturally very protective, especially at night and in the dark and I'm sure if someone were to break into my home, their arm or leg would become a squeak toy.

But obviously someone is probably not breaking in just to hurt my dog, they're going to come after me too, or at least I'd assume. So, if they're attacking my dog and I can see they have a weapon or something, can I shoot then? Is that justifiable?

[son of the revolution]

This is very interesting information and I thank you for the great info. Rep on the way

My question is, though, I thought the law always favored life? I am really picking at my brain here to remember what my one law class at Temple U taught me (I slept through it) but I remember he covered gun laws and what have you. But I could've swore the professor said if you have a choice between killing someone or just seriously injuring them at first, you should choose the latter, unless they continue to pursue. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, though, it was a few years ago.

So my next question is..

What if you are at home and someone breaks in and the person goes to attack your dog? Can you shoot at the person for fear they're going to kill your dog? I read someone's post earlier in this thread where you can't shoot to protect property.. Are dogs solely property? My dog is naturally very protective, especially at night and in the dark and I'm sure if someone were to break into my home, their arm or leg would become a squeak toy.

But obviously someone is probably not breaking in just to hurt my dog, they're going to come after me too, or at least I'd assume. So, if they're attacking my dog and I can see they have a weapon or something, can I shoot then? Is that justifiable?

IANAL !!

That being said, I like you would presume that an attacker inside my home, who is trying to disable my dog, will focus on me or my family next, therefore they ARE getting a SINGLE command and non compliance will be followed with shots fired.

Also keep in mind that in PA you have NO "duty to retreat" when inside your own home. I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember someone posting the actual law or maybe it was just a commentary on the law, that when an attacker is inside your home, the "law" presumes he is there to do you harm, therefore your burden of justification is significantly lower.

BTW, in my opinion, your Drexel Law Professor was an idiot if your remembering what he said accurately. Then again, when the Old City Shooting went down a while back, there were interviews with a lawyer on TV about Mr Ung's actions, and that lawyer didnt know what he was talking about either so..........................

[BeRandom]

IANAL !!

That being said, I like you would presume that an attacker inside my home, who is trying to disable my dog, will focus on me or my family next, therefore they ARE getting a SINGLE command and non compliance will be followed with shots fired.

Also keep in mind that in PA you have NO "duty to retreat" when inside your own home. I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember someone posting the actual law or maybe it was just a commentary on the law, that when an attacker is inside your home, the "law" presumes he is there to do you harm, therefore your burden of justification is significantly lower.

BTW, in my opinion, your Drexel Law Professor was an idiot if your remembering what he said accurately. Then again, when the Old City Shooting went down a while back, there were interviews with a lawyer on TV about Mr Ung's actions, and that lawyer didnt know what he was talking about either so..........................

Minor correction, but Temple. The discussion I think stemmed from a guy who rigged his barn to shoot anyone who opened the door and it was aimed high rather than low, so he was charged. I realize that situation is not the same, however, lol.

[son of the revolution]

Minor correction, but Temple. The discussion I think stemmed from a guy who rigged his barn to shoot anyone who opened the door and it was aimed high rather than low, so he was charged. I realize that situation is not the same, however, lol.

Sorry, I was distracted when I was typing and thought you had said Drexel. Be that as it may, now that you fleshed out the topic some more, your class discussion seems to have been about someone setting up a booby trap as opposed to an interpersonal confrontation. Thats comparing apples to pineapples !

[BeRandom]

Sorry, I was distracted when I was typing and thought you had said Drexel. Be that as it may, now that you fleshed out the topic some more, your class discussion seems to have been about someone setting up a booby trap as opposed to an interpersonal confrontation. Thats comparing apples to pineapples !

Apples to pineapples, I like your style. Home invasion was also discussed, too, I was just talking about where the conversation started. I just remember him saying "Law favors life" over and over again. Like I said though, don't remember everything clearly. Thanks for the info.

[Orion0317]

What happened to the proposed introduction of Castle Law to PA? That would radically shift the balance of legality to the homeowner, and place the accountability squarely on the shoulder's of the perpetrator of said home invasion.

[son of the revolution]

What happened to the proposed introduction of Castle Law to PA? That would radically shift the balance of legality to the homeowner, and place the accountability squarely on the shoulder's of the perpetrator of said home invasion.

It ( HB40 ) is STILL being held up by a sole person, the Anti Gun Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. What have YOU done personally to contact not just your reps, but others in the State to pressure them ??