Deadly force and carrying.

[Metz]

You have NO duty to retreat when your inside

And what would you do? Make actor a sandwich?

"Surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable 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."

PA has really shitty Castle Doctrine. Unlike that Socialists Republic of New Jersey

[son of the revolution]

And what would you do? Make actor a sandwich?

"Surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable 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."

PA has really shitty Castle Doctrine. Unlike that Socialists Republic of New Jersey

You got everything completely backwards there skippy ! Its NJ that says you basically have to be backed into a corner of your own home, with your entire family already dead, before you can use deadly force. Well, not really but thats the way its treated by Cops and Prosectuors


If your going to quote Statute's, quote the WHOLE thing.

PA 505 2(a)

(A) 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; and

Your confusing whats required OUTSIDE your home, i.e. a store, park , parking lot, etc and when your at your own home or place of business. Your also forgetting the Statute says you MUST be able to retreat in " complete safety ". If you turn your back on an attacker to flee, your hardly doing so in " complete safety ". If your attacker is with in 21ft and continuing to advance after being warned to cease, your hardly able to retreat in " complete safety" since the attacker can cover the distance in roughly 2 seconds.

Try and keep up

[LittleRedToyota]

Doesnt the fact that I am afraid of loosing the fight and not only being injured but loosing control of my deadly weapon through no fault of my own (except being a shitty fighter) give a person justification to use deadly force to not be assaulted?

depends on the DA and jury, of course, but most likely, no.

most people don't really understand that concept. they do understand "it would have just been a relatively harmless fist fight, except..."

it isn't necessarily just or right or fair, but it is. just look at the reactions of a lot of non-gun owners in the gerald ung case.

On a side note....what would you do. If you thought it was roughly an even fight and you couldnt avoid it?

first, try really, really hard to not get in that situation. the vast majority of the time that is possible.

1. don't put yourself into positions or go places where that is likely to happen.

2. don't provoke or escalate stuff. if someone starts giving you shit, stay calm and just leave.

3. always have an "escape route" or preferably two. any time you are in a store, restaurant, bar, etc. know where the exits are and pick out a couple of ways to get to them. try to sit/stand/whatever somewhere that gives you multiple good avenues to get to them. this way, even if some a-hole comes up and starts hassling you for no reason whatsoever in a place you would not expect it, you can just get away rather than confronting him.

if all this failed, though, i would not actually engage the person in a "fight". i would (at least attempt to) deflect the attack and get by him to escape. my "offensive" strategy would be to interrupt his OODA loop long enough to get past him and vamoose.

i highly recommend taking some hand-to-hand self-defense courses to learn some techniques for doing this. you do not at all have to become a kung fu expert.

never, ever "get into a fight" when you have a gun on you. if conflict becomes unavoidable, do not try to "win" the fight...just try to escape. (this may, depending on circumstances, involve turning the guys lights off or doing something else that will actually win the fight, but it need not. it may just be something that creates a small amount of space for you to get by.)

but, having said that, don't get yourself in a bad spot because of hesitating...and don't turn your back on the guy if he is still functioning. act decisively and overwhelmingly...but with the objective of creating a way out...and, once you have that way out, immediately take it.

[Metz]

Your confusing whats required OUTSIDE your home

Nope. On the countrary. That's why I ask you question of what are you suppose to do with that right NOT to retreat. Since you still cannot shoot that SOB in your place unless you are in immediate mortal danger (same as outside). Not to mention the way how cops and DA will treat it, which is not much different from NJ. And unlike in the NJ thiis is the letter of our law

[LittleRedToyota]

Nope. On the countrary. That's why I ask you question of what are you suppose to do with that right NOT to retreat. Since you still cannot shoot that SOB in your place unless you are in immediate mortal danger (same as outside).

don't forget this part, though:

Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

...

(4)(i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor’s dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

our castle doctrine is just fine from a criminal standpoint, imho. protection from civil suits would be nice, though.

[Torontogunguy]

You got everything completely backwards there skippy ! Its NJ that says you basically have to be backed into a corner of your own home, with your entire family already dead, before you can use deadly force. Well, not really but thats the way its treated by Cops and Prosectuors


If your going to quote Statute's, quote the WHOLE thing.

PA 505 2(a)

(A) 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; and

Your confusing whats required OUTSIDE your home, i.e. a store, park , parking lot, etc and when your at your own home or place of business. Your also forgetting the Statute says you MUST be able to retreat in " complete safety ". If you turn your back on an attacker to flee, your hardly doing so in " complete safety ". If your attacker is with in 21ft and continuing to advance after being warned to cease, your hardly able to retreat in " complete safety" since the attacker can cover the distance in roughly 2 seconds.

Try and keep up

Here is the TorontoGUNguy take on things: "If I am in fear of IMMINENT grievous bodily harm to myself or a loved one I take full responsibility for the use of deadly force in stopping the attack. End of story". No variations on the theme asides from the question as to whether or not someone advancing on me with no visible weapon constitutes sufficient cause for fear of IMMINENT grievous bodily harm. Or, in the alternative, does forcible trespass to one's home constitute same.

For the record, I have been told, after being advised that I was about to be disarmed, to draw and shoot my assailant who was 21 feet distant. I was unable to do so in three attempts and wound up with a sprained finger for my trouble in participating in the demonstration. Conversely, I was also taught and practiced how to disarm a potential assailant from the very same distance and while I would not like to make a habit of it, the process was shockingly simple and amazingly repeatable. 21 FEET guys. "Officer, I shot and kept shooting until the attack ceased at which point I ceased firing". Period. "And now if you don't mind, I would like to speak to an attorney before making any further statements regarding the matter". And if no Miranda at this point I would ensure witnesses around and state loudly "And now would you please read me my Miranda warning". And I would do a few other things as well, such as insisting that the assailant be arrested, even if said assailant is quite obviously deceased at the time. I would repeat the use of the word assailant, attacker, bad guy, etc., all the way downtown if that's where you're headed. Use of lethal force is never a clean cut issue and your best hope for the aftermath is in training, training and more training so that it all becomes second nature and you don't have to think about it at all. Do you understand, for example, that to render a revolver generally harmless all one needs do is hold onto the cylinder to prevent it from turning? Or all that is necessary to render a semi-auto harmless is push back on the slide 1/8" to put it out of battery? Not things I would like to be doing anytime soon but nontheless good things to know and be really proficient at.

The best gunfight is the gunfight you win by avoiding it. Remember that.

[Metz]

don't forget this part, though

Good call. However, this WILL require some additional case study. One's [unreasonable] beliefs can not be taken seriously. However, if you are familiar with statistics and/or familiar with let's say recent case, where trespassers killed property owner (instead of "just" robbing him) you will have reason to believe, and this really might be taken into consideration.

p.s. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but merely my point of view on this issue based on the research that I did and all those great articles that I read in gun magazines.

[LittleRedToyota]

Good call. However, this WILL require some additional case study. One's [unreasonable] beliefs can not be taken seriously. However, if you are familiar with statistics and/or familiar with let's say recent case, where trespassers killed property owner (instead of "just" robbing him) you will have reason to believe, and this really might be taken into consideration.

by the letter of the statute, you do not have to reasonably believe you are going to be killed, though. you just have to reasonably believe that nothing less than deadly force would cause him to leave your house.

if you point a gun at him and tell him to leave and he does not, i would say you reasonably believe that nothing less than deadly force would cause him to leave. but, IANAL either.

now, personally, i would not shoot someone who i did not reasonably believe was going to injure me or someone else even if they were in my house and would not leave, but legally...at least according to the letter of the law...you can. (and if he started to come toward me, then i would reasonably believe i was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death and probably shoot him.)

[DethWshBkr]

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but, Karl Rominger, who is on the Bob Durgin show (whp580.com) often, has commented on the use of deadly force.
Karl is an attorney, and if I am not mistaken, he has pretty much stated that it is a tough call, but, if YOU FEEL you are at SERIOUS risk, are unable to reasonably retreat, you have the right to engage with whatever force you deem necessary.
Since it is all subjective, you very well may face prosecution, but he has said something to the effect of if you can convince a jury that you felt you were in danger, it would be OK.

[son of the revolution]

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but, Karl Rominger, who is on the Bob Durgin show (whp580.com) often, has commented on the use of deadly force.
Karl is an attorney, and if I am not mistaken, he has pretty much stated that it is a tough call, but, if YOU FEEL you are at SERIOUS risk, are unable to reasonably retreat, you have the right to engage with whatever force you deem necessary.
Since it is all subjective, you very well may face prosecution, but he has said something to the effect of if you can convince a jury that you felt you were in danger, it would be OK.

And the lawyer that was interviewed by Fox after the shooting in Old City in Feb that was damn near a text book case of self defense and attempting to retreat in public and on video said all kinds of stuff that showed he didnt have a clue what he was talking about. Just because someone is a lawyer and is quoted in the media or has a regular show doesnt mean they're an expert in the intracacies of self defense law and justifiable shoots. And even then, two expert lawyers will give sometimes have diametrically opposed opinions.

Hell, I LOVE Judge Napolitano on Fox and even he has said things that simply werent true, or at the very least would have been treading shaky legal ground

Im quite comfortable with my understanding of whats required of me both at home and in public, if God forbid I ever have to do something. I WILL NOT be retreating from or in my own home PERIOD !