A Few Carry Questions?

[levergun]

I have two questions that came up during a discussion with a friend.

First of all, let me put forth this scenario:
I'm in a convenience store in Allentown when an armed robbery takes place. I'm told at gun point to get on the floor and the robber proceeds to threaten the life of the store attendant while demanding cash.
My question is, do I have a legal leg to stand on if I do the right thing and blow away this thief before he does actually kill someone? Would I have the legal justification necessary to defend my actions? Do I have the legal right to defend the life of others when my own life is not being directly threatened?

My second question is do I have a legal right in Pennsylvania to defend my property from an armed thief?

I understand I'm not paying an attorney for this advise and I welcome all replies or for that matter, even opinions.

Thanks guys!
Don

[Skuggi]

well as to the first scenario, the guy's getting blasted, I'm not laying down or doing anything that'll make it easier for him to kill me.

As to the second, it depends if he's armed or not to the law i believe, but i know an 80 year old guy a few doors down from me shot a guy who broke in at night trying to rob the place, it was even in the news, he didnt get charged with anything.

[axmdr40]

Nineseven posted this in another thread a bit ago

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA505.html

I see the convenience store scenario more than justified:

§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

1. the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
2. under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
3. the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

Section 507 details protection of property, which I think is a little more complicated because of all the possible variables:
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA507.html

Stay safe!

axmdr40

[jdlv4_0]

Doh Axmdr40 beat me by 3 seconds, book mark that link and review it often.

[levergun]

Thanks for the very timely replies. It clears up a lot of questions that I'd prefer to address before hand. I have to admit that with or without that law, I could never standby while some innocent store clerk was executed. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Don

[danp]

Deadly force is far too complicated of a topic with far too many variables to be effectively concluded on an Internet forum with no lawyers involved.

Here's my rule:

If you would rather be in jail for the rest of your life than suffer the consequences of your current situation, then chances are you're justified.

If you really want to understand lethal force, hire a lawyer.