question about ccw

[vicious]

The totality of the circumstances is going to weigh heavily on the outcome of such an event. How big? How many? Did you just witness this guy lay someone out with one punch then punt their skull a few times? There isn't a black and white answer to this question.

[zackattack784]

Are you certain? I believe drawing a firearm IS considered using deadly force, even if you don't pull the trigger.

Yes I'm fairly certain, otherwise cops could be charged with murder every time they draw down on someone during a traffic stop. I'll quote someone with a lot more knowledge of the subject than me. (emphasis mine)

A couple more thoughts:

Pointing a gun at someone is legally distinguishable from drawing and displaying without aiming it at someone. Aiming a loaded gun at a person, without justification, is automatically "reckless endangerment", while drawing a gun and pointing it straight down at the ground is not.

Displaying a gun, muzzle-down, with the implicit message that you are prepared to shoot the other person, is a crime (assault, terroristic threats, whatever), in the absence of justification. But pointing it at them is an ADDITIONAL crime. And shooting at them is ANOTHER crime. And hitting them is ANOTHER crime. So if you don't aim it, shoot it, or hit them, you have not committed those crimes. You only need to justify the crimes you commit, not the ones that you don't commit.

"Justification" means that the harm you cause with your criminal act is less than the wrongful harm that you seek to prevent. So shooting someone is only justified by your goal of preventing the wrongful killing of yourself or another, or the severe unprovoked injuring of yourself or another. But scaring someone can be justified with a much lower standard; if you scare the perp so that he doesn't punch you in the face, it's arguable that the harm you prevented (being punched in the face wrongfully) would have been worse than the harm you caused (scaring a thug who was about to punch you in the face.) Bleeding is worse than pissing yourself.

That's the argument that I would make in defense of an innocent person who brandished a firearm to prevent some sort of non-lethal harm. It's not the current thinking of a lot of cops; for example, if somebody in a 5-ton vehicle is tailgating you as you motorcycle your way home, swerving around, trying to force you off the road, and you display a firearm so that they cease their efforts to kill you, the police will likely arrest you. The person with the gun is the "road rager". Apparently, getting killed in a crash is just good clean fun, but guns are bad. But compare the kinetic energy of a truck at 70 MPH to the modest energy of a .45 slug at 1100 FPS, or just look at the annual road deaths compared to gun homicides, and see which is deadlier.

Bottom line, "using" is not the same as "displaying the ability to use". The rules on the use of deadly force are not the same as the rules on threatening the use of deadly force. Otherwise, simply drawing your pistol would be chargeable as "murder".

[forby]

You have a duty to retreat, IF you can do so safely, when faced with an unarmed opponent in public places. You said you would run from Arnold, why not run from a normal guy?

How did the "castle Doctrine" change this? I am just looking for clarification and not a reason to shoot somebody.

[donm]

How did the "castle Doctrine" change this? I am just looking for clarification and not a reason to shoot somebody.

The key word here is "unarmed." This language was added in the recent change to the Castle Doctrine ("stand your ground") law:

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

[Greywolf]

Ok, how about the same scenario but standing behind me are my two small children.

I would gladly take a hit on the chin, and am rather confident in my H to H skills. I would attempt to stop him with no lethal force initially, but if that attacker makes me think he is going to harm my children, then there is a significant disparity of force, I fear for the lives of my children, and I would engage

Life in prison but my children get to live = fine in my book

Under the law, your children are third parties.

Under the law, an individual is allowed to use force to defend a third party when and to the same degree he is allowed to use force to defend himself. He is allowed to use deadly force in defense of a third party when and to the same extent that he is allowed to use deadly force to defend himself. The law does not differentiate between your kids and a total stranger. Both are third parties.

In your example above, if you could successfully defend yourself withOUT using deadly force, then you are not in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. If you feel you can stop the person from seriously harming YOU, how do you figure you CAN'T stop him from harming your kids without using deadly force?