this is disturbing

[sprrdhawk44]

It just seemed like you agreed with that guys humerous number 1 statement...I apologize if you were not...

I have no idea how you could extrapolate that from anything that I wrote.

[BimmerJon]

Just a reg LTCF covers open and concealed inside Phila...Check some of my threads

I don't need to check your threads, I know the law.

Not sure what a "regular LTCF" even means...

[Greywolf]

Just a reg LTCF covers open and concealed inside Phila...Check some of my threads

Mate, in post #10 YOU asked if a LTCF is needed to open carry in Philadelphia. If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

what license is needed to open carry? I do it all the time...

[joeybagadonutzz]

I have no idea how you could extrapolate that from anything that I wrote.

how you quoted what he said, and stated seemingly in agreeance " The LTCF exemptions Phila enjoys" THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS...Like I said, I apologize if I was wrong...

[joeybagadonutzz]

Mate, in post #10 YOU asked if a LTCF is needed to open carry in Philadelphia. If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

I was curious if something may have changed I was not aware of...

[cakeshooter]

I might have added to the confusion, I thought you were not allowed to Open Carry in Philly even with a LTCF. Sorry about that. I thought I read that on my first couple of days on the forum, something about needing something extra to open carry within city limits.



Okay so, scenerio. Say you pull your weapon and say "Stop or I'll shoot!" and they look at you and run away....

1. Are you required to wait for police to tell them what happened (esp if there is somebody injured there, but even if not)?

2. Will they take your gun from you if you did NOT shoot it?

[TaePo]

In the top right of PAFOA, we have a reference library link...

You will find this, and this is before/beyond any of the newer legislation which softens the duty to retreat:

18 Pa.C.S. § 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.
(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section:
(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.
(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way.
(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.

In another section under justification of using force:

18 Pa.C.S. § 503: Justification generally
(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:
(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.
(b) Choice of evils.--When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.

One could get into trouble under (b) if the person being attacked/brought into custody intitiated deadly force. In the video shown, it is clear that the victim at the time of video taping is no longer capable of resisting and this is no longer a possible arrest but even if so, has become a crime as force did not desist after the victim decided not to resist further or became incapable of doing so. IANAL and this is not legal advise.

We are not police and are not required to give up our element of surprise by shouting to people to cease and desist, or you're under arrest or such nonsense. However, unless you are sure of what is going on and were there from beginning to end; I would probably say something rather than just start shooting. There are moral issues as well as legal issues when judged in court (or should we say armchaired quarterbacked in complete safety at a later time). The problem is that' reasonable person', and reasonable standards and 'the facts at the time as a person knew them to be' will be at play. These statements are made throughout the statutes.

One must be open or hesitate somewhat that the what you are seeing might not be what is actually happening. There may be more to the story that you did not see. In the example, it becomes obvious rather quickly.

I just want people to recall that not everything is cut and dry for immediate action/reaction.

You hear a woman's scream (perhaps you hear a gunshot or two) around the corner in an allyway. You round the corner to see a man with a drawn gun (perhaps even smoking from the discharge) and a purse in his hand with a woman laying on the ground sobbing/crying and not making much sense. Is the man the suspect, an undercover or a LTCF person rendering aid and the perp got away?

I can see drawing in the scenario just in case. But one must wait to decide what is going on perhaps back up around the corner and watch further. If you draw down, the suspect might engage as you will lose the element of surprise. To engage immediately might cause you to shoot an innocent person. You might not be legally charged...the facts as you knew them to be at the time were wrong but how were you to know? But can you live with that? You might still be found guilty of criminal or civil negligence which is a worse case. Also, the suspect might shoot first, or the suspect, an undercover will have training that might beat your training or expectations. There are several good and bad outcomes as you can see. There are more, of course, but these will suffice.

Coming into the middle of something you know little about is the most dangerous situation possible. Dangerous to health and well being physically and as far as your liberties (eg. staying out of jail or losing everything civilly).

IANAL.

[coble]

Originally Posted by cakeshooter View Post
So that's legal in Philly even though

1. You can't open carry in Philly with a regular LTCF and

2. There might be women/children in the immediate area?


I sense shooting one of these guys would be the right thing to do, but you might not feel like it for the next six months while the legal system hashes it out...????

I think #1 this is the statement that has joeybagadonutzz .
Has me also
If its not a regular LTCF, what kind of LTCF should it be.

[sprrdhawk44]

how you quoted what he said, and stated seemingly in agreeance " The LTCF exemptions Phila enjoys" THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS...Like I said, I apologize if I was wrong...

Let me rephrase: The fact that the city of Philadelphia requires a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to openly carry a firearm, UNLIKE the rest of the Commonwealth(except of course while transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle, or during a declared state of emergency) has absolutely no bearing on self defense law within the Commonwealth. Did that clear it up?

[cakeshooter]

Let me rephrase: The fact that the city of Philadelphia requires a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to openly carry a firearm, UNLIKE the rest of the Commonwealth(except of course while transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle, or during a declared state of emergency) has absolutely no bearing on self defense law within the Commonwealth. Did that clear it up?

You can carry openly in other parts of the state without a LTCF?

Sorry, now I'm confused....I think I'm messing people up here....sigh...