A serious question about ‘RETREAT’ requirements

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Y’all know about the most recent 'mall shooting' – so my wife asks how does the law allow me to legally protect her and our kids?

Let’s review first:

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.

The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 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; nor is it justifiable if:

the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(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
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

What are the limitations surrounding “Retreat”???

OK. Say I’m in the mall with the family. I’m walking the isle just 2 stores shy of center court. All of the sudden, some nut job produces an automatic rifle from under his treanchcoat and starts spraying bullets. Citizens ARE getting hit and dropping. The guy is doing his best Rambo yell-while-firing impersonation. I DO feel that my life is in immediate danger….and in the split second that all this is happening, I realize that I am at HIS 9 O’clock and he appears focused on the larger concentration of people in the center court.

Do I shove me and my family into the nearest store and set up a defensive position in the rear? Orrrrrrr – since no one else is anywhere near nut-job, do I take the very clear shot that I have at him?
My wife reeeeaaaallllly wants to hear that I intend to dispatch the threat….but what would law say?

I’ve told my wife that in a typical small mini-mart…If I see a gun threat, I am legally permitted to answer with my gun (PLEASE WEIGH IN/VERIFY!) because I cannot reasonably retreat from the threat.
But what about the mall? Stores? Out on the street where a gun threat is nearby but I am not the immediate target?

What can an armed citizen do LEGALLY?

Who interprets when I must retreat vs. dispatch a threat myself?

It pains me that these mall shootings (or any public shooting, for that matter) occur. Can you imagine the outcome had any of us been nearby??? How many lives might we have preserved?
But what would the legal consequences be?
I look forward to your thoughts.

[craigc]

Given the scenerio you posted;I would secure the wife and yes if I had a clear shot and could stop the mass killing of innocents by all means I'd take the BG/Domestic terriorist out.If they want to prosecute me then fine atleast my consience will be clear.Just my .02

[IV_Warrior]

I think this would be the more relevant section of the UFA in this case.

Title 18, §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.

Basically, unless you can be certain that EVERYONE can retreat safely, you don't have to retreat and can act in the protection of the others, from my (not a lawyer) understanding.

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Basically, unless you can be certain that EVERYONE can retreat safely, you don't have to retreat and can act in the protection of the others, from my (not a lawyer) understanding.

Ahhh. Interesting. I didn't know (or I just didn't understand) that though I may be able to easily/safely retreat.....If I observe someone else whose life is in imminently threatened and THEY are unable to retreat....I am legally permitted to fire on the BG????

[lildobe]

Ahhh. Interesting. I didn't know (or I just didn't understand) that though I may be able to easily/safely retreat.....If I observe someone else whose life is in imminently threatened and THEY are unable to retreat....I am legally permitted to fire on the BG????

That's the way I read it... and in your scenario, I would take the shot.

There isn't a jury in the world that would convict you - and it would be political suicide for a DA to prosecute you.

[WhiteFeather]

Who interprets when I must retreat vs. dispatch a threat myself?

Without a castle doctrine outside of your home, the District Attorney decides if you are to be charged or not. Police can recommend, or not recommend incident to DA but right now it’s the county DA where the shooting took place that decides to charge you or not.

Your scenario is kind of pointless, because if someone is going to kill my family and I know in my heart they are intent on murdering them. I will take what ever punishment comes my way for defending their lives, even if its sitting in a jail cell for the rest of my life, at least they will be alive, to illustrate my point watch video of Suzanne Hupp on gun control.

Her story is from the early 1990’s very similar to your scenario, a wacko drove his truck through store window in Texas restaurant and starts shooting people. One of the survivors tells the story about her parents being massacred because she obeyed the law at the time and left her pistol in the car. She was eventually elected to Texas legislator to fight gun control and got them concealed carry law enacted.

Watch her testimony here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

[B]
Your scenario is kind of pointless, because if someone is going to kill my family and I know in my heart they are intent on murdering them. I will take what ever punishment comes my way for defending their lives, even if its sitting in a jail cell for the rest of my life, at least they will be alive, to illustrate my point watch video of Suzanne Hupp on gun control.Watch her testimony here

Whitefeather - Take the time to reread what I said. I made myself QUITE clear.

I'll give you cliff notes to my "30-second read time post" above: I am at his 9 O'clock and his attention (and weapon) are focused on the higher concentrations of people. I am two stores from the action (less than 50 feet). I have absolutely a reasonable/safe retreat into a store to stage myself defensively in the rear.

Your answer is kind of pointless if you didn't read the OP.

[rwilson452]

Perhaps not in filthydelphia. the DA there might be able to get enough boneheads to convict. In my neck of the woods, your absolutely correct. Altho we don't have anything close to a mall in my small town should some wacko start shooting up the place and you put them down, I'm sure our local CLEO would put it down as a good shoot. That would make it tough for a DA to do anything. He could go to a grand jury but again I'm sure they would no bill.

That's the way I read it... and in your scenario, I would take the shot.

There isn't a jury in the world that would convict you - and it would be political suicide for a DA to prosecute you.

[rwilson452]

I think this mightbe what your looking for:



Title 18, §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.

Y’all know about the most recent 'mall shooting' – so my wife asks how does the law allow me to legally protect her and our kids?

Let’s review first:


What are the limitations surrounding “Retreat”???

OK. Say I’m in the mall with the family. I’m walking the isle just 2 stores shy of center court. All of the sudden, some nut job produces an automatic rifle from under his treanchcoat and starts spraying bullets. Citizens ARE getting hit and dropping. The guy is doing his best Rambo yell-while-firing impersonation. I DO feel that my life is in immediate danger….and in the split second that all this is happening, I realize that I am at HIS 9 O’clock and he appears focused on the larger concentration of people in the center court.

Do I shove me and my family into the nearest store and set up a defensive position in the rear? Orrrrrrr – since no one else is anywhere near nut-job, do I take the very clear shot that I have at him?
My wife reeeeaaaallllly wants to hear that I intend to dispatch the threat….but what would law say?

I’ve told my wife that in a typical small mini-mart…If I see a gun threat, I am legally permitted to answer with my gun (PLEASE WEIGH IN/VERIFY!) because I cannot reasonably retreat from the threat.
But what about the mall? Stores? Out on the street where a gun threat is nearby but I am not the immediate target?

What can an armed citizen do LEGALLY?

Who interprets when I must retreat vs. dispatch a threat myself?

It pains me that these mall shootings (or any public shooting, for that matter) occur. Can you imagine the outcome had any of us been nearby??? How many lives might we have preserved?
But what would the legal consequences be?
I look forward to your thoughts.

[4XLT]

i have 2 malls in a 2 miles area ( colonial park ) area, and i have thought about this scenario several times,
first thing above all is to get the wife and kids to a safe place!

then if at all possible to move without detection, get to a spot with some cover of some type,
then take the shot..

now if he is just mowing people down without stopping it goes to the safety of the family of course then just get a shot into the bastard to get him to stop. 2 in the chest will almost always do the job...