self defense

[rlh30]

Reading the local paper I noticed a young man sentenced for voluntary manslaughter. He was charged after killing a man by stabing him in the neck. His defense lawyer claimed self defense. The fight was caught on video tape. The victim threw a visious punch which gives the right to defend. The accused pulled the knife and stabbed him in the neck. Which brings me to my point. Do we really have the right to defend? This victim had three others with him. Me being a newbe to conceal carry surley hope I never ever find myself in this situation. I am having a problem with the meaning of self defense and what are our rights. Thoughts

[Curmudgeon]

In my experience, you will never get enough information, let alone accurate enough information, from a newspaper (or any media) article, to adequately analyze a self-defense scenario.

Even sitting in the courtroom, you will likely get much more info, and you will get much more detailed info, but you still will not get ALL the truth as though you were there. Both sides have agendas.

Best to acquaint your self with all laws on self-defense, Justification, Castle Doctrine, Stand-your-Ground, and deadly force.

Good places to start...

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...justification/

http://www.repmetcalfe.com/Display/S...e%202011_1.pdf

^This is just a start.
.

[Greywolf]

Reading the local paper I noticed a young man sentenced for voluntary manslaughter. He was charged after killing a man by stabing him in the neck. His defense lawyer claimed self defense. The fight was caught on video tape. The victim threw a visious punch which gives the right to defend. The accused pulled the knife and stabbed him in the neck. Which brings me to my point. Do we really have the right to defend? This victim had three others with him. Me being a newbe to conceal carry surley hope I never ever find myself in this situation. I am having a problem with the meaning of self defense and what are our rights. Thoughts

Which player are you referring to as the "victim"? To me, if I am in a position of having been assaulted and needing to resort to the use of lethal force to defend myself, I am the victim, even if it's the assailant who died.

You referenced a fight. Was it a "fight," or was it an unprovoked assault? This is important. The law generally recognizes what it calls "consensual combat" (such as when two drunks in a bar agree to duke it out in the alley behind the joint), and the law is pretty clear that once you engage in consensual combat, you do NOT have a right to then utilize lethal force and claim "self defense."

In other words: If someone just attacks you and for whatever reason (disparity of force, perhaps) you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury, you can use lethal force to defend yourself. But if you agree to fight, then if you start to lose you have to take your ass whuppin' like a man.

Moral: Don't get in fights.

[Christ]

"Consentual combat" is a new term to me. I like it.

Question regarding it, however: What if two men agree to fight... to the death? (I'm not joking, that's a serious question.)

[D10]

In my experience, you will never get enough information, let alone accurate enough information, from a newspaper (or any media) article, to adequately analyze a self-defense scenario.

Even sitting in the courtroom, you will likely get much more info, and you will get much more detailed info, but you still will not get ALL the truth as though you were there. Both sides have agendas.

Best to acquaint your self with all laws on self-defense, Justification, Castle Doctrine, Stand-your-Ground, and deadly force.

Good places to start...

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/...justification/

http://www.repmetcalfe.com/Display/S...e%202011_1.pdf

^This is just a start.
.

^^^
This

10char

[nathaniel.seacat]

"Consensual combat" is a new term to me. I like it.

Question regarding it, however: What if two men agree to fight... to the death? (I'm not joking, that's a serious question.)

Then they are called tough. Also dumb, but mostly tough.

[Pb22pop]

I too was intrigued by the case the op is discussing. From what I read (yea I know) the guy who died threw the first punch. He was much larger than the man that was convicted. It was 4 against one and the assault was on video. I guess there was more to it.

[Christ]

Then they are called tough. Also dumb, but mostly tough.

Funny, but not the point of the question. Premeditated murder is that they'd call it, I'm sure. But given that someone mentioned earlier that two men in "consensual combat" were limited to non-lethal defense, how far does "consensual combat" actually go? A "to the death" scenario doesn't seem far off some of the drunken fools I've seen fighting.

[Greywolf]

"In my personal opinion, I could have gone first-degree murder," he said. "But I don't think we could have gone first-degree with the evidence. We could have gone third-degree.

"We had four jurors who would not get off the self-defense."

First degree murder requires a showing of premeditation. It's obvious the jury foreman is an idiot. Personally, I think if I were ever in court to defend myself for having defended myself I'd skip the jury and let the judge decide.

Too bad not even ONE of the four who believed it was self defense had the balls to stick to their position.

[Greywolf]

Funny, but not the point of the question. Premeditated murder is that they'd call it, I'm sure. But given that someone mentioned earlier that two men in "consensual combat" were limited to non-lethal defense, how far does "consensual combat" actually go? A "to the death" scenario doesn't seem far off some of the drunken fools I've seen fighting.

Consensual combat goes as far as the two idiots fighting choose to take it. Fists and feet can be lethal. The point I was trying to make is that, according to the law, once you agree to duke it out ("consensual combat"), if you turn out to not be as good as you thought you don't get to change your mind, pull a gun, and claim you were defending yourself from an assault. You weren't assaulted -- you were fighting because you agreed to fight. Maybe GunLawyer can clarify how it stands under PA law, but my layman's understanding is that in a consensual combat situation there simply isn't any "defense." Nor is there any "assault." There are just two idiots who agreed to fight.

If two genuine idiots agree to fight to the death, and one of them actually kills the other one, I don't know what the charge would be. Probably some prosecutor would try for murder, but in reality it should probably be manslaughter. Maybe second degree murder, if the fight is in a state that has that as a charge. Not first degree murder, IMHO.