Use of deadly force

bush · 04-20-2006, 11:42 AM

A friend of a friend was robbed at knifepoint last night in Philadelphia. Two guys stole his laptop and wallet, causing a net loss of about $1800. When I found out, I started thinking what I would have done had I been carrying. So I get to work this morning and review the PA laws regarding the use of deadly force, and come across this:

Quote:

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:

1. the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

2. 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.

The interesting part is section 2. Does this mean that under the circumstance, acting in self defense was not an option? I know that PA law currently requires somebody to make an attempt to escape before claiming self defense. But does this mean that you're technically required by law to give up any posessions demanded by somebody with a weapon in public?

kevinwilly · 04-20-2006, 11:48 AM

Nah, these laws are SO sketchy. But it says that if you can SAFELY give up said items, then you can't use deadly force.

How the hell can you be 100% certain that said fuckface won't stab you with the knife he's holding? That being said, if he's already got a knife on you, you WILL NOT have time to draw, aim, and fire a gun before you get cut.

My thinking is that you should be able to shoot him in the back at take your shit back. Why the hell not?

kneedraggin650s · 04-20-2006, 11:50 AM

That is what it sounds like to me. I would advise anyone in an armed robbery to give up whatever the suspect wants. No possessions are worth your life.

kneedraggin650s · 04-20-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinwilly

Nah, these laws are SO sketchy. But it says that if you can SAFELY give up said items, then you can't use deadly force.

How the hell can you be 100% certain that said fuckface won't stab you with the knife he's holding? That being said, if he's already got a knife on you, you WILL NOT have time to draw, aim, and fire a gun before you get cut.

My thinking is that you should be able to shoot him in the back at take your shit back. Why the hell not?

First when he runs away yell something to get his attention, then shoot him in the front, and then your story is he came at you with a knife and yelling something about satan has come for you. If your the only one standing who is their to dispute you.

Disclaimer: This was a joke and by no means should be taken seriously, for those that might.

bush · 04-20-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kneedraggin650s

First when he runs away yell something to get his attention, then shoot him in the front, and then your story is he came at you with a knife and yelling something about satan has come for you. If your the only one standing who is their to dispute you.

Disclaimer: This was a joke and by no means should be taken seriously, for those that might.

I'm still looking for information regarding the protocol for disputing claims to self defense in court. I think the way it is now, the law assumes the defender is guilty until they can prove beyond a doubt that they were acting in self defense. This is working directly against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Anybody able to shed any light on this?

kneedraggin650s · 04-20-2006, 12:19 PM

Probably the best thing I can tell you, if you really want to know is ask a cop to explain in simple terms because law lingo is a pain to figure out, or call the ASA's office and ask an attorney. This is my agencies policy on deadly force which is pretty much what law says but in simple terms. Every state is different, but it sounds simular to our law.

2.815 USE OF DEADLY FORCE
Officers may use deadly force only when they reasonably believe that the actions are in defense of human life or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Sinkoumn · 04-20-2006, 12:19 PM

Would a Chuck Norris Style roundhouse kick the head be considered deadly force?

But I would guess that even though the defender is in question, I would doubt that acting in self defense when you're either outnumbered, and/or comfronted with a weapon that can potentially kill you I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could project your actions in a way to show you had the right to use deadly force.

I had a friend that was robbed at gunpoint by two people, they were young kids so the gun may have not been real (but didn't want to find out); should my friend have pulled a gun on them and fatally shot both of them I don't think that you can say he was at fault for defending himself in a situation that they initiated with an intent to potentially shoot him.

While in court that may be different, I would think that under the circumstances you are protected from punishment due in part to the fact that the robbers brandished a weapon that "could" potentially kill you. I would think that any representing lawyer could prove that your life was in danger and justify your use of force to defend yourself (while it may not be the most ethical thing, I could see it happening should someone fall into that predicament).

But mainly, people should just get a F'n job, stop being little punk whiney Bitc6es, and stop stealing/robbing other peoples property.

binx_19 · 04-20-2006, 12:28 PM

sadly but surely i do not fit the profile of someone who would be a victim of a armed robbery, but but it sure as hell would be fun if someone tried.

you dont have to use deadly force, you can still whoop the shit out of them and not even call the cops, just let the little bitches know who is boss before they go running home to thier mommies.

EEfz6 · 04-20-2006, 12:47 PM

Shoot both the bastards in the head. Tell the cops "They said that if I do what they say, there is a small chance that they will let me live, but I won't live if I don't do what they say. If you don't believe that is the way it went down, ask the dead guys for their version."

Never shoot for any reason without being 100% sure that who you shot is dead. If they live, they will sue you and win, and they will give different versions of what "really" happened, and you may be in jail.

Bobarino · 04-20-2006, 12:49 PM

sadly, unless the robber verbally threatened physical harm or death or acted in a manner that suggested such and there was a reasonably safe escape route, deadly force would not be justified in this case. if there was no possible means of escape, and death was threatened, then it very well could be. remember a few months ago when the liberal press was up in arms over Florida's new "shoot first" law as they called it? well, it was nothing of the sort. they simply removed the duty to retreat from the books and allowed people to stand their ground and defend themselves if necessary without having to run away like a sissy school girl like some states require. luckily here in WA we have no duty to retreat and no requirement to give up possesions. if the robber displays a weapon, he gets the mozambique.

Bobby

edit: and you do not "shoot to kill". that will get you in just as much trouble with a jury as shooting for the wrong reason. you "shot to stop the threat". if you shoot a guy, and the threat ceases but he doesn't die, and you shoot again to be sure he's kill't, them you're a murderer and you're going to the pokey.

Unbridled Rage · 04-20-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kneedraggin650s

That is what it sounds like to me. I would advise anyone in an armed robbery to give up whatever the suspect wants. No possessions are worth your life.

I see your logic.

However, I'd be pissed enough to pop him on principle. He's

1. Probably a repeat offender.
2. Not going to do that to anyone else, ever, again.

Unbridled Rage · 04-20-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bush

I'm still looking for information regarding the protocol for disputing claims to self defense in court. I think the way it is now, the law assumes the defender is guilty until they can prove beyond a doubt that they were acting in self defense. This is working directly against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Anybody able to shed any light on this?

This is called "make my day" or "stand your ground" or "retreat first" doctrine. This means that using force to resist an illegal act must be the very last thing the victim does. You should give up your goods, or run, before using force.

This is called "castle doctrine" when used in regard to self-defence in your home, or in some states, cars.

These "retreat first laws" differ from state to state, similar to concealed carry laws, state to state. Know your state law, and know your neighboring states' laws.

Unbridled Rage · 04-20-2006, 01:29 PM

And, from the information I've seen, "stranger" murders (where victim/killer don't know each other) are the least likely to be solved, particularly those with minimal physical evidence.

Just a thought.

exmarinegrunt · 04-20-2006, 01:34 PM

I'm a member of some different gun associations so I hear about these laws all the time. If there is some DA looking to make an example of you, you could get severly screwed over by defending yourself. Now there are states that have laws that say you can defend yourself through whatever means necessary, unfortunately not all states do. I know that if someone came after me I'd use my weapon. But thats just me, I'm not even gonna take the remote chance that once I hand over my wallet the person decides to knife me just for the hell of it. They're getting a slug to the chest before that can happen. The system should not protect the criminal from bodily harm that they would cause to the innocent at a drop of a hat.

malik ross · 04-20-2006, 01:37 PM

the componant you are missing and is causing your confusion is the assumption that you have to use lethal force to defend yourself. the law does not say you can not defend yourself. the law says that the use of deadly force to defend yourself can only be used when all other options have been exhausted.

subject pulls a knife and tells you to give him your wallet. you hand him your wallet and the spray him with OC. have you defended your self? yes. have you used deadly force to do so? no. you pull gun and shoot him in the chest. defended yourself? yes. deadly force? yes. was the force justifiable? not under the law of your state. the burden of proof is now on your to prove that you truly believed you would have suffered great bodily injury or death had you not acted the way you did.