I hope I did the right thing...

[OldMarksman]

From Creature:

I disagree.

You did not specify the person with whom you disagree, but from what you say, it is not I.

... it is my understanding that a jury will generally make their determination based on what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances. The jury will take into account what they believe a reasonable person would likely perceive and the likely response a reasonable person would have during the specific circumstances of the situation. The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.

That's my understanding exactly. How does that differ from "Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, knowing what the man with the gun knew at the time"?

Note what one knew is dependent on what one "perceived".

Now, there's one more piece of the equation. Unless we're talking about possible jury nullification, all of the elements for defense of justifiability must also exist for the defendant to succeed in his case. For example, in the case at hand, if the defendant were able to escape, he had the obligation to do so.

 

[OldMarksman]

From peetzakilla:

Yes, a jury of individuals each subjectively determining what they believe to be reasonable. A group decision does not make that decision "objective".

We may be hung up on semantics.

Yes, the jury will have to exercise judgment. Does that mean their determination will be subjective? Here's one meaning of the term:

Formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather than from observations of the external environment.

I think the objectivity criterion pertains most to the consideration of the circumstances. Consider the following questions that the jury will have to take into account:

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that the alleged assailants had the ability to cause great bodily harm? (Weapons, size, strength, for example)

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that the alleged assailants had the opportunity to cause great bodily harm? (Proximity, for example)

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that he was in immediate jeopardy of great bodily harm? (Threats or demeanor, for example)​

What conditions existed that led the defendant to conclude that he had no alternative to the use of deadly force (Existence or non-existence of a safe means of escape, for example)
​

Setting forth those things is an objective exercise. Evaluating them is a judgmental exercise. I wouldn't characterize either as subjective.

Discussing whether the defendant "felt afraid" would, in my opinion, involve subjectivity and in my lay opinion his feeling would not prevail absent the other more objective conditions that are specified in the law.

 

[Ricky B]

"Subjective" and "objective" are terms which have accepted meanings in this area, but debating the meaning those terms does not advance the discussion. If you don't like them, you don't have to accept them.

The law is clear, and the instruction that the judge will give the jury embodies this, that the victim's feelings alone are not sufficient. Not only must the person using deadly force genuinely have the requisite fear, but also a "reasonable person" must have acted the way the defendant did under the circumstances.

Who makes the decision of what a reasonable? The jury. Do they apply judgment? Yes, but it's their collective judgment as to what was reasonable under the circumstances.

So anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person is grievously mistaken.

 

[Creature]

So anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person is grievously mistaken.

None of us said that to begin with.

 

[Ricky B]

None of us said that to begin with.

Statements like the following could be construed to mean that (whether or not the poster had in mind the unexpressed qualification of reasonableness):

Were you in in fear of immediate grave bodily harm or possibly death from an actual or imminent attack?

If yes, then you were justified in most states.

But whether or not anyone said that feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense, it is a point worth making that the feelings will be judged after the fact as to reasonableness.

 

[hillbillyshooter]

He did good

I think what it comes down to is that at that moment you were in immindent fear of severe bodily harm or death. If you can prove that, and that at that moment you had no option and your only possible response is either die or pull your weapon then you are good.
My friend got away with not such a smart pull.
My 23 year old friend was driving his 14 year old brother and his friend to his little brother's friend's house. On the way to the house they passed by an elemenatry school. While coming around the front of the school in a turn, a large black man stepped out in front of this car. It was dark out and my friend almost hit the man. My friend appologized and asked if the man was okay.
The man then punched the hood of the car and started cussing at my friend. My friend locked the doors. The man then came around to the driver side window and started trying to punch it out. My friend told his little brother to lock the doors after he got out of the car. My friend hopped out of the car and pulled his weapon on the disorderly man. He made the man get on the ground while he called police. In the middle of calling the police, the black man talked my friend out of finishing the call so he hung up. As this was going on, an off duty firefighter pulled by the scene and immediately radioed the police that there was a man holding another man at gunpoint. When the firefighter got out of his car, my friend holstered his weapon.
As the police got there my friend stood with his arms outstretched with his CCW permit in his outstreatched hand. He told the police that he had a CCW and where it was on his person. They proceeded to slam him to the ground, knee on back of head, and call him "some kind of vigilanty" as they handcuffed him. The police arrested the black man for disorderly conduct and public intox. The appeared to know the man, and my frined found out later that he has a history of crack cocaine use and mental problems. Then my friend was let go, even though they confiscated his weapon.
This happened in Charleston, WV and my friend went back to school in another city. The following week he got a call from the police, saying that there was a warrant out for his arrest. The charge was for brandishing his weapon. Luckly he got out of this because the prosecutor decided not to continue after my friend's lawyer spoke with him.
Despite the ridiculous behavior of the responding LEOs I had trouble explaining to my friend that he did commit a crime. He pulled his gun on a man, but he didn't have to. As the man approached the driverside window, all my friend had to do was hit the gas and the situation would be over. But, he stuck around. I'm not sure if he falsely imprisoned the man or not. I guess it could be considered a citizen's arrest, but don't you have to actually say specific words in order to do that? Anyway, just a little story for everyone of what is in my opinion a not so good pulling of a weapon. I'm glad that the OP's story turned out better and he acted in accordance with the law.

 

[OldMarksman]

From Creature:

None of us said that [anyone who thinks that his feelings alone will provide the basis for self-defense if he uses a firearm on another person] to begin with.

See posts 41, 42, and 47. Here's one example:

Or, if you feel threatened enough to pull you gun in self defense, then the legal ramifications are moot.

(Emphasis added)

One can feel fear, hate, love, etc., but one must have reason to believe the existence of imminent danger, have reason to believe the existence of all of the other prerequisites for defense of justification and be able to successfully articulate after the fact that those beliefs were reasonable--feelings aside.

 

[Creature]

Sigh.

Your still missing my point. Okay....lets put it another way.

Would you pull your gun if you DIDNT FEEL threatened with bodily harm or death?

 

[OldMarksman]

From Creature:

Would you pull your gun if you DIDNT FEEL threatened with bodily harm or death?

No.

But if I did feel threatened, that would not justify my pulling the gun unless (1) I also believed that doing so was necessary to protect myself from from death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; and unless (2) I knew that I could avoid the necessity of doing so with complete safety by retreating (under PA law) or by "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" (Pennsylvania legal jargon for giving up property).

That paragraph is not mine--it's paraphrased from Pennsylvania law, and you'll note that it doesn't saying anything about how I "feel"--it speaks about belief.

Now, if I didn't "feel" threatened I likely wouldn't believe that deadly force was necessary. The converse, however, may not hold. I may feel very frightened, threatened, etc. indeed due to the sounds, darkness, type of neighborhood, etc., but if the conditions permitting the use of deadly force (A, O, J, availability of alternative action including retreat) did not all exist my feelings really wouldn't matter.

If, on the other hand, those conditions did all exist, then that fact would support my contention that a reasonable person would have believed what I did at the time, as the law requires.

Which takes us us back to the fact that legal ramifications are not moot simply because I feel threatened.....

 

[csmsss]

OM, I *believe* you're missing a key point here. When the OP was accosted by two individuals, apparently bent on beating him, a reasonable person could certainly conclude that he is indeed in immediate threat - if for no other reason than two individuals might very easily disarm him and use his weapon to wound or even kill him.

Further, your interpretation of the events and the law would seem to indicate that a CHL holder could only legally defend himself with a firearm at the point where he had sustained such a beating that he/she was nearly already dead. This seems unreasonable and unworkable to me. You also don't examine the fact that the OP was accosted by not one but two hostile individuals - surely an escalation of the threat level and one that certainly should enter into the consideration of whether one should draw a firearm for self-protection, as well as whether he is legaly entitled to do so.

 

[hillbillyshooter]

It is in my understanding that if a larger person than yourself or two people came at you to do you bodily harm then you "should" be okay with pulling your gun. Most states write it as "imminent, unlawful, bodily harm." I view this as being, if someone who you consider to be a threat tries to assault you, pull your weapon. The CHL holder has no way of knowing just how bad the beating is going to be. The threat can just give you a black eye or the threat can knock you out and stomp on your skull. We have no way of knowing the intent of the threat. The important thing is to do what you have to do to keep you safe and not worry about the person who is intending on hurting you.

 

[OldMarksman]

From csmsss:

OM, I *believe* you're missing a key point here. When the OP was accosted by two individuals, apparently bent on beating him, a reasonable person could certainly conclude that he is indeed in immediate threat - if for no other reason than two individuals might very easily disarm him and use his weapon to wound or even kill him.

No, I'm not missing that point, and I do agree with you that a reasonable person might well reach that conclusion.

Further, your interpretation of the events and the law would seem to indicate that a CHL holder could only legally defend himself with a firearm at the point where he had sustained such a beating that he/she was nearly already dead. This seems unreasonable and unworkable to me.

I've never expressed that opinion, and I agree with you that it would be unreasonable.

In an earlier post I stated that in my opinion it would be unfair to judge whether the OP's actions were right or wrong because none of us know all of the facts.

I have pointed out two things: the conditions that must be met for defense of justifiability in PA and the fact that the shooter's actions must be based on reasonable belief and not on feelings. I have not expressed an opinion on the case at hand. Nor will I.

From hillbillyshooter:

It is in my understanding that if a larger person than yourself or two people came at you to do you bodily harm then you "should" be okay with pulling your gun. Most states write it as "imminent, unlawful, bodily harm." I view this as being, if someone who you consider to be a threat tries to assault you, pull your weapon.

It is my understanding also that discrepant physical capability and numbers may well enter into the equation regarding the ability of the assailants to seriously harm the 'actor'. To what extent would be up to the jury. I'm old and look like Wilford Brimley and may get by, but the OP is younger and I've never seen him or the thugs. I don't know what a jury would conclude.

But is that sufficient to permit you to "pull your weapon?" Do not overlook the Pennsylvania requirement that you must first escape, if safe escape is possible, or comply with the demands of the assailants, before resorting to the use of deadly force.

Could the OP have safely escaped? I cannot judge that.

Nor can I say what I wold have done. I'm just happy that the OP was neither armed nor charged.

I believe it is incumbent on all of us to equip ourselves with both the knowledge and the capability to react properly in situations such as these, without getting injured or killed or prosecuted.

 

[kgpcr]

Clearly he should have ignored them. However, he didn't do so. Time to move on, that step is in the past. Next step, 2 men coming at him with intent and ability to do physical harm ending with him being beat up, possibly to death, or beat up and they find his gun. I feel the OP did fine considering his mistake.
__________________

NO ITS NOT TIME TO MOVE ON! HE MESSED UP AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO MESS UP YOU SHOULD NOT CARRY A GUN! This was a BAD draw!! What would you have done if they did not back down?? Shoot them?? not smart. far more important than carrying a gun is using your head!! I will take good old common sense over a gun any day. Hell i am 6'4'' 300lbs spent 6yrs in the Marines and i would have maybe gave them a go fist to fist but i would back up before i would draw my gun. I would rather back down and get the hell out of there before i shot an unarmed guy. Shooting an unarmed man before he even hits you is your worst nightmare. What were you thinking? Say hi to prison!

 

[FrontSight]

I think ya made a mistake saying "excuse me" but ONLY because of this P.C. bullcrap world we live in now adays where in most places you are expected to run away from all insults and let idiots rule the land.

In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.

Manners & common sense have been slowly dying, as has my adoration of this warped society that have strangled them. But I digress...

Having made that mistake, you followed up with a wise decision to draw, in my opinion. Those idiots could have killed you in many ways, and then killed others with your gun.

Maybe if others stopped taking crap and society and the laws stopped punishing them for doing what our grandparents would have approved of then less iodits would act like these two did.

 

[Brit]

Reality?

At the grand old age I have achieved, having lived on two Continents, two Countries, and traveled totally around the World!

I can state without fear of contradiction, pointing guns at people works! Well!

Punching, head butting, kicking works good as well! Having been born in a Pub, living in one till the age of 19, and a few years after Military Service, drunks always lost, even in multiples!

Two drunks walking towards you are not normally a well versed tactical unit.

The OP won! And learned a lesson (I hope) Pubs (Bars) beget drunks, drunks fight, get sick, crash cars! Found anything good about Bars and Drunks yet?

"But I go to bars to meet girls!" Who drink and smoke? Hullo?

Drunk calls Police, "Some Guy pointed a gun at us!"

"Is this your vehicle Sir?" Yes! "Could you step out of the car Sir?"

DUI Anybody. That is reality.

 

[OldMarksman]

From Scrap5000:

I think ya made a mistake saying "excuse me" but ONLY because of this P.C. bullcrap world we live in now adays where in most places you are expected to run away from all insults and let idiots rule the land. In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.

(Emphasis added)

History lesson: The requirement to retreat, which is specifically called out in Pennsylvania law, goes back to English Common Law, from which the laws of most of our states trace their origins. You would have faced that requirement in Philadelphia in 1777.

Nothing new about it--except as it has evolved to relax the requirement in some circumstances.

And the purpose had nothing at all to do with "political correctness". It was a fundamental precept of law and order.

 

[Creature]

Scrap5000 wrote;

In olden times, a gentleman was fully expected to not have to take any crap from any morons & to try to put them in their place if he chose to do so, and the world was a much better, more agreeable & civil place.

When and where specifically was that? 19th Century Europe and America?

There has always been violence and brutality then as much as now. There were criminals, brigands and professional scofflaws galore. It was as dangerous a time where even the governements of Europe sent impressement ("press gangs") out to snatch up by brutal force any able-bodied men they could find to serve in the military when the recruiting numbers came up a bit short...

The genteel social class wasnt above giving or getting a good bloody nose either. Gentleman regularly beat each other with their walking canes and worse...dueling became almost a sport. It became such a common problem, both socially and economically, that dueling was outlawed on both sides of the "pond".

If you really believe that it was better times then, you would be very wrong.

 

[KLRANGL]

While I agree with both OldMarksman and Creature, can you say that extreme political correctness has influenced society for the worse?

Like I said, I agree with both of you, but Scrap might have scratched the surface of a good point...

 

[Creature]

but Scrap might have scratched the surface of a good point...

Which was? That we as common everyday people should stamp out the human prediliction to be aggressive toward our fellow man when ever we see it?

 

[scottycoyote]

i got on this post last night and ended up on that site where the lawyer gives a 30 minute speach on why you never ever ever ever give a statement to a policeman, ever. In light of that i wonder about the several posts where people suggested you call the police and tell them what happened, first guy who calls in wins, etc.....

is that really the thing to do in this scenario? call in? Im not playing devils advocate, im asking for real. Also im in virginia.