Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation? - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    Your use of the word “schizophrenic” is an excellent choice of words. And this IS the problem.

    I am very aware that laws are different in different jurisdictions so lets just talk about here in PA.

    In PA, if you kill an assailant in self-defense you have just committed, “Voluntary manslaughter”. This is a felony level crime. And by claiming self-defense, you have just ADMITTED that you are guilty of the felony crime of voluntary manslaughter.
    From here, your defense rests upon the, “totality of the circumstances”; you had no choice (you were “Justified”) because failure to do as you did would have resulted in your death or severe bodily injury.

    In other words, the burden of proof shifts from the State to YOU as being the one who needs to prove necessity for your actions under the law. The standard you must meet is subjective. It is the, "Reasonable person standard", meaning; would a reasonable person, had they been in your situation, would they have done the same thing? NOT, "Did YOU think your actions were reasonable?" But, would OTHER people think your actions were reasonable?
    (This, by the way, is exactly why one generally will only get oneself deeper and deeper into trouble the more one talks about the incident with the police).

    If you add to this fundamental legal conundrum, “Disparity of Force”, then your burden of convincing anyone of the necessity for your actions easily becomes a very, very steep hill to climb.
    Like I said, jurisdiction matters. "There are tons of variables besides the few you mentioned that are either taken by the law as mitigating circumstances, or aggravating circumstances for the same set of facts depending on which jurisdiction the shooting takes place" was just another way of saying, "...the burden of proof shifts from the State to YOU as being the one who needs to prove necessity for your actions under the law" in PA, while conparatively, "The victim of a car-jacking here in Alabama gets the legal presumption of justified use of deadly force if he fires his weapon to fend off the jacker(s)."

    There are no pat answers, except as they apply to the specific state that the OP is from, which is VA BTW, but even then pat answers should not be considered reliable. I explained the "reasonable person" part of most use of force laws in Post #3 above back in July, but again tried to point out (using the same example of the Zimmerman case) that even when the law gives the shooter the presumption of justifiability in a variety of different felony crimes that, in some cases, don't even involve violence on the part of the criminal, it's still a crap-shoot how the authorities will ultimately deal with the case.

    All I was suggesting was that it might not be helpful to give the OP answers about the specific set of details he asked about in the OP's hypothetical, because even in VA, those answers may or may not apply depending on who the decision to, or not to, prosecute is being made by. As we've seen on several occasions since the Zimmerman case, public sentiment, protests, racial makeup, police relations with the community and a whole host of other variables are more and more being included as parts of that decision-making process too. Jurisdiction matters, but even then, black letter law will never overcome an aggressive prosecutor with an agenda to promote, as-proved by FL AG Angela Corey going after Zimmerman.

    BTW, I'm originally from CA where the laws also turn the presumption of innocence and legitimate self defense ideals on their head like you describe for PA. It's among the top 3 or 4 reasons we left CA and chose a more gun-issues-friendly state to move to.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. I hear ya', blue.

    But the op said, "If I was physically attacked by one or 2 persons significantly bigger than myself, say the attackers are not armed with any weapons but their own means of brutality (fists, kicks)".

    He didn't specify where. Here in PA, if I am attacked in my car (car jacking) Castle Doctrine applies (home = car). So, not much different than AL.

    What I have been trying to get at for the op's question are the specific problems surrounding, "Disparity of Force". I am trying to remain as close to the original question, which was posited in a very general form.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    I hear ya', blue.

    But the op said, "If I was physically attacked by one or 2 persons significantly bigger than myself, say the attackers are not armed with any weapons but their own means of brutality (fists, kicks)".

    He didn't specify where.
    He specified where in Post #9. Not that it matters really, anymore than "disparity of force" matters in a lot of jurisdictions. There are jurisdictions where you can shoot someone fleeing after committing a felony if it's after dark. There are jurisdictions, many in fact, where the law specifically lists burglary and other property crimes where the owner and/or occupants aren't directly threatened at all, as crimes for which deadly force is justified to stop their commission. AL is one such jurisdiction. It doesn't sound like PA is, and I have no idea if VA is, so there ya go. Jurisdiction makes a lot of difference.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #34
    He specified where in Post #9. Not that it matters really, anymore than "disparity of force" matters in a lot of jurisdictions. There are jurisdictions where you can shoot someone fleeing after committing a felony if it's after dark. There are jurisdictions, many in fact, where the law specifically lists burglary and other property crimes where the owner and/or occupants aren't directly threatened at all, as crimes for which deadly force is justified to stop their commission. AL is one such jurisdiction. It doesn't sound like PA is, and I have no idea if VA is, so there ya go. Jurisdiction makes a lot of difference.


    Being old and infirmed, I consider any intrusion in my home as a direct threat to me and my wife. I am physically unable to fight anymore, consequently, I have no recourse for our safety but to use a weapon, even if the assailant(s) are unarmed. I have no intention of being beaten to death as long as I have the ability to protect us with a firearm. Thankfully, the State of Alabama enables us to protect ourselves. Common sense law.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast