Posted by loadedround: My question is, could a citizen with a CCW defend himself by using deadly force if he felt his life threatened by these mobs?
Well, not exactly.
How the
individual "felt" is not really a determinant. What counts is whether the individual had
reason to believe that deadly force had been
immediately necessary to defend against an
imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
That may not seem to be materially different, but the distinguishing factors are that (1) one's threshold of trepidation is taken out of the equation, in that what constituted a
reasonable belief will be judged by others; and (2) the term
necessity means that the individual had
no other choice but to employ deadly force as a last resort.
Please bear in mind that Pennsylvania had passed the Castle Bill last month.
Not to be critical of the Governor or the legislature, but the term "castle doctrine" has a well-established meaning that goes back many centuries: it stems from the concept that a man's home is his castle.
The new Pennsylvania law, like those in a number of other jurisdictions, adds a "stand your ground" provision. Under the common law, an individual had a duty to retreat, if defeat were safely possible, before using deadly force.
The new law states that a person need not retreat from a place where he or she has a legal right to be.
That does not eliminate the provision that deadly force may only be lawfully used when it is necessary as a last resort, and it does not mean that that retreat is no longer a very good idea if it is possible. It simply removes one element of the actor's evidentiary burden in his defense of justification.
Put another way, it does not give a citizen a license to shoot in a situation in which he or she had not been previously justified. It simply changes the lines on the field on which prosecution and defense of justification are conducted.