PA Question on the definition of "deadly force"

[Rumble]

I had a question come up in a discussion the other day that I couldn't answer, and was curious if anyone here knew.

In Pennsylvania, as I understand the law, there is a distinction in some statutes between "force" and "deadly force." The distinction on which is appropriate under what circumstances is fairly clear, but there doesn't seem to be a definition that specifies what would be considered "deadly force" vs. regular old "force."

The thrust of the question is really this: in an armed confrontation, is aiming a gun at an assailant considered deadly force, in and of itself? It came up while discussing the laws regarding using force in protection of your home.

My guess is "yes" - if I draw a gun on someone trying to hurt me, then that pretty much is deadly force. They are in immediate danger of death or serious injury, so I'd assume it would constitute deadly force. I'm just not sure if there's any legal definition to the contrary (I think, for example, Florida has some such distinction where it's not deadly force until you actually fire the gun; I may be misremembering).

 

[Rob G]

You understand it correctly.

Title 18 Section 501

"Deadly Force" : Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

I'd say a gun pointed at someone is "readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury." I can't find any provision in the legal code which stipulates that you have to pull the trigger for it to actually count as deadly force.

 

[Steve in PA]

No, aiming a gun at someone is not deadly force. It is the "threat" of deadly force, but not deadly force by itself.

 

[General Geoff]

Actually *shooting" someone is using deadly force, regardless of what you were aiming for ("shooting to wound" is not an excuse). Aiming a loaded firearm at someone, as Steve mentioned, is threat of deadly force.

 

[Rumble]

Uh-oh! The answer looks like it might be "it depends."

In seriousness, thank you all. I missed that section of the statutes that actually had a definition of "deadly force." It appears that it does depend on what "readily capable..." means. General Geoff, Steve, do you know of case law or anything to support the distinction (I get the distinction you suggest; it's just that in light of a definition that is ambiguous enough, I was curious if it had been bright-lined anywhere)

 

[Steve in PA]

I'm sure there is case law somewhere, but this topic is brought up often, especially in law enforcement.

Is a LEO pointing a weapon at a suspect use of deadly force?

Answer; No. As I explained, the pointing of a weapon is only the threat of using deadly force. Until the trigger is pulled, there is no "deadly force" being used.

 

[Rumble]

That makes sense - until bullets are in flight, in the purest sense no force is being used at all. It does raise a related question, though, which is whether LEO's have more leeway in that regard (using their guns to encourage cooperation of a suspect, for instance).

Also, obviously, it's not justification for waving the gun around if the line at the supermarket is moving too slow.

 

[Rob G]

Is a LEO pointing a weapon at a suspect use of deadly force?

Answer; No. As I explained, the pointing of a weapon is only the threat of using deadly force. Until the trigger is pulled, there is no "deadly force" being used

It's true that no "deadly force" is actually being used but that's more theory than anything. Every crime you could potentially be charged with in PA for shooting someone (assuming it's not justified.) also contains a provision for threatening or trying to use "deadly force."

For example in the definition of assault (title 18 section 2701) we see that you can be guilty of assault for one of three reasons:
1. Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another
2. Negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon
3. Attempting by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

Doing any one of those three is assault and they're all punished the same. All the other "assault" and "murder" crimes have similiar clauses for people who are only "threatening" to use force, or deadly force as the case may be.

Basically the laws aren't making any distinction between pointing the gun and actually pulling the trigger, they'll charge you with the same crime no matter that you didn't actually shoot. If you're not justified to actually shoot the other person then you shouldn't be pointing a gun at them either.

 

[Rumble]

Okay, that's interesting. This came up specifically when I was looking up statutes on protection of the property, and it says (IIRC) that use of deadly force is justifiable if:

1. Someone has entered your home; and
2. You have no reason to believe it is a lawful entry; and
3. You have no reason to believe that anything less than deadly force will make them leave/stop.

Which prompted my question; and based on Rob's statement, if I point the gun at the intruder and they flee, it still must be a situation where I believed that nothing less than that would have sufficed to terminate their intrusion.

In the end - with either interpretation (considering Rob's point that menacing someone is assault) - if the situation warrants threatening, it had better warrant actually firing. As mentioned before, of course, I wasn't looking for justification to threaten someone with a gun in a non-life-threatening scenario. In a purely theoretical sense, deadly force isn't happening until bullets are moving, but theory isn't law.


Edit: I also realized that I just said "Hey, that makes sense. Wait! That makes sense too!" Ah well.

 

[Steve in PA]

Just because you point a gun at someone doesn't mean you automatically shoot them.

What happens if you were in fear for your life and draw your handgun, but at seeing the gun, the threat either stops in its place or runs away?

Based on your logic, you should have shot him. But if there is no threat (he stopped or ran away), you are not justified in pulling the trigger.

Also, you cannot or will not be charged with assault if you are acting in self-defense. Acting in self-defense is not "intending to do harm".

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection
b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

(2) 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;

 

[Rob G]

Just because you point a gun at someone doesn't mean you automatically shoot them.

Correct

What happens if you were in fear for your life and draw your handgun, but at seeing the gun, the threat either stops in its place or runs away?

That's what we're hoping for, in fact that's what happens in the vast majority of defensive gun uses.

Based on your logic, you should have shot him.

Huh? Nobody's said anything so far about "should have shot", we've been talking about "could have shot."

But if there is no threat (he stopped or ran away), you are not justified in pulling the trigger.

Correct.

Also, you cannot or will not be charged with assault if you are acting in self-defense.

The most complicated part. They very well can if they want to, whether or not they will is up to them and not a matter of law.

Section 502 Justification a defense
In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this chapter, justification is a defense.

Basically it means that self defense in PA is not an immunity from prosecution, but rather a legal defense against conviction. In other words they can charge you and prosecute you BUT the jury is allowed to consider whether or not you acted in self defense in deciding on a verdict.

 

[Riss]

Rumble, I think you might need to be a little more specific in the question. is aiming a gun at an assailant considered deadly force, in and of itself? No. BUT you had better have a good reason to do so or you very well could wind up getting arrested. Are you safe in pointing a gun at someone who has just committed a felony, you bet. Someone that entered your house? who you do not know? without your permission? yes yes and yes. And I will tell you this. You had better be able to explain yourself if the other guy is still talking when the police get there. And even more so if he is not talking. Being able to explain what you did and why you did it, on the fly, when the PD shows up will mean alot. The act of simply pointing a firearm at someone else in PA would be considered Recklessly Endangering another Person. If your pointing is justified there is no problem. But as with anythime you get a gun out and point it at someone, to shoot them, especially in public, you should be sure, as sure as possible that there is no alternative to doing so. If there exists an imminent danger to the life, or a risk of serious bodily injury to you or another you are pretty safe. Property crimes are different. But then again, you protecting your own self or someone else inside a residence is considered not just an assault on the property but also an assault on the persons in the residence.

 

[Rumble]

Steve, my point was not that 'if you draw, you must shoot' but that 'if you draw, it should (probably) be a circumstance in which shooting would also be justified.' If the threat ends with the presentation of the gun, that's excellent.

Riss, I wasn't meaning to suggest anything other than what you say - if you point a gun at someone, it better be for a damn good reason (and one which meets the deadly force requirements).

Not being a lawyer, there may be vagaries in law or established case law (excluding LEO use of force), but I guess for my purposes, it'll stay pointed somewhere safe or holstered unless i fear for my life.

 

[brickeyee]

...for my purposes, it'll stay pointed somewhere safe or holstered unless i fear for my life.

A very good strategy under ANY set of state laws.

 

[scot1759]

When are you justified?

Ok as I see it here in Indiana there is a difference you can be convicted of "pointing a weapon at a person" or "intimidation with a deadly weapon" Getting ready to find out first hand in a week or two. Just wanting some feedback so here is the gist. Come home from work for my last break. Daughters boyfriend in my home after he knew he was not to be here. Guys a thief is why. Anyway daughter and I get into an argument I tell both to get out of my house. Both are adults by the way. I made a comment about his mother to her while we were arguing. Dude like an idiot states I cant talk about his mommy. I look straight at him stating I say what the **** I want about who I want in my house you dont like get the hell out like I told you to. So now he has been told twice to vacate my home. He decides he is going to try grab a coffee mug off my table as he makes a threating move twards me. I am like 4-5 feet from my 9mm. I leap in and grab it have it at my side when I pop back in the living room. My wife knew what I was doing and told him again while I was getting my gun to leave. I walk back in and give him 2 choices he can leave walking out the door or be carried out in a body bag. So thinking this is all over I go back to work and 5 minutes b4 I leave the police come. This idiot went told them I was plunging the gun into his back and neck and I had it to his temple. OMG just still cant believe the lies. Anyway its in front of the prosecuter now if they believe that crap he stated I could be looking at like 2-9 years+$10,000 fine.
Was I justified in arming myself to stop more violence and protect myself in my own home from a threat? I didnt have the time to beat the hell out of him or I would have taken that approach had to get back to work.

 

[brickeyee]

IOk as I see it here in Indiana there is a difference you can be convicted of "pointing a weapon at a person" or "intimidation with a deadly weapon"

Consult the case (common) law to find out how the statute law has been interpreted.

 

[scot1759]

I did he stated from what I told him he had not heard a crime on my part committed. I guess Indiana has a version of the "Castle Doctrine" basically if you are in a "no retreat" (your own home or personal car) and are attacked or under threat of attack you can use up to deadly force. In fact he stated if when the dude went for me and I had the gun in my hand and killed him it would have been justifiable homiside. I think I was more than justified in my actions but as anyone knows the local court systems are county money makers. Therefore prosecuters have habits of trying a case they know they have no chance of winning a felony hoping you will plea out to a misdemeanor. Thus you pay fines out the rear and the judge gets a raise or police get a new radar gun. Its brutal here in this state seems cases are sometimes fixed before a warrent is drawn for your arrest. I never been arrested for anything but I dont trust the court system.