Cosmoline
Member
I follow the statute. The keys are whether I or another is faced with the threat of IMMINENT and UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE. Each of those three factors is critical, and no deadly force in self defense is permissible* without each of those three factors in place. The threat must be DEADLY, or at least going to cause very serious bodily harm. That means more than the usual brawls and punchups. The threat must be IMMINENT, which means a generalized threat to kill me is insufficient. And the threat must be UNLAWFUL, which is usually not a major factor but it's important nonetheless.
*There are some exceptions in some states which permit you to PRESUME the presence of one or more factors, but these are often subject to misunderstanding.
Close, but not quite there. The problem is you could "save a life" by killing someone who might present a FUTURE threat. That's not legitimate self defense. I would rephrase it this way:
"If I do not fire this shot, will I or someone else be murdered in the next minute?"
The imminence is there, as is the unlawful nature of the force (which is why I say murdered, not just killed), and of course we're talking about an impending death.
And of course the states have various positions on the duty to retreat. Though in reality if you're about to be murdered in the next minute, you probably can't get out of there safely. If you're about to murdered in the next FIVE minutes, the duty to retreat issues become more pressing. That's when you need to know your state law very well. If you see goons in your driveway and you have good reason to believe they're coming to kill you unlawfully (I'm not talking about LEO's coming to arrest you who may shoot you if you attack), then you have to know if you need to find a way out the back of if you can make your stand in a defensive position.
In general it's critical to know your own state's self defense code and any pertinent case law. It can be confusing. For example some states don't have an "imminence" requirement in the code, but the courts have inserted one anyway. IIRC Pennsylvania may be one, but I could be mistaken.
As far as warnings go, I'm generally against them. If you have time to banter things probably haven't reached a shooting point. And by hollering you make yourself an instant target. I'd advise using 100% of your eyes, ears and mind to PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to what's happening and draw reasonable conclusions. These gun schools that teach some slurred warning as part of a firing drill are really not accomplishing anything useful. Warnings can and have gotten armed citizens shot. The Tacoma mall example is the best one. In that case the green light was on very brightly, and the armed bystander should have either shot or fled. Instead he yelled a warning, and got paralyzed for life for his troubles. To quote the great Tuco, "IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT, SHOOT. DON'T TALK."
In a recent local example, a teen with an air rifle was shot by a police officer without warning. He sued, and the jury totally rejected his claims across the board. With a different judge it never would have even gotten that far.
*There are some exceptions in some states which permit you to PRESUME the presence of one or more factors, but these are often subject to misunderstanding.
"If I fire this shot, am I going to save a life?"
Close, but not quite there. The problem is you could "save a life" by killing someone who might present a FUTURE threat. That's not legitimate self defense. I would rephrase it this way:
"If I do not fire this shot, will I or someone else be murdered in the next minute?"
The imminence is there, as is the unlawful nature of the force (which is why I say murdered, not just killed), and of course we're talking about an impending death.
And of course the states have various positions on the duty to retreat. Though in reality if you're about to be murdered in the next minute, you probably can't get out of there safely. If you're about to murdered in the next FIVE minutes, the duty to retreat issues become more pressing. That's when you need to know your state law very well. If you see goons in your driveway and you have good reason to believe they're coming to kill you unlawfully (I'm not talking about LEO's coming to arrest you who may shoot you if you attack), then you have to know if you need to find a way out the back of if you can make your stand in a defensive position.
In general it's critical to know your own state's self defense code and any pertinent case law. It can be confusing. For example some states don't have an "imminence" requirement in the code, but the courts have inserted one anyway. IIRC Pennsylvania may be one, but I could be mistaken.
As far as warnings go, I'm generally against them. If you have time to banter things probably haven't reached a shooting point. And by hollering you make yourself an instant target. I'd advise using 100% of your eyes, ears and mind to PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to what's happening and draw reasonable conclusions. These gun schools that teach some slurred warning as part of a firing drill are really not accomplishing anything useful. Warnings can and have gotten armed citizens shot. The Tacoma mall example is the best one. In that case the green light was on very brightly, and the armed bystander should have either shot or fled. Instead he yelled a warning, and got paralyzed for life for his troubles. To quote the great Tuco, "IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT, SHOOT. DON'T TALK."
In a recent local example, a teen with an air rifle was shot by a police officer without warning. He sued, and the jury totally rejected his claims across the board. With a different judge it never would have even gotten that far.
Last edited: