Alright guys help me out with this one

[TheFollower]

Harsh treatment of newbies...geesh

Everyone was a rookie at some point. And no one has "arrived" as God's gift to gun handling so why aren't we simply educating. We want 2A to move forward not set it back.

There will always be trolls so assume the best cuz you will never know the truth anyway. Why risk squashing a newbie? Merely sends to another site for help.

This is why I don't frequent the forums much. Too many self-righteous know-it-all's with their panties in a wad. Too much BS and not enough real helpful information.

jus' sayin'

 

[TheFollower]

If he where a troll and some clown on this forum actually answered that the shoot was justified then we have a bigger problem here....with one of our own on this site making us all look like crackpots.

 

[Warbirds]

Everyone was a rookie at some point. And no one has "arrived" as God's gift to gun handling so why aren't we simply educating. We want 2A to move forward not set it back.

There will always be trolls so assume the best cuz you will never know the truth anyway. Why risk squashing a newbie? Merely sends to another site for help.

This is why I don't frequent the forums much. Too many self-righteous know-it-all's with their panties in a wad. Too much BS and not enough real helpful information.

jus' sayin'

Rookie gun handling does not cover murder, nor ways of attempting to cover murder as self defense.

Did you even read what the OP said?

I am not here to tell someone their moral compass is broken and then give them a hug. They can try PTO for that.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

 

[ldm]

If your going to conceal carry being having situational awareness and knowledge of the law is paramount. It is your responsibility to understand any and all repercussions of using deadly force.

I think folks are reacting they way are on this issue is because in your stated situation the answer was clearly obvious.

 

[anvil6]

Law enforcement MAY operate under other rules of engagement regarding fleeing felons.
For civilians:
Not a good shoot. Once the weapon is no longer pointed at you and the perp has turned away to leave, you are NOT in danger.

ANY bullet entry hole in the back makes a self-defense allegation less likely to be believed. Yes, there have been times when a ducking, twisting, spinning attacker DID get entry holes in their back. In some of those cases, only a COMPLETE analysis of bullet paths by a forensic pathologist kept the Good Guy from being found guilty of murder. Don't count on being that fortunate.

Additionally, ANY bullet fired is going to hit something. Make sure it is not an innocent bystander.

 

[longslide10]

In your scenario the BG had the drop on ya so give him what he wants and count yourself both stupid and lucky

 

[jlutin]

What should the victim do?

In the situation that began this thread, an individual is the hypothetical victim of an armed robery. The victim is armed, but does not have an opportunity to access his firearm. The perpetrator takes the victim's wallet and begins moving away.

It is possible that the perpetrator could, at any time, change his mind, return and shoot the victim, or the perpetrator could start searching for anther victim.

The victim knows that the perpetrator is armed and represents a threat. What should the victim do? What can one do and remain within the law in PA? these are valid questions.

 

[Deserteagle]

I live in philly, where we have the stand your ground law freshly passed. Hypothetical situation here, I am standing on the train platform and a man sticks some ugly burner he picked up from some crackhead in my face and demands my loot. I say "please don't shoot me sir" blah blah blah, I hand him my wallet and watch and let him walk away or run whatever. What he doesn't know is that I'm packing a remington .45 in a back belt holster and I whip that puppy out and put three in his spinal cord (barring I'm that lucky). Now the question is, how will my self defense hold up in court?

I have gone over the whole robbing situation time and time again and this seems to be the best course of action the only problem would be legal issues. I get it I'm shooting him in his back but he threatened me with a fire arm. Would it make a difference if i got him to turn around with just enough time to pop his melon? Please give me some feedback fellas.

Lets look at how the jury pictures this:

You are approached by an armed man, you give him your wallet and he starts running away. You then pull out a gun and shoot him in the back 3 times. You then walk over, pick up your wallet from his dead hand, wipe the blood off with his shirt, and then call the police and tell them "stand your ground" law gave you the right to commit murder.

Say hello to prison.


Or better yet, say hello to first degree murder charges if you decided you were going to execute him for his crime by getting him to turn around just long enough to "pop him in the melon".

You really need to just leave you gun at home.

 

[longslide10]

In the situation that began this thread, an individual is the hypothetical victim of an armed robery. The victim is armed, but does not have an opportunity to access his firearm. The perpetrator takes the victim's wallet and begins moving away.

It is possible that the perpetrator could, at any time, change his mind, return and shoot the victim, or the perpetrator could start searching for anther victim.

The victim knows that the perpetrator is armed and represents a threat. What should the victim do? What can one do and remain within the law in PA? these are valid questions.

To me this and the Op are questions that should be asked of your state police as to what exactly the laws are pertaining to lethal force while in public. Most here are not experts in law and in many states laws aren't real clear on what you can and can't do. I would like it if my state (Pennsylvania--pretty relaxed and we can carry pretty much everywhere except schools and federal buildings) offered classes through the State Police dedicated to the issues of using deadly force. I would also like to see a state govt funded firearms course training kind of like what the Motorcycle Safety Foundation does for motorcycle enthusiasts. OMG did I just turn into one of those liberal whiners I whine about?

 

[GunsHarleysUSA]

I could not have said it better myself....you nailed that question with this answer dead on the!

 

[Firefighterchen]

Agree with the majority here, your op is a bad shoot. It will not stand up in court.

I also agree you should get to know your states laws better, but I recommend going to a self defense or firearms lawyers and not the police.

 

[allezzov]

Are you for real?

First, you should be familiar with your state laws regarding the use of lethal and non lethal force pertaining to self defense.

Second the premise of your question indicates to me that you are immature, irresposible, and should receive immediate training before you venture out in public with any lethal force instument.

You sir, are a problem just waiting to happen.

 

[evergreena3]

JoCLy52, I just looked up your posts. First, I saw that you asked several questions, not just one (first and/or last). Second, I saw the CC question and answers. Aside from the one who is now barred from the group, the responses were genuine, informative, and generally considerate. What is your issue, then?
As for Robert James's post, he is either immature or a troll. No self-respecting man chooses to shoot another in the back. It is wrong, both legally and morally. If Robert is not simply immature, and therefore should not own a gun anyway, then his post is simply fodder for some anti-gun rhetoric about how "we cowboys" think this is the wild west.

Jason Seiler

 

[Treo]

Obvious troll is... not even a good troll

 

[WoodsWally]

One reason I don't spend tons of time on these forums is the lack of tolerance... I think it's easy to forget some people are new to the topic and ask what might seem like a "dumb" question to others. A little tolerance is not a bad thing... The original post here does sound like a "troll" -- or baiting because of the language. I would have to say that someone who posts a questions that is fundamentally "Can I kill somebody and get away with it by claiming self-defense?" deserves a little heavy-handedness in reply. Two things that might be added:

1. This sort of logic/question doesn't help the gun rights cause very much.
2. Even if the question were framed in a more "naive" way it's the sort of thing that the attorney prosecuting the case (or prosecutor) would love to link to a suspect.

 

[Firefighterchen]

JoCLy52, I just looked up your posts. First, I saw that you asked several qstions, not just one (first and/or last). Second, I saw the CC question and answers. Aside from the one who is now barred from the group, the responses were genuine, informative, and generally considerate. What is your issue, then?
As for Robert James's post, he is either immature or a troll. No self-respecting man chooses to shoot another in the back. It is wrong, both legally and morally. If Robert is not simply immature, and therefore should not own a gun anyway, then his post is simply fodder for some anti-gun rhetoric about how "we cowboys" think this is the wild west.

Jason Seiler

I don't find it legally or morally wrong to shoot a mass murder in the back who is in the middle of their shooting spree.

As well as anyone who is moving away from me towards another family members room in my home.

 

[walt629]

I live in philly, where we have the stand your ground law freshly passed. Hypothetical situation here, I am standing on the train platform and a man sticks some ugly burner he picked up from some crackhead in my face and demands my loot. I say "please don't shoot me sir" blah blah blah, I hand him my wallet and watch and let him walk away or run whatever. What he doesn't know is that I'm packing a remington .45 in a back belt holster and I whip that puppy out and put three in his spinal cord (barring I'm that lucky). Now the question is, how will my self defense hold up in court?

I have gone over the whole robbing situation time and time again and this seems to be the best course of action the only problem would be legal issues. I get it I'm shooting him in his back but he threatened me with a fire arm. Would it make a difference if i got him to turn around with just enough time to pop his melon? Please give me some feedback fellas.

No self defense at all. You shot him in the back. Manslaughter at best, murder at the other end. Either way it's a bad shoot.

PS. You're screwed.

 

[walt629]

Let's all stop hypothetically feeding the hypothetical troll.

Oh Phil, I think the troll is real, not hypothetical. :moil:

 

[walt629]

Everyone was a rookie at some point. And no one has "arrived" as God's gift to gun handling so why aren't we simply educating. We want 2A to move forward not set it back.

There will always be trolls so assume the best cuz you will never know the truth anyway. Why risk squashing a newbie? Merely sends to another site for help.

This is why I don't frequent the forums much. Too many self-righteous know-it-all's with their panties in a wad. Too much BS and not enough real helpful information.

jus' sayin'

So, in your frame of reasoning, shooting a retreating BG in the back is just a "newbie" question that should actually garner some serious attention from anyone on the thread?

Just to be clear, the question alone is one that even the rookiest of rookies knows the answer to. The question alone in reason enough for any gun owner with the smallest understanding of right and wrong would never ask in a forum dedicated to the safe handling and use of deadly force in the protection of life and limb.

You are what is know as a 'troll enabler' and need to be dealt with the same sarcasm as a troll. I assume of course you and the dweeb that asked the question in the first place are sharing the same computer in your mommy's basement.

As far as you not visiting often, please don't change your ways just for us!

 

[walt629]

In the situation that began this thread, an individual is the hypothetical victim of an armed robery. The victim is armed, but does not have an opportunity to access his firearm. The perpetrator takes the victim's wallet and begins moving away.

It is possible that the perpetrator could, at any time, change his mind, return and shoot the victim, or the perpetrator could start searching for anther victim.

The victim knows that the perpetrator is armed and represents a threat. What should the victim do? What can one do and remain within the law in PA? these are valid questions.

Now if he had enough common sense to present the questions in this format, he may have gotten some better answers. However when the basis of the question is "I have a real cool gun. Some guy stick his gun in my face and takes my money. Can I shoot him in the back?" he will garner NO compassion from a crowd of people that have dedicated their adult lives to the legal pursuit of their 2A rights.