Question about when it is considered appropriate to defend myself and to what degree.

[LVLouisCyphre]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up, or maybe I missed it. Here in the Great (Southern) State of Georgia, the state congress recently passed a bill called the Castle Doctrine. It plainly reads

"In a split second decision, victims don't have the time to FULLY decide what is best, Fight or Flight. This bill states....if you "perceive" your life or family members life to be in danger, you have the right to use deadly force."

The reason it was not mentioned is the original poster is in PA which presently has no castle doctrine law. Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are in the minority. The issue of criminal and civil liability greatly varies from State to State which is what castle doctrine and stand your ground laws address.

The original poster is moving to Florida which has a great stand your ground statute however she is under 21 so it would only apply to her residence or if the firearm is lawfully in her vehicle in accordance to Florida Statutes.

In Nevada we have a castle doctrine with civil suit immunity for your domicile only. I have never heard of a someone defending their domicile lawfully within Nevada being arrested or charged with a crime. It does not apply to your place of business or your vehicle yet.

 

[OldOwl]

I was taught the rule of thumb is "21 feet and closing" with a weapon is when you flip the switch.

If somebody wanted my car or wallet I'd probably give it to them if I was sure they would go away then, before I would shoot them. That's not to say I wouldn't give them a 2x4 across the face if the opportunity were there.

You have to ask yourself, is it worth risking killing this person for the crime they're committing?

 

[rrc1962]

How do you know the person rushing toward you demanding your wallet and car won't get in the car, pull out a gun and shoot you. These days they will kill you over $20. If someone is approaching in the threatening manner with the clear intent of committing a crime, there is sufficient cause to fear for your life.

"You have to ask yourself, is it worth risking killing this person for the crime they're committing?"

Yes, because the crime they are committing may be killing you. Unfortunately, you won't know that until it's too late. Maybe you can dodge the bullet and return fire, but maybe not. Lot's of simple robberies turn into murders when the BG realizes that you are now a witness.

 

[OldOwl]

Well, you don't know that. Neither do they know that about you, which is why I'd certainly have my hand on my gun in the scenario you just said. If their hand goes into cover, now you have to play catch up, almost. All I'm saying is, if stepping on the gas pedal gets you away from a potential threat, that would be my first option.

Gabby said in the original post "Someone stealing her car." She didn't say she was in it. If I saw somebody getting into my car in a parking lot and stealing it, I surely wouldn't kill them for it. JMO

 

[rrc1962]

Stealing my car in a parking lot with me watching from a storefront...I sort of agree. I would not shoot him but I might try stopping him. I don't think I'd just sit there and watch someone steal my car. Stealing my car isn't threatening my life, so of course I wouldn't shoot someone over it....Unless....It was a carjacking at gunpoint or during the altercation things escalated to a point where I felt my life were in danger.

What I was getting at was that in a robbery situation just giving them what they want is not a guarantee that won't shoot you anyway.

 

[GaryR56]

I was sitting in my Law class a few weeks ago and the teacher mentioned that someone is only able to use physical force if their life is in immediate danger, for example, he said that an individual is not able to shoot someone if their car is being stolen. But I am a little bit confused when it comes to distinguishing between "your life being in immediate danger" and if someone has intentions of harming me (in my home, in a dark parking lot, wherever; I'm a female, you get where I'm going with this..) If I happened to be carrying concealed or open and I have a permit to do so, to what degree am I able to defend myself? Granted, I do not carry, but I would love to have a better understanding of how I could best handle the suggestion. If anyone has any advice I would really appreciate it

Your professor is right...and wrong. He's right, only in the context of current laws that violate the Second Amendment. If you choose to live your life (or lose it because of) blindly following those laws, which are meant to keep us from defending ourselves against an increasingly fascistic government (not coincidentally, the same government that has passed the laws), then you will only be guaranteeing your own victimization.

On the other hand, by choosing to act like an American should and ignore these oppressive and unconstitutional laws - including the one that "allows" you to carry your gun concealed (a right you already had and didn't require government permission for), you may avoid becoming another crime statistic, but at the risk of violating one of the hundreds of laws that abridge our freedom.

The way I see it (and some idiots will call me an "extremist" for this), we should demand the immediate and unconditional repeal of all gun laws. Period. To do anything less is not "defending" the Second Amendment, but allowing it to be further butchered. I don't know where Americans got so far off track that they don't see this plain and simple truth any longer, but organizations, like the NRA - which has consistently backed new gun laws under the guise of "protecting" your Second Amendment rights - are not on our side. You don't negotiate and compromise with your inalienable rights. You already have the right to carry, not only a gun, but any type of weapon, anytime, anywhere, and under any conditions and for any reason you want to. The Second Amendment does not stipulate any such restrictions. It is only the mountain of laws that violate the Second Amendment that pose any restrictions. Get this through your heads: YOU are the master, government is supposed to be your servant. Not the other way around. We have allowed ourselves, in just three or four generations, to go from a nation of people who understood all this to a nation of people who don't seem to know or care what their rights are anymore. This is not merely sad, it is disgusting and highly dangerous. We are on the verge of completely and irrevocably losing our country and everything we have while a bunch of weak-minded ninnies with guns sit wondering if they should be "allowed" to use them. My God, people, WAKE UP!

Gary

 

[Piece Corps]

To repeat: in Florida, if you are in fear of your life, you DO NOT have to retreat, and you may use deadly force. Not only that, but if you see someone else's life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop it.

If someone runs up to MY car and starts breaking the window to try to get to ME, they WILL BE SHOT! I DO NOT have to retreat or run. There are enough car-jackings resulting in murder that I will not be worried about the consequences. The man who shot the assailant beating a convenience store clerk (in FL) was within his rights to use deadly force. The man who shot the armed thug trying to rob a drug store was within his rights (I also think he was an off-duty LEO).

If someone grabs your wife's purse, you can not shoot him as he flees with it. And if the assailant retreats, you do not have the right to shoot him, UNLESS he's firing back at you as he retreats (he is still a threat to your life).

Remember the saying: T'is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[evocrazy]

The reason it was not mentioned is the original poster is in PA which presently has no castle doctrine law. Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are in the minority. The issue of criminal and civil liability greatly varies from State to State which is what castle doctrine and stand your ground laws address.

The original poster is moving to Florida which has a great stand your ground statute however she is under 21 so it would only apply to her residence or if the firearm is lawfully in her vehicle in accordance to Florida Statutes.

In Nevada we have a castle doctrine with civil suit immunity for your domicile only. I have never heard of a someone defending their domicile lawfully within Nevada being arrested or charged with a crime. It does not apply to your place of business or your vehicle yet.

This is my first post as I am on here trying to find info on PA laws and a search brought me to this thread. I am not disputing what I highlighted in red just that I found this (See Below) on the PA concealed carry permit info page here and am looking for further info or more clarification. Is that out dated?

Pennsylvania Concealed Carry Permit Information

Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Pennsylvania is a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand-your-ground law.