Justified shooting? One to watch

[Hazcat]

I think you're off base. 1st, there is duty to retreat from a confrontaion, (not a threat depending on the state), but an argument that could come to blows, you walk away. If you don't ,you have a problem. You may think a fist fight entails a bloody nose, I might think it ends with you stomping my head in. Ergo I fell threatened and pull a gun. Unless its at the gym a fist fight should only be in an SD situation and then all cards are on the table. Your job is to be mature and man enough to walk (or run if necessary) away. If the other guy won't let you, well, that becomes  his problem. Just my 02.
FQ13

FQ!

You're in FL and should know that is NOT true here.

[Kid Shelleen]

It depends on your state, in Texas that guy shot 2 thieves in the back with a shotgun running off with his neighbors stuff and walked. In Mass a few years ago a woman was attacked in her home, when her attacker threatened her Kids she shot him and killed him. They put her on trial saying she had not done enough to flee.

I've lived all over the country and out of the country as well. When it comes to the 2A and the defense of your property and of yourself, I am glad that I currently reside in Texas and I'm glad that I am 4th generation Texan. It uncomplicates things.

[True_Texan]

Only time you should ever have to run or retreat is when the weapon isn't on you and you're just going to get it. If you already have it with/on you, no running or retreating should EVER be needed during a life threatening attack.

Ever since I was little, my mother always told me, "You never start a fight but if your in one, you be sure to be the one to finish it."

And as far as being accused of animal cruelty, for me, if a face full of 13 sized steel-toed boots don't do the job on an aggressive animal, a dozen rounds of .45 HP will be there to follow it up. And to hell with what any PETA SOB thinks.

[Solus]

I think we are discussing both a legal issue and a moral issue.

The legal issue will vary depending upon which locality it occurs and the moral issue will vary depending upon the individual.

It think FQ has stated a moral position and not a legal one.

I have often considered this question:


Should I be armed, which I always am, and am sitting at a table and a "bully" demands I move from his favorite table, what would I do.

Legally, if I simply ignore him and he lays hands upon me, I most likely will have a legal right to use deadly force to defend myself.

But, morally, I believe I would simply move to a different table or leave the premise.

Personally, I don't feel my proving I have a right to sit at that table is worth taking another's life.

I also know that moving to another table might not solve anything, as rolling over for a bully is likely to feed his desire to dominate but, being armed, I am not in a position to let the situation escalate into a "lesson giving" event.

[tombogan03884]

I've lived all over the country and out of the country as well. When it comes to the 2A and the defense of your property and of yourself, I am glad that I currently reside in Texas and I'm glad that I am 4th generation Texan. It uncomplicates things.

For clarification I was not condemning the Texas rules, simply demonstrating how state laws vary. (I save the condemnation for Mass )

[Sponsor]

[Kid Shelleen]

For clarification I was not condemning the Texas rules, simply demonstrating how state laws vary. (I save the condemnation for Mass )

I didn't think that you were at all Tom. I appreciated your comment and I was following up your comments by stating that the property and self defense laws in Texas make it easy to live here. You feel more secure about self defense, should it ever become necessary. The moral decissions are much tougher than the legal ones.

Thanks Tom.

[ratcatcher55]

Ransom, who was arrested in April in Loveland, Colo., is accused of wounding Amato in the groin and killing the dog with a shot to the head at Amato's W. Berwick Street home.

Am I reading this wrong?

The shooter came to the "gentleman's" home and initiated an argument.
The homeowner believed the shooter had ability, opportunity and intent to use deadly force and struck first.

The shooter claims, well I really wasn't going to shoot you before but I guess now that my ass is getting handed to me I'll shoot you and your dog too.

The shooter then beats feet and goes to Colorado for ...vacation?

Under PA law the homeowner would have been justified in his defense of himself even if he had used deadly force.

The shooter would not be justified as his actions would be construed as the aggressor.

DISCLAIMER The Morning Call is no more reliable source of information than any other newspaper. It has been 8 years since I left PA but I was fairly familiar with the laws at that time.