Philly man with Fla. gun permit sentenced to jail for deadly shooting [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Philly man with Fla. gun permit sentenced to jail for deadly shooting


TBO
08-03-2012, 11:54
Philly man with Fla. gun permit sentenced to jail for deadly shooting

http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-02/news/33001910_1_gun-license-marqus-hill-santana-and-two

erkman
08-03-2012, 12:13
Shot him 13 times. I see why he got sentenced.

HerrGlock
08-03-2012, 12:16
The system worked as it was supposed to.

Patchman
08-03-2012, 13:41
Shot him 13 times.

The number 13 was definitely an unlucky number for both the shooter and the shotee.

CitizenOfDreams
08-03-2012, 14:30
Shot him 13 times. I see why he got sentenced.

How many times are we allowed to shoot a car thief?

Glock_9mm
08-03-2012, 14:48
How many times are we allowed to shoot a car thief?

Well, it appears that zero would be the correct answer in this case. As wrong as it may seem, the shooter appears to be the aggressor here, not the car thief. It does not help that he had been accused of attempted murder a few years back...kind of shows a pattern IMO.
Scott

vafish
08-03-2012, 14:52
Police are making a big deal about his pa permit being revoked and him still being able to get a fl permit.

But his pa permit was revoked due to an arrest for a crime he was later found not guilty of. So he should have been eligible to get his pa permit back.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TBO
08-03-2012, 15:58
Police are making a big deal about his pa permit being revoked and him still being able to get a fl permit.

But his pa permit was revoked due to an arrest for a crime he was later found not guilty of. So he should have been eligible to get his pa permit back.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Why?
What does PA say a permit can be revoked for?
I'll bet it's not just for "criminal convictions".

Patchman
08-03-2012, 17:18
But his pa permit was revoked due to an arrest for a crime he was later found not guilty of.

So he should have been eligible to get his pa permit back.


I highly doubt that after his trial, PA would have automatically moved to restore his CCW permit. So the the next question is, after his trial, did he make any effort to get his PA license back? (IDK)

The Machinist
08-03-2012, 17:46
Another travesty of justice.

TBO
08-03-2012, 19:55
(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/II/G/61/A/6109/licenses/

(e) Issuance of license.--
(1) A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. [FN1]
(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).
(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.
(xiv) An individual who is prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm under the statutes of the United States.

vafish
08-03-2012, 21:29
(i) Revocation.--A license to carry firearms may be revoked by the issuing authority for good cause. A license to carry firearms shall be revoked by the issuing authority for any reason stated in subsection (e)(1) which occurs during the term of the permit. Notice of revocation shall be in writing and shall state the specific reason for revocation. Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the individual whose license is revoked, and, at that time, notice shall also be provided to the Pennsylvania State Police by electronic means, including e-mail or facsimile transmission, that the license is no longer valid. An individual whose license is revoked shall surrender the license to the issuing authority within five days of receipt of the notice. An individual whose license is revoked may appeal to the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the individual resides. An individual who violates this section commits a summary offense.

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/II/G/61/A/6109/licenses/

(e) Issuance of license.--
(1) A license to carry a firearm shall be for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle and shall be issued if, after an investigation not to exceed 45 days, it appears that the applicant is an individual concerning whom no good cause exists to deny the license. A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. [FN1]
(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).
(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.
(xiv) An individual who is prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm under the statutes of the United States.

His license was revoked because of the pending charges. Not uncommon at all. Pretty standard in most states, you get charged with a felony and your CHP/CCW gets taken away.

But once he was cleared what reason would PA have to deny him a permit?

According to the article:

Hill lost his state gun license in 2005 after being arrested for attempted murder, but the charges later were dropped and expunged.

None of the reasons you put in bold apply to Mr. Hill. As far as I can tell from the information in the article after his charges were dropped in 2005 he should have been eligible to reapply for his concealed carry permit. We don't know if he tried to or not.

TBO
08-03-2012, 21:33
Did he re-apply?
Can you not see there are disqualifiers other than a criminal conviction?

bigtimelarry
08-03-2012, 21:41
If I was the Judge I would have asked the Prosecuter "Why was he breaking into this man's car and if he wouldn't have tried to steal this man's car this never would have happened right ? " Case Dismissed..

ZO6Vettever
08-04-2012, 13:59
If Frank Rizzo were still Mayor or Police commissioner it would have been ruled "apparent suicide". Frank was Philly's "Sheriff Joe " back in the day.

JW1178
08-04-2012, 14:33
It's one reason why crime is high up north. The criminals will boldly commit their crimes in broad daylight and if you catch them, they fight back because the law and society protects them.

So he heard his alarm, came out and a band of punk thugs were breaking into his car. When they were caught, they obviously decided they were the ones with the force so they decided to resist him, and one got gunned down. Perhaps he shouldn't have opened fire on them as his life wasn't in danger but this is what gets me. We are going to take a functioning member of society out of society and now going to pay probably over a million dollars plus to imprison him for taking out a non-functioning problem in our society.

TBO
08-04-2012, 15:37
How do you (we) know he's a "functioning member of society"?
What are the qualifications for that title?

Respectfully,

TBO

HerrGlock
08-04-2012, 15:45
It's one reason why crime is high up north. The criminals will boldly commit their crimes in broad daylight and if you catch them, they fight back because the law and society protects them.

So he heard his alarm, came out and a band of punk thugs were breaking into his car. When they were caught, they obviously decided they were the ones with the force so they decided to resist him, and one got gunned down. Perhaps he shouldn't have opened fire on them as his life wasn't in danger but this is what gets me. We are going to take a functioning member of society out of society and now going to pay probably over a million dollars plus to imprison him for taking out a non-functioning problem in our society.

There are several right ways to do this.

What this guy did was none of them, his was the wrong way. He'll pay for it and provide and example of what not to do.

JW1178
08-04-2012, 15:56
How do you (we) know he's a "functioning member of society"?
What are the qualifications for that title?

Respectfully,

TBO

Well, I'm not sure, I am figuring he is more likely than the thug breaking into his car.

Anyways, I agree, he did not act appropriately. But 30 years? Really? I bet if the car theif had shot him he wouldn't have gotten that much. I can't be sure about that either, but 30 years for taking out a punk car theif? Maybe he should get something but it's just a car thief. However that's my way of thinking.

Bruce M
08-04-2012, 16:21
Maybe it's just me, but I have to guess at least a little part of the sentence might have to do with this not being his first murder charge. Some people strongly suggest that they are felonious regardless of their actual conviction record. Rumor has it that some who practice in the criminal justice system can readily identify many of those people. In addition to police officers I have to guess some judges might have honed that skill.


And that sort of fits in with my pet theory based on my very limited little world that suggests that in more than a few shootings/homicide scenes it is difficult to determine who is the subject and who is the victim (or relatively easy to determine the situation is criminal versus criminal.)

JW1178
08-04-2012, 16:25
Maybe it's just me, but I have to guess at least a little part of the sentence might have to do with this not being his first murder charge. Some people strongly suggest that they are felonious regardless of their actual conviction record. Rumor has it that some who practice in the criminal justice system can readily identify those people. In addition to police officers I have to guess some judges might have honed that skill.

It is interesting that he was charged with attempted murder before, but was found not guilty. Details on that case would be interesting. What was that case about exactly?

Bruce M
08-04-2012, 16:29
I have no idea about the other case other than the mention of it in the cited article.

Patchman
08-04-2012, 17:08
And that sort of fits in with my pet theory based on my very limited little world that suggests that in more than a few shootings/homicide scenes it is difficult to determine who is the subject and who is the victim (or relatively easy to determine the situation is criminal versus criminal.)

My local agency makes it a practice to check BOTH the victim's criminal background as well as the "BG" background. They also make it a point to immediately take each person's background check and staple it. This is because should they drop loose paperwork on the floor, they would never be able to figure out which criminal record belonged to the "criminal" and which to the "victim."

jph02
08-04-2012, 18:41
...Perhaps he shouldn't have opened fire on them as his life wasn't in danger...

...Anyways, I agree, he did not act appropriately. But 30 years? Really?... Maybe he should get something but it's just a car thief...
Not a justifiable shooting since the victim was "just a car thief". Neither the shooter's nor anyone else's lives were in jeopardy. On top of that, he fired 13 freaking rounds into the unarmed punk after going out to the car and confronting the guy. I'd say the shooter's lucky he only got 30 years.

Darkangel1846
08-05-2012, 09:22
Well you don't shoot someone for trying to break into or steal a car. Unless you live in Texas!

PettyOfficer
08-05-2012, 09:29
Well you don't shoot someone for trying to break into or steal a car. Unless you live in Texas!

Only at night: theft during the day is not grounds for deadly force. But at night it's a different story.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 09:32
Well you don't shoot someone for trying to break into or steal a car. Unless you live in Texas!

It is legal to use deadly force to protect property, but you should really think about it hard before you do.

The deductible on my insurance is a lot cheaper than a trip to the Grand Jury. I have a security camera trained on my driveway, and onstar on all vehicles. I have modestly priced vehicles, nothing flashy. Odds are, car thieves will go elsewhere.

Shoot someone 13 times, and it's pretty clear that either that was one tough SOB you were up against, or you wanted him deader than dead.

twing21s
08-05-2012, 09:55
Come on guys, you sound like a bunch of liberal gun grabbers here. First problem is that he hired a criminal law attorney instead of a self defense gun lawyer and he still paid just as much. That guy has mase his fortune on getting drug dealers reduced sentences. Second what happened to the desparity of force 3:1 dark alley middle of the night? Possibility that one of the other stand up car thieves took the weapon? Fact of the matter is Philadelphia is tradionally anti gun for the law abiding citizen and most likely blatantly told him not to re-apply for his permit ever again. Next the point of a car alarm is to alert you the something is wrong, maybe it sounded severl times due to traffic and then he went to check it. But my guess is the sentence is so tough so that this case won't be compared to Sanford FL. Just saying

jeanderson
08-05-2012, 10:05
Marqus Hill, who was issued a license to carry a concealed firearm from Florida after Philadelphia police revoked his state license, was sentenced Thursday to eight to 20 years in state prison for pumping 13 bullets into a teenager who was breaking into his car in September 2010.

Pretty simple: You can only use deadly force if you or someone else is threatened and there is no escape. His property was the only thing threatened, and he could have left the scene and called 911 - which is what he should have done.

13 shots? That's nuts. He gives a bad name to CCW holders.

twing21s
08-05-2012, 11:00
13 shots is not the issue, if a man needs shooting 1-3-5-13 times doesn't matter He has a better hit ratio than the Phila PD. IIRC they recently shot at a man 90+ times who in broad daylight 16 cops shot him infront of cityhall at 6:45am striking him less than 25%. But this was a man that needed shooting right. i don't put out the trash without my "roscoe" on my hip. Home invasions in this area are outrageously and alarming high and yeilding deadly results.
Taking just the info from the article, his alarm went off, he went to check it, 3 punks breaking into his car one reaches for WHAT HE PERCEIVED TO BE A WEAPON. We have no other info to go off. Prior arrest was expunged makes it a non issue. My knowledge of Philly permit process leads me to believe they were prejudiced and withholding his permit.But he was legally in possession of a legally owned weapon.
No mention of the shot placement,forensic evidence against him just 13 freakin shots!

twing21s
08-05-2012, 11:01
By the way Phila PD does not resppond for a stolen vehicle

CitizenOfDreams
08-05-2012, 11:07
Well you don't shoot someone for trying to break into or steal a car. Unless you live in Texas!

Moral of the story: when you shoot a thief, drag his body to Texas. :wavey:

PettyOfficer
08-05-2012, 12:02
Moral of the story: when you shoot a thief, drag his body to Texas. :wavey:

In TX, due to the old Castle Doctrine, cops used to say 'if you shoot them in the yard, drag the body inside'.

New laws save you the exercise.

JRS
08-05-2012, 12:08
I'm irked by a few responses here. A common attitude on GT is if someone is doing something that makes you shoot, "empty the mag". Now 13 shots is too many?

He was outnumbered and unless video or similar contradicts this, very easily *could* have feared for his life. Why he went outside and prior dropped charges should be moot.

It's no wonder crime rates are so high. You have to stop and consider if it's even worth it to protect yourself against actual criminals.

CDR_Glock
08-05-2012, 12:11
Protection of belongings in most areas does not justify deadly force or self defense. Justice was appropriate.

JRS
08-05-2012, 12:17
Protection of belongings in most areas does not justify deadly force or self defense. Justice was appropriate.

Protection of belongings does not, but you mixed self defense into that same sentence. If 3 people doing something illegal takes steps towards you while reaching in their pockets (not specifically referencing the actual event), at what point is it self defense?

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 12:48
In TX, due to the old Castle Doctrine, cops used to say 'if you shoot them in the yard, drag the body inside'.

New laws save you the exercise.

Even before castle doctrine, you could protect property with deadly force, and never, ever try to alter a scene, for any reason. If you shoot them through the door, no problem, leave 'em where they are at.

Yes, I have heard officers say that too, but they were wrong then too.

steveksux
08-05-2012, 13:14
By the way Phila PD does not resppond for a stolen vehicleDoesn't matter, the car wasn't stolen yet... :tongueout::supergrin:

Randy

steveksux
08-05-2012, 13:18
I'm irked by a few responses here. A common attitude on GT is if someone is doing something that makes you shoot, "empty the mag". Now 13 shots is too many?

He was outnumbered and unless video or similar contradicts this, very easily *could* have feared for his life. Why he went outside and prior dropped charges should be moot.

It's no wonder crime rates are so high. You have to stop and consider if it's even worth it to protect yourself against actual criminals.I wonder if PA has castle doctrine/stand your ground laws. If not, and you have a duty to retreat there, you should not confront them, and should have tried to retreat rather than shooting the guy 13 times.

13 shots doesn't tell you anything in this case, though. 13 shots from what distance, and where was the guy hit? That tells you a lot more. Shooting an unarmed guy that's already down is going to get you in trouble most places, regardless if the guy was attempting to steal your car when you fired the first shot. 13 shots can certainly be justified under some circumstances. But the more shots you fire, the more likely someone's going to conclude that at some point, it was more about revenge, making sure the guy was dead rather than protecting yourself. The cops in the Rodney King case in LA were in trouble for only the last few baton hits. You can go from the victim to an aggressor if you're not careful. Self defense at one point isn't carte blanch to go on a rampage.

You don't have to consider if its worth it protecting yourself against actual criminals. That's generally legal. You do have to consider if its worth it executing criminals for attempting to steal your stuff. Cause lots of local laws would prohibit that.

It really pays to know your local laws and factor that into your decision making. Stealing your stuff is not justification for murder.

Randy

Bruce M
08-05-2012, 17:05
... at what point is it self defense?

Well one test as to whether or not it is self defense is whether or not a reasonable person in the same circumstances would show a reasonable belief that someone was in jeopardy of being severely injured or killed. Arguably in some urban areas based on local and state laws confronting people who one thinks may be only stealing property is, of itself, not reasonable.

Even in jurisdictions that it is allowed, financial caution might suggest avoiding the confrontation. In fact, from a financial standpoint, one might conclude that about anytime one can escape and evade the situation, that is the best choice.

GIockGuy24
08-05-2012, 23:01
I believe Philly is the one place in PA where you can't carry openly without a concealed carry permit. As soon as he stepped outside he was breaking the law.

JuneyBooney
08-05-2012, 23:59
Philly man with Fla. gun permit sentenced to jail for deadly shooting

http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-02/news/33001910_1_gun-license-marqus-hill-santana-and-two

I think one or two shots fired would have been sufficient. :whistling:

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 03:49
In a lot of places deadly force can used for a felony, any felony. In this case, the shooter broke the law as soon as he stepped outside with a firearm in Philly. That makes the shooting and death both crimes, even if he was defending himself at that point. If he hadn't broken the firearm laws the shooting and shooting death wouldn't have happened.

Bren
08-06-2012, 04:26
In a lot of places deadly force can used for a felony, any felony. In this case, the shooter broke the law as soon as he stepped outside with a firearm in Philly. That makes the shooting and death both crimes, even if he was defending himself at that point. If he hadn't broken the firearm laws the shooting and shooting death wouldn't have happened.

Can you name a place that allows deadly force to prevent "any felony"? I have never heard of one and I actually spend some time researching, writing and teaching use of force law in other states.

The point being - if some Glock Talkers think they can use deadly force to prevent "any felony" they are in danger of ending up like this guy.

My first thought on reading the article - really - is that it sounded like the kind of freakout I'd expect from some of the people who post here.

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 04:36
Can you name a place that allows deadly force to prevent "any felony"? I have never heard of one and I actually spend some time researching, writing and teaching use of force law in other states.

The point being - if some Glock Talkers think they can use deadly force to prevent "any felony" they are in danger of ending up like this guy.

My first thought on reading the article - really - is that it sounded like the kind of freakout I'd expect from some of the people who post here.

I didn't say, "prevent." A lot of places allow the same amount of force allowed to law enforcement, including deadly force, if one has "personal knowledge" of a felony, (witnesses a felony).

Bruce M
08-06-2012, 05:41
I didn't say, "prevent." A lot of places allow the same amount of force allowed to law enforcement, including deadly force, if one has "personal knowledge" of a felony, (witnesses a felony).


So in some places deadly force is allowable if one has "personal knowledge" of say a forgery?? Or possession of 24 grams of marijuana??

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 05:48
So in some places deadly force is allowable if one has "personal knowledge" of say a forgery?? Or possession of 24 grams of marijuana??

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/UseofForce.asp

Private citizens who are trying to make arrests are also allowed to use force, but their right to use force is much more limited than the right to use force available to police officers. A private citizen is only allowed to use deadly force when trying to make an arrest if the suspect, in fact, committed a felony. Unlike police officers, who can act upon a reasonable belief and whose actions based on a reasonable belief will be vindicated even if those beliefs turn out to be wrong, a private citizen must actually be right about the suspect he is trying to arrest. If a private citizen uses deadly force on a suspect and it turns out that the suspect did not commit a felony, the private citizen’s actions will not be justified no matter how reasonable his belief might have been that the suspect actually did commit a felony.

Bruce M
08-06-2012, 06:13
I'm not convinced that that means what you think it means. Unless the sentence "However, if the police officer was trying to apprehend a suspect who he reasonably believed had committed a victimless felony or a felony that involved no risk of physical harm to others, deadly force cannot be used" also applies to citizens.


But if you want to try to start effecting citizens arrests for nonviolent felonies at gunpoint feel free to have at it. But even if one didn't check with an actual attorney first, one might want an actual attorney rather than a paralegal for the defense.

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 06:17
I'm not convinced that that means what you think it means. Unless the sentence "However, if the police officer was trying to apprehend a suspect who he reasonably believed had committed a victimless felony or a felony that involved no risk of physical harm to others, deadly force cannot be used" also applies to citizens.

It's pretty clear. The citizen's arrest and use deadly force, says if deadly force is used, it has to be for a felony and it better be a felony. It is not restricted to certain types of felonies.

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 06:23
That is only one example. There are similar laws in other states.

Trying to stop a felon is not always a good choice. Trying to stop three felons rarely ends well, no matter who ends up on top.

TBO
08-06-2012, 06:34
MN

Citizens do not have the "same" Use of Deadly Force" powers/rights as Peace Officers.

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 06:35
I'm not convinced that that means what you think it means. Unless the sentence "However, if the police officer was trying to apprehend a suspect who he reasonably believed had committed a victimless felony or a felony that involved no risk of physical harm to others, deadly force cannot be used" also applies to citizens.


But if you want to try to start effecting citizens arrests for nonviolent felonies at gunpoint feel free to have at it. But even if one didn't check with an actual attorney first, one might want an actual attorney rather than a paralegal for the defense.

I just chose that as a quick example for discussion here. I know other states have very similar laws that only mention felonies without restricting them to certain felonies. Where I live, the law changed last month and now states that brandishing a firearm to stop a crime is no longer allowed. Up until last month it was allowed here.

Bruce M
08-06-2012, 06:49
Can you name a place that allows deadly force to prevent "any felony"? I have never heard of one and I actually spend some time researching, writing and teaching use of force law in other states.

....

....

It's pretty clear. The citizen's arrest and use deadly force, says if deadly force is used, it has to be for a felony and it better be a felony. It is not restricted to certain types of felonies.


There seems to be slightly different interpretations of what is a justifiable level of use of force. I am contending that the article cited suggests that the most modern interpretation includes justifying deadly force for only forcible violent felonies for either law enforcement or citizens. Even if the cited article does not, I am going to go with the widsom of Bren.

GIockGuy24
08-06-2012, 06:55
There seems to be slightly different interpretations of what is a justifiable level of use of force. I am contending that the article cited suggests that the most modern interpretation includes justifying deadly force for only forcible violent felonies for either law enforcement or citizens. Even if the cited article does not, I am going to go with the widsom of Bren.

Well that was a just a quick internet search. I do know of such laws in other states.

jph02
08-06-2012, 07:05
...In this case, the shooter broke the law as soon as he stepped outside with a firearm in Philly...
You say this twice, even after JuneyBooney quoted the OP headline about the guy having a Florida permit. PA recognizes FL permits, both resident and non-resident (http://handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf). The article (http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-03/news/33001910_1_gun-license-marqus-hill-guilty-plea) clearly says out-of-state permits are legal:Under conceal-carry reciprocity agreements, people who get licenses from out of town can lawfully carry guns here [PA].So how did the guy break the law by taking his gun outside?

jph02
08-06-2012, 07:34
It's pretty clear. The citizen's arrest and use deadly force, says if deadly force is used, it has to be for a felony and it better be a felony. It is not restricted to certain types of felonies.
The article doesn't say anything about the shooter trying to effect a citizen's arrest. In any case, PA law does not allow the use of deadly force (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.008.000..HTM) in a citizen's arrest unless there is danger to life.§ 508(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--
(1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

TBO
08-06-2012, 07:40
MN's differences on Use of Force/Deadly Force between Peace Officers and non-Peace Officers:

Items in red are Peace Officer only.
Non-Peace Officer specific language in green.
--------------------------

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.

Subdivision 1.When authorized.

Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:
(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or
(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or
(5)when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or
(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or
(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or
(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or
(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or
(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2.Deadly force used against peace officers.

Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
--------------------------------------------------------


As you can see above, there are significant differences (as you'd expect) in the language of the law on how/when Peace Officers can use Force against a person, and what/when non-Peace Officers can use force against a person.


Now we'll look at the difference between "Deadly Force" for Cops/non-Cops.
First, for the non-Cop:


609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=609.06#stat.609.06), except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

---------------


One very interesting niche topic of the above is "abode". MN doesn't have much case law defining what exactly an abode is. What there is suggests it's your primary place of living, meaning actual home. Cabin doesn't count, motor-home in transport doesn't count, etc. Fascinating area of law yet to be explored (tested) in MN courts.


Now for the difference in Deadly Force law/powers for Cops:


609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.

Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined.

For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=626.84#stat.626.84.1).

Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=609.06#stat.609.06) or 609.065 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=609.065#stat.609.065), the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

Subd. 3.No defense.

This section and sections 609.06 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=609.06#stat.609.06), 609.065 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=609.065#stat.609.065) and 629.33 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?year=2011&id=629.33#stat.629.33) may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.

--------------------------


As you can see, there are significant differences.
An important factor to keep in mind is that non-Cops aren't indemnified when using force/deadly force, meaning you can be sued by the person you touch (or their family). That is why, as such, I strongly advise against non-Cops attempting to make a "citizen arrest" by using physical force against a person. You can lose a lot in a lawsuit.