"... "I see a gentleman pounding on another gentleman... "

Class, remember, gentlemen do not pound other gentlemen.

Neither do they obstruct justice, which is how I'd interpret trying to prevent someone from writing down a license plate number. I wonder what color the various skin tones of the people involved were, and why cops would witness someone being shoved 15 feet and lunged at and then arrest the same person when he attempts to defend himself and then let his attacker go free.

I'm sure it's all good.

What's your point? Does Derkoch's brandishing hie gun meet your (and PA law's) criteria for legality/justification?

By then, it's a little too late, isn't it.

That sounds very familiar... "lets stop lawbreaking before it happens!"
It has always been an excuse for removing freedoms and taking over populations.
Thanks for making it very clear to us all.

pre-emptive strike? Does this sound familiar to anyone at all??? I wonder who you'll be voting for at the next election.

Spex...in my very humble opinion, I think you would be better served not to quote lines like that in an open forum where there are women present who have been the vicitm of rape.

I apologize for being insensitive.

That's very kind of you Spex. I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable.

Right, that's like banning all private planes because a baseball player flew into a building.:right:

Would it not be more sensible to ban baseball players?

Easier anyway. You see how much headway we're making getting MaggieL to beat her arsenal into plowshares, what chance do you think you've got getting her to hand over her plane?:D

Still haven't read the law, I see.

But that doesn't matter much in this case, because the law on justification doesn't apply. Why? Because deadly force wasn't used. The courts will decide if the brandishing constituted AgAssault, which is how it's being charged. The way I read the statue it doesn't apply, but then I'm not a lawyer...or a Philadelphia judge.

I will point out that the brandishing was sufficient to terminate the assault, and no shots were fired, which is more than we can say for...

I also notice that Henwood is working very hard to distract attention from the fact that he threw the first punch, knocking Derkotch to the ground. Which shouldn't be difficult given that the vast majority of the media are telling this story without even menitioning that an assault was underway before the brandishing occurred. Henwood claims "I percieved a threat and struck him...", which should be a clue to you about the law...no doubt that was a statement coached by his attorney, because the way I read the AgAssault statute, given the facts as reported, Henwood is closer to being guilty of that than Derkotch is.

Still evading the tough questions, eh, Maggie? Please answer:

and
And Henwood should be punished. Derkotch was out of line just by accosting Henwood. Henwood was surely aware that situations like this could get violent, and so was probably on edge. Derkotch Did not remove himself from the confrontation - perhaps he was emboldened because he was packin' heat. When Henwood showed signs of violence, Derkotch STILL did not move away. After being struck, Derkotch STILL did not move away. Maybe carrying a gun causes an increase in non-gun-related violence, too.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment, and a way to ensure that the person won't ever get the chance to misuse a gun again.
I've come to believe that the threat of consequences does very little to deter people from serious crimes. Shoplifting, yes. Murder/rape, no.

Sure, and don't put a life vest on your kid until after he drowns. And don't stop smoking until after you have cancer. And let's not ban DDT. Let's not stop North Korea from having nukular weapons until after they massacre thousands of people. :right:

There certainly is a reasonableness to prevention.

I guess you're just hoping it's not your family that the guns are misused on.