[OldMarksman]

From csmsss:

OM, I *believe* you're missing a key point here. When the OP was accosted by two individuals, apparently bent on beating him, a reasonable person could certainly conclude that he is indeed in immediate threat - if for no other reason than two individuals might very easily disarm him and use his weapon to wound or even kill him.

No, I'm not missing that point, and I do agree with you that a reasonable person might well reach that conclusion.

Further, your interpretation of the events and the law would seem to indicate that a CHL holder could only legally defend himself with a firearm at the point where he had sustained such a beating that he/she was nearly already dead. This seems unreasonable and unworkable to me.

I've never expressed that opinion, and I agree with you that it would be unreasonable.

In an earlier post I stated that in my opinion it would be unfair to judge whether the OP's actions were right or wrong because none of us know all of the facts.

I have pointed out two things: the conditions that must be met for defense of justifiability in PA and the fact that the shooter's actions must be based on reasonable belief and not on feelings. I have not expressed an opinion on the case at hand. Nor will I.

From hillbillyshooter:

It is in my understanding that if a larger person than yourself or two people came at you to do you bodily harm then you "should" be okay with pulling your gun. Most states write it as "imminent, unlawful, bodily harm." I view this as being, if someone who you consider to be a threat tries to assault you, pull your weapon.

It is my understanding also that discrepant physical capability and numbers may well enter into the equation regarding the ability of the assailants to seriously harm the 'actor'. To what extent would be up to the jury. I'm old and look like Wilford Brimley and may get by, but the OP is younger and I've never seen him or the thugs. I don't know what a jury would conclude.

But is that sufficient to permit you to "pull your weapon?" Do not overlook the Pennsylvania requirement that you must first escape, if safe escape is possible, or comply with the demands of the assailants, before resorting to the use of deadly force.

Could the OP have safely escaped? I cannot judge that.

Nor can I say what I wold have done. I'm just happy that the OP was neither armed nor charged.

I believe it is incumbent on all of us to equip ourselves with both the knowledge and the capability to react properly in situations such as these, without getting injured or killed or prosecuted.