Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanewpadle
It's called common sense and knowing the law. Knowing when DISPARITY OF FORCE applies.
Several years ago here locally an older man and a younger man got into an argument. Over nothing. The younger man punched the older man knocking him to the ground. The punch didn't kill him. But when he hit his head on the curb, that killed him.
If any man regardless of age, size, strength, or skill picks a fight with me, I will do everything I can to avoid getting hurt. But the longer he persists, the greater chance that he has of getting shot.
I WILL go home to my family. It's my responsibility to them to do so unharmed. Even if I have to explain my actions in a court of law.
I don't understand why some don't understand this cause it's really quite simple.
When a man attacks another man he assumes that he has the upper hand. And even though he may, assuming is the most dangerous thing a man can do because he thinks it's going to be easy. That we won't fight back. And eventually he will run into someone that will simply shoot him instead of taking a beating.
|
I agree with all you say here. I originally said that if somebody punched me in the eye and did nothing else, no escalation, then he'd walk away, and I'd have a black eye. Then there was a follow up saying basically if I am punched, I should assume I'm being attacked. Somehow, I don't think that telling a judge and jury "Yes, your honor, he punched me in the nose. I fell to the ground. He just stood there laughing at me, so I blew his head off because when he punched me, I assumed he was trying to kill me" is going to go over real well. It needs to be more than that if I'm going to defend myself with lethal force. It depends totally on the facts surrounding the punch. If a guy yells "I'm gonna kill you, m*****f***er", he's two hundred fifty pounds of muscle, and he starts beating on you, I think at that point you have a much better chance of assuming he is trying to kill you and that you have to defend yourself. The point is that it ALL depends on what the facts are at the time. In my theoretical fight, one punch was thrown and the guy walked away. My choice would be to leave my gun in the holster and not escalate. I have no desire to put the rest of my life on the line with the possibility of jail, lawyer's fees, and a civil suit, if I don't have to.
An example of disparity of force...When I was studying combat shooting privately, one of my teacher's other students was in a dark parking lot with his girlfriend getting into their car after seeing a movie. A very muscular man much larger than the student came at them yelling "I'm going to kill you m*****f***er!" My fellow student put two rounds of .45 hollowpoints into the guy's chest. He was dead before he hit the ground. The student wasn't charged. In that case, if I'm remembering it correctly, there wasn't even a punch thrown. The attacker made his intentions clear, there was a disparity of force, and the student defended himself. That was in Georgia. I don't know if it would have been as easy for my fellow student in another state.
All I'm saying is that everything depends on the facts at the time, and I don't intend to assume anything. If something happens, I'll make the best decision I can based on the facts in front of me. If I can get away or deescalate, that is what I'll do. If I can't, and my life is threatened, I'll be forced to defend myself, and that is how I would hope my actions would look to a judge and jury - that I did what I could until I had no other choice. It is also necessary for me to know at the deepest level that I did everything possible to not take someone's life. It can't be an easy thing to live with.