disparity of force in retreat

An armed 13 year old presents a clear disparity of force. That's a hard lesson, assuming the 13 year old wasn't a threat.
Certainly, in a raid on a gang hangout the officers were also armed, and probably better than the 13-year old kid. So there was indeed a clear disparity of force, even with the kid being armed ... in favor of the police officer. Which merely proves that disparity of force is not the only factor to be considered.

I'm not a police officer and I don't wear a kevlar vest. I do carry a 1911 chambered in .45 Auto. I'm over 6 feet tall and I weigh about 230 pounds. If I were held up by a 13-year old kid who had a dinky .380 Keltec or similar gun, the disparity of force would be on my side both with regard to the weapons, and to the likelihood of who might win a physical altercation.

But the fact is, one hit from that dinky .380 could seriously ruin my day. If that kid is pointing that gun at me and threatening to shoot, darned tootin' Skippy I'm in fear of death or serious bodily harm, and the fact I happen to have a bigger, badder gun doesn't offset that.
 
I've always despised the use of "disparity of force" in the determination of whether a shooting event is legit or not. It is easy to make misjudgements, and easy to misunderstand the meaning of the term.

I prefer to think of it as two simple yes or no questions:

Question A: did the actor(s) pose a credible threat to the person doing the shooting, based on the knowledge (and/or lack of knowledge) available to the shooter at the time?

Question B: would a reasonable person have felt in fear for his/her life (or that of others) based on the actions of the other party and the circumstances at the time?

If the answer to both questions is Yes, then to me this is a very clear sign that, other things being equal, this is likely to be a good shoot. It's when either question (or, worse, both) cannot be answered with a definitive Yes that problems in justification arise.
 
csmsss, Disparity of Force is not required, it is simply one of several factors that could prove helpful for a defense.

For instance, if another guy my size, age, and general health decides to try to use a deadly weapon on me in furtherance of a crime (say, robbery), it doesn't matter if his weapon is better than mine or inferior to mine. The elements for self-defense are met, at least here (I have no duty to retreat).

Where Disparity of Force might come into play would be in the case of an unarmed belligerent, where disparity might justify use of deadly force even though the assailant did not have a deadly weapon.
 
Disparity or force can be a factor used to justify self defense in many situations. it is not looked at to decide who has the bigger, more powerful gun.

Two assailants may create a sufficient defense for one victim to have used deadly force. Two equally healthy young males may initially have no disparity of force between them, but DOF may develop in an altercation where one party is no longer able to defend himself, but the other party fails to cease the attack.

DOF has many shades of gray and we should all hope never to be relying on DOF as a primary defense in a criminal case.
 
I've seen unarmed altercations where people beat on each other for what seemed like an eternity with no one getting seriously injured.

I've seen a couple where weaker smaller people sent people to the hospital in well under a minute. I'm not talking about well trained individuals either.

The reasonable person with a fear of serious bodily injury test has always seemed crazy to me. Why should I be legally required to take such risks with my life if I am attempting to retreat from an aggressor?
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
...The reasonable person with a fear of serious bodily injury test has always seemed crazy to me. Why should I be legally required to take such risks with my life if I am attempting to retreat from an aggressor?
Let's understand the basic reality of the use of force in self defense. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of lethal force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some extraordinary circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified. However, so strongly has intentional violence against another been disfavored that justification requires something more than one's subjective beliefs or idiosyncratic perspectives. Therefore a reasonable person standard applies.
 
If you are involved in a shooting and you go to trial it is almost like a crap shoot as to which way the jury will vote.
 
Real world events; use of force....

In the late 1990s, I lived in western PA. There was a documented incident reported by the local media of a off-duty, female police officer who shot & wounded a unarmed male subject who attacked her as she pumped gas at a gas station.
The male faced criminal charges & the female officer was cleared by her LE agency in the use of force event.
Honestly, I don't think a male officer could have shot a violent attacker w/o a lot of heat, bad PR & civil lawsuits.

About 2/3 years ago, a young male police officer in Salt Lake City Utah was cleared by his PD & the local DA's office after he shot a unarmed man who attacked & beat up the officer's brother in a crowded bar/night spot.

To me, a armed citizen or license holder may not have the same treatment.

CF
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...NPR&utm_medium=facebook&************=20130504

Now, in this case the referee probably did not exercise a choice NOT to defend himself, but this highlights the absurdity of the "reasonable person" test. The human body is a fickle thing and it impossible to predict what effects trauma will have on one. The idea that there are situations, in fact many situations, where a person legally should just take a beating, is absurd.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
Now, in this case the referee probably did not exercise a choice NOT to defend himself, but this highlights the absurdity of the "reasonable person" test....
Whether you consider it absurd is irrelevant. It's not going to be changing unless you can convince the legislature to enact a statute changing it or convince a court to change the rule.

Good luck.
 
life threatening situation is a good rule to follow...taking a life for an arse kicking is not justified
 
terzmo said:
life threatening situation is a good rule to follow...taking a life for an arse kicking is not justified
Yes, it is.

If I have not requested that my posterior be kicked, then someone attempting to do so is assaulting me. I am a senior citizen. ANY physical assault on my person carries with it the absolute probability that I will suffer serious bodily harm, and also carries with it a reasonable possibility that I may suffer death. Any physical assault on my person IS a life threatening situation, and I am therefore legally entitled to protect myself by whatever means I choose.

Why should I have to submit to an arse kicking because somebody else is having a bad day?
 
Yes, it is.

If I have not requested that my posterior be kicked, then someone attempting to do so is assaulting me. I am a senior citizen. ANY physical assault on my person carries with it the absolute probability that I will suffer serious bodily harm, and also carries with it a reasonable possibility that I may suffer death. Any physical assault on my person IS a life threatening situation, and I am therefore legally entitled to protect myself by whatever means I choose.

Why should I have to submit to an arse kicking because somebody else is having a bad day?
This. No one should be subject to an unprovoked assault just because someone else got the wild hair to attack him or her. And, perhaps more importantly, the difference between an "arse kicking" and a fatality can be a matter of mere millimeters in the placement of a punch or kick. Fact is, people do die in fistfights.
 
csmsss said:
...No one should be subject to an unprovoked assault just because someone else got the wild hair to attack him or her. And, perhaps more importantly, the difference between an "arse kicking" and a fatality can be a matter of mere millimeters in the placement of a punch or kick...
Nonetheless, in the real world if you defend yourself with lethal force you will need to establish that a reasonable person in like circumstances would have reasonably feared imminent death or grave bodily injury.

If the DA doesn't accept that, you will be charged or at least be brought up to the grand jury. And in that case, if the grand jury doesn't accept that, you will be charged and sent to trial. And if your trial jury doesn't accept that, you will be going to jail.

Of course, the reasonable person will be just like you, i. e., with any health problems, disabilities or frailties you have. But you will still have to establish, based on an objective standard, the reasonableness of your decision to intentionally commit an act of extreme violence against another person.

Sometimes it can work out in the end. But sometimes it works out in the end only after you have gone through a meat grinder. Consider the cases of --

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.
 
Which is why every state needs the equivalent of WA's RCW 9A.16.110. Over zealous persecutor gets to pay the persecuted if he tries to charge an obvious "good shot"
 
hermannr said:
...Over zealous persecutor gets to pay the persecuted if he tries to charge an obvious "good shot"
Not all uses of lethal force which are finally determined to be justified were "obvious good shoots."
 
csmsss said:
Just in case folks think I'm talking nonsense about fistfights being dangerous affairs:...
We know fistfights can be dangerous. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the law will consider a justified defense.

Again, if you use lethal force you will have to convince a prosecutor and, if you're unlucky, a jury that a reasonable person would have been in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. In post 34 I told about some people who had great difficulty doing that.

Understand the legal reality and conduct yourself accordingly.
 
It's not even supposed to go that far sadly..If someone takes control of your weapon when they originally didn't have one, what do you think their intention will turn into? A higher degree of harm.

Tough call to make unless you're there. In the mean time. Learning to fight is what it boils down to. Not just shooting at the range.


What triumphs all that previously stated by me, is not even be there when it starts. Which..as we all know, it's hard to guess right.


If you are involved in a shooting and you go to trial it is almost like a crap shoot as to which way the jury will vote.

This is where it ends up after the fact. In strangers hands that didn't have a split second to decide at the moment. Wonderful.
 
We know fistfights can be dangerous. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the law will consider a justified defense.

Again, if you use lethal force you will have to convince a prosecutor and, if you're unlucky, a jury that a reasonable person would have been in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. In post 34 I told about some people who had great difficulty doing that.

Understand the legal reality and conduct yourself accordingly.
For the record, my post wasn't directed at you or about you - I didn't disagree with your previous post and wasn't responding to it. My point was/is only that those people who think of fistfights as being essentially harmless and innocuous do so at their own peril. If at all possible, you should avoid getting into them just as you would avoid any situation which might put you in danger.
 
Back
Top