It is interesting that most of the responses to this situation are heavily biased by the potential action of the District Attorney rather than purely self defense.
Well, that
was the original question: "can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint? I could see a prosecutor saying...".
However, I think that in general, the responses discuss the question, "what
is self defense, and what is not?". That question must, by its very nature, be addressed by discussing the law in the locality at hand and how prosecutors, judges, and juries are likely to judge various events.
I think there have been some good answers here.
Of course, the answer will be very situation specific.
This is a problem brought about by the rampant increase in political correctness in our society.
I respectfully disagree. The question of when deadly force is justified--which in most places leads directly to the question of what constitutes self defense--has been at the root of the deliberation of a lot of homicide cases for centuries. When a homicide is committed, it is either unlawful or it is justified, and the determination will be made in each case by the judicial system. I don't know that
that much has changed in that regard since the beginning of the formulation of the common law.
When you are personally attacked, adrenaline and the fear of being badly hurt are front and center, and I personally believe that I will not put my self defense actions second while stopping to decide what the DA might do in between each action.
Yes, you need to know
first what your objective is, and what it is not.
This leads me to suggest that the firearms community needs to spend a lot of effort to educate the unaware public how law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves from law breaking thugs - armed or not.
Not a bad idea, but we best educate ourselves on what constitutes the proper exercise of that right first.
Here are some resources that should prove helpful toward that end. They're too lengthy to cut and paste here. It would be a good idea to bookmark, print, and study them--if possible, start before loading your gun:
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm
http://www.corneredcat.com/
It's also a very good idea to get some training, and perhaps to invest in an hour or two of consultation with a qualified local attorney. That won't be the one who does wills and bankruptcy filings, in most cases.
One way to educate the public (and DA's) is to widely disseminate stories of the many times that CCW citizens have saved family, friends and neighbors from brutal attacks by law breaking individuals.
I don't think most DA's need education on the subject. They and their staffs know the law, the case law, and what has happened in their communities.
Actually, the number of times CCW citizens draw guns in self defense is probably pretty small, and the number of times they fire when in harms way is a whole lot smaller. From the standpoint of the public, I think what they need to know is probably two-fold: that they cannot expect the police to provide them with personal protection--that's up to them; and that even if they (the public) choose to not carry, the fact that they
may be carrying concealed makes them safer.
