Question regarding "Disparity Of Force"...

[WhiteShadow]

I've been browsing through alot of threads on here lately, both past and present, and i've noticed these "Disparity Of Force" words come up sometimes in regards to the justification of defending yourself from an unarmed attacker via a handgun.

And personally i just dont understand why "Disparity Of Force" when pertaining to the size of your attacker should matter...at all...whatsoever. If your in fear of your life, your in fear of your life. The size of your attacker shouldnt matter.

Heres a good example of why i feel this way: I weigh around 230-240 lbs and am 6'3". I have a friend that weighs exactly 155lbs and 5' something. He's an MMA fighter and trains extensively in BJJ (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu) and Muay Thai. I know, and he knows, that he could take me out in a heartbeat. He looks nothing like a fighter except for the occasional black eye that he has from training. I also have a few other friends that are all smaller than me (except for one) that are MMA fighters as well, and none of them look like, in any way intimidating or something the average "large man" would be afraid to defend himself from. But truth be told, they are very well trained dangerous men.

So with all this said...If i feel as though an unarmed attacker thats half my size, is hell bent on causing serious bodily injury to me, am i, in the eyes of the law, just supposed to not pull my firearm, physically defend myself, and just prey that the attacker isnt highly trained in BJJ and can snap my arm or leg off in 5 seconds flat, just because he's half my size???

Discuss. I'm curious to hear your opinions and hopefully, actual laws regarding this "Disparity Of Force" concept.

[imperialism2024]

I'd say that the difficult part would be the civil case, not the criminal.

I'm a pretty much guy. But for me it ultimately comes down to whether I fear that my life or safety is in serious danger, and that I can't retreat with a 100% certainty that I'd avoid that injury.

[thatJeffguy]

Thats a fantastic question and it's well-worded, rep on it's way.

My friend, a retired attorney and a bit of a lefty, recently brought this issue up to me. He's like a mentor and a father to me and doesn't want me to get in trouble for shooting someone when I could have resorted to other means of force. He said, and I paraphrase here, "If someone punches you and you draw on them, then they continue the attack and you shoot them, you'll have to convince a jury why a big guy like yourself just didnt' use his fists".

My entire theory of self defense is that violence is a last resort and that I don't ever initiate it, but when the time comes for violence, I engage it until the threat is no longer present. I have no idea or way to tell if the person engaging in violence against me is a ninjutsu master, has a knife or a small razor blade tucked in his hand, or has three friends about to come join him. What I do know is that I'll always try to deescalate the situation verbally as much as I can and if the individual still insists on initiating violence, I don't feel bad drawing my firearm to force him to stop.

That said, I have taken martial arts and I do lift weights for strength. I've also boxed a bit and I know how to fight, if it comes to it. The question that I asked him when he alluded to this fact "Why should I have to enter a fight that I didn't want to be in, on allegedly equal grounds, giving the initiative of escalation to my attacker?" In other words, if HE starts the fight with fists ,and I carry it on with fists, I'm opening myself up to broken knuckles, nose, getting my butt kicked, or the other guy deciding he wants to "kick it up a notch" and pulling out a knife or a gun when I'm in a position of tactical disadvantage. No, in my mind, someone starts a fight with me, I'm backing up as I draw and ordering him to the ground while telling a friend or bystander to call 911. Further aggressive action on his part will result in further aggressive action on my part.

Also, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. A street mugging or a bar assault isn't a grade school fight, people get killed by drunks or thug muggers all the time and I don't want to be one of them. Perhaps what I'd do wouldn't fit the letter of some law written by men in suits sitting in a building surrounded by some armed guards, thats a chance I'll have to take. If I had pepper spray, I'd probably use it first. If I had a great chance to knock the guy out, I'd probably use it it first. If the guy was enraged and jumping about like a wild gorilla, pushing me and challenging me, I'd probably draw on him and order him to the ground.

[WhiteShadow]

My entire theory of self defense is that violence is a last resort and that I don't ever initiate it, but when the time comes for violence, I engage it until the threat is no longer present. I have no idea or way to tell if the person engaging in violence against me is a ninjutsu master, has a knife or a small razor blade tucked in his hand, or has three friends about to come join him. What I do know is that I'll always try to deescalate the situation verbally as much as I can and if the individual still insists on initiating violence, I don't feel bad drawing my firearm to force him to stop.

That said, I have taken martial arts and I do lift weights for strength. I've also boxed a bit and I know how to fight, if it comes to it. The question that I asked him when he alluded to this fact "Why should I have to enter a fight that I didn't want to be in, on allegedly equal grounds, giving the initiative of escalation to my attacker?" In other words, if HE starts the fight with fists ,and I carry it on with fists, I'm opening myself up to broken knuckles, nose, getting my butt kicked, or the other guy deciding he wants to "kick it up a notch" and pulling out a knife or a gun when I'm in a position of tactical disadvantage. No, in my mind, someone starts a fight with me, I'm backing up as I draw and ordering him to the ground while telling a friend or bystander to call 911. Further aggressive action on his part will result in further aggressive action on my part.

Also, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. A street mugging or a bar assault isn't a grade school fight, people get killed by drunks or thug muggers all the time and I don't want to be one of them. Perhaps what I'd do wouldn't fit the letter of some law written by men in suits sitting in a building surrounded by some armed guards, thats a chance I'll have to take. If I had pepper spray, I'd probably use it first. If I had a great chance to knock the guy out, I'd probably use it it first. If the guy was enraged and jumping about like a wild gorilla, pushing me and challenging me, I'd probably draw on him and order him to the ground.

I whole heartedly agree with absolutely everything you said there, and thats the same exact way i feel about things, especially the bolded parts. Thanks for your reply.

I also found this little article that briefly touches on the Disparity Of Force subject, its a pretty informative read too:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions....diciousUse.htm

[thatJeffguy]

I whole heartedly agree with absolutely everything you said there, and thats the same exact way i feel about things, especially the bolded parts. Thanks for your reply.

I also found this little article that briefly touches on the Disparity Of Force subject, its a pretty informative read too:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions....diciousUse.htm

Thanks for agreeing, always makes me feel good to know my opinions pass muster of a "reasonable man". Good link, although I differ in some opinions from it. I think that my first post spelled the whole thing out completely, I don't initiate force, I try to put myself in areas where bad things won't happen (to a degree) and I try to extract myself from areas where force could come to bear upon me, however when force is initiated by another party, I feel no moral or legal compunction to answer it with equal or lesser force. In fact, I feel a desire to answer it with superior force that brings the conflict to an end immediatly.

It's like this, if a guy punches you in the nose, are your options limited to just punching him in the nose once? I mean, punching him TWICE is 2x the force that he's brought to bear on you, and a good kick to the solar plexus follow by a four count string of punches that knocks him out cold, thats FIVE TIMES what he's done upon you! However, you didn't initiate the force so you're allowed to use more force than he did to end the confrontation. I'll also say that I believe in the concept of using the minimal amount of force required. In my mind, backing away while drawing and ordering the person to the ground is the minimal amount of force.

HOWEVER, I think that the "thing" about drawing a firearm, once it's drawn, you can't put it back! You can't draw on someone, then put it back, fight them, then re-draw, then get your spray, then put that back and grab a knife, it's just too much actions and you've backed down. If you aren't sure that the situation requires the use of a firearm, don't bring it into the equation. I agree that you shouldn't use a firearm to intimidate, per se, but I also feel that you shouldn't draw from concealed and double-tap some guy who just punched you in the nose. I feel that drawing while backing away and issuing an order for the individual or people to get on the ground is appropriate. The thing you've got to realize, it's steps down a specific path. Once you've got a loaded gun in a two handed stance, you won't be able to block a kick, return a punch, or do a joint lock without DROPPING THE WEAPON (a big no-no, imo). Thus, if he doesn't respond, what do you do? Personally, if I drew on him and ordered him to the ground and he turned tail and ran, I'd memorize his description, call the cops and head for the nearest open business to await their response. However, if he persists, I'd draw a "line in the sand", some very specific criteria that would have to be met for me to shoot him. For example, "I'm holding the gun on this man because he's a threat to me, if he gets closer than that line on the pavement, even though he sees me holding his gun aimed at him, he's not coming closer to give me a hug or to offer a handshake, he's coming closer to kill me and at THAT POINT, that line in the sand, I'm going to drop him, no questions or warnings. " Obviously, that's a lot of thought in the particular situation, but if you practice it you'll know it, you'll mark your "point", or "action", and when s/he passes that point, you'll do what you have to do.

I'd say that any time I have to clear leather (er, Kydex), a policeman should be called. Unless.... well, I won't say anything questionable here, use your imagination. Perhaps you're in the Occupied Territories and "forgot" to leave your firearm at home, or whatever.... 'nuff said. I pull a gun on someone, I call the cops.

[reverserboy]

This is a good topic for discussion.

Once you've got a loaded gun in a two handed stance, you won't be able to block a kick, return a punch, or do a joint lock without DROPPING THE WEAPON (a big no-no, imo). Thus, if he doesn't respond, what do you do?

You can still move to avoid being hit. Or strong hand holds gun & weak hand blocks. At this point if the gun is already out a gun grab is a real possibilty.

[zackattack784]

This is a good topic for discussion.



You can still move to avoid being hit. Or strong hand holds gun & weak hand blocks. At this point if the gun is already out a gun grab is a real possibilty.

If an attacker goes for your drawn weapon wouldn't that be a justified shoot? Assuming drawing of the weapon was justified as well.

[thatJeffguy]

This is a good topic for discussion.

Agreed!

You can still move to avoid being hit. Or strong hand holds gun & weak hand blocks. At this point if the gun is already out a gun grab is a real possibilty.

If I have made the decision to draw and the offender is coming towards me to grab my weapon, the only "movement" I'll be doing is a nice even press on the trigger. And, as the shampoo bottle says, "Repeat at necessary". Sorry, grabbing my gun = justifiable shoot.

[AxiTech]

White Shadow, very well thought out question and comments. I'm looking forward to watching this thread and gaining more insight. Never too old to learn.
I heard a loooong time ago, and since I am now older, I not only believe it, I am starting to employ the mindset: "Never pick a fight with an old man. If he doesn't think he can win, he might just kill you".
I am at the point in life where I know I am not going to win a fist fight. Fist fights at my age are kind of like gunfights at any age. Nobody wins! The best you can hope to walk away with is your life.

[reverserboy]

If an attacker goes for your drawn weapon wouldn't that be a justified shoot? Assuming drawing of the weapon was justified as well.

I would think so.....but I'm not a lawyer. You don't want to lose control of the gun.

If I have made the decision to draw and the offender is coming towards me to grab my weapon, the only "movement" I'll be doing is a nice even press on the trigger. And, as the shampoo bottle says, "Repeat at necessary". Sorry, grabbing my gun = justifiable shoot.

Being ready to move is always a good idea. What if the first or second shot does not stop the threat?? A wounded but not disabled attacker can still strike you,try to take you to the ground and/or try to take your gun. I have no disagreement with the shooting part but be prepared for a determined perp or more than one attacker. I feel not being stationary is an advantage.

We need to push for laws that give more leeway to peaceable people to defend themselves,their families,their homes against criminals.