This is a discussion on Do you have to fight? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TravisABQ The problem with "fighting" because someone else, out of the blue wants to "fight" you, is that you are arguably not ...
Sorry, but I'm a 62 year old guy. If I'm assaulted by some tweaker or crackhead, I'm just going to shoot him. I'm too old to be trading punches with anybody. If I go down, I could lose my weapon and at that point anything might happen.
If I can't find a way to walk away from the issue, then the other guy is going to get himself shot. I don't like that choice and will try anything to avoid it, but if left with no other option, I'll shoot. It is also easier to defend yourself and your actions in a courtroom if you are the only one left who can still talk about the incident.
First, the OP was not talking about mutual aggression. Some even here seem to confuse the two. We are talking about someone who gives you no option but to fight or take a beating.
The trouble with our system now is that a person has to be aware of the laws and nuances of the particular locality they are in when attacked.
Then after hopefully meeting all the requirements needed to defend himself we tell him he must follow certain rules to maintain an fair fight. It is not considered fair for the person being attacked to use weapons or force not available to the aggressor.
If after all if your attacker is poor and cannot afford a firearm it wouldn't be fair for you to use one. Society wants a fair fight.
Personally I believe a jury should only look at whether or not self-defense is a legitimate defense in the case at hand. If they decide it is then the case should be over. The tool you use to defend yourself should not matter.
We seem to look at self-defense as a sport and that all participants should be evenly matched. I do not understand the logic of demanding that a person being attacked must worry about being better armed than his attacker.