Originally Posted by
Bark'n
I avoid all fights while carrying a gun. However, I understand the point of your question.
I've said this many times... The courts in general, prosecutors and LEO's specifically take a pretty dim view at people shooting unarmed opponents. Something about it not being a fair fight kind of thing.
If I am accosted by a stranger, which for all intents and purposes appears to be unarmed. I am more than likely not going to shoot him just to avoid getting punched in the face a few times.
No one wants to be in a fist fight. No one wants to get punched in the face. It hurts! But if someone accosts you who is in your general age range, size range and many other factors, you are usually not justified in using deadly force to repel an attacker who is seen by the courts (and witnesses) as being unarmed.
It would really behoove you to become intimately familiar with how the concept of disparity of force works. As civilians, we are not allowed to use deadly force to repel non-deadly attacks. An unarmed robber is usually not considered a deadly threat.
Does that mean he can't kill you with his bare hands? No!
Does that mean that an initial non-lethal threat or assault, can not turn into an incident where deadly force is suddenly justified? Of course it can.
It's always best to have a less lethal means of dealing with incidents which start out appearing to be a non-lethal attack.
You should know that not every attack, or mugging will be viewed by authorities as a lethal encounter. Otherwise, every person who ever got mugged would be dead. And not every mugging does the attacker have a deadly weapon.
What I'm saying is that you should be prepared to go hands on with a scary dude until a weapon is clearly made visible or a disparity of force is created to such an extent that your life now becomes seriously at risk of being killed or permanently crippled.
If you don't want to go hands on with an unarmed attacker, you may consider carrying something like pepper spray, electronic stun device or some other less lethal means of dealing with an unarmed assault.
You should become intimately knowledgeable with the concept of disparity of force and what it entails. It's not some loose term to throw around in court and expect using that term is going to convince a jury that you were justified in shooting an otherwise unarmed citizen.
Because I can assure you, once you kill that thug, he will cease to be a thug, and will become a model citizen that you shot down in cold blood, presented to the jury. If you did not know his criminal record before you shot him, the jury won't know about his criminal record either. Even if it turns out he was a serial rapist and baby killer out on parole. Not unless your attorney is very, very crafty at getting such things sneaked in under the prosecutors nose.
The thing is, you have to be prepared for anything when getting accosted. Things can change on a dime. What started out as something which would be considered non-lethal can quickly become a deadly threat if your attacker starts to get the best of you in a scuffle. But until that bar is reached... Until it becomes clear that there is a disparity of force, and you are now being relentlessly beat to a point you can't defend yourself, you can get gigged for being premature on the draw.