Hopefully, the BG would turn and run if you pulled out your gun--especially if he/she is unarmed.
This is a discussion on lethal force? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; i was reading a book, armed response, i believe, that states that a discrepancy of force can justify deadly force, replacing the legal requirement that ...
i was reading a book, armed response, i believe, that states that a discrepancy of force can justify deadly force, replacing the legal requirement that a bg must basically have a weapon. specifically if the perps are unarmed, is getting jumped by multiple bg's justification to draw? second question applies to one or more attackers: is an unarmed perp trying to disarm me an act of lethal force or are you expected to be able to retain in all 10000000000 possible situations? thanks guys, hope i made those run on questions clear.
Hopefully, the BG would turn and run if you pulled out your gun--especially if he/she is unarmed.
I live in FL..if a youngster (16+ or more...) attempted to rob me or take my car...(I'm 60...)...disparity of force will have been met...2CM/1H...no questions asked...OMO
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
The bad news is that what may be legal in Florida or Texas may not apply in Virginia. A lot would depend on the specific wording of the statutes and also on existing case law in your state. I am six-four and about three hundred pounds. In some states that would be enough for my mom to drop the hammer on me if I just raised a fist at her. In other states if I was unarmed or had not struck her yet she could go away for a loooong time for second degree murder.
IMO, if I am in fear for my life--I will do whatever necessary to survive. The statutes/laws can work themselves out later. If I was in a situation where I used my weapon in self defense there would have been an obvious threat to my life or the life of my family.
I guess a good way to judge if using your weapon is appropriate is: If you have to sit and think about it--then its probably not.
Recent incident in Anchorage AK, a guy got jumped in his driveway by 3-4 youths who were unarmed. He was on the ground getting beat, believed he was going to die, drew his weapon and fired 2 shots. He was not charged, justified shooting.
I think you mean DISPARITY of force, right?
What Would Gumby Do?
First of all, I would spend the $35 and get the video tape Judicious Use of Deadly Force by Massad Ayoob. 130 minutes in length, available in VHS & DVD, the video will cover your options and what circumstances you may use deadly force in all 50 states.
(If you do not find the video worth your investment, contact me and I Will Buy It From You (DVD version)... I can always use an extra copy, I have it in VHS)
What you are discribing is a "Disparity of Force" situation and almost always, "force of numbers" can be used as situation where deadly force may be applied, whether the Bad Guys are armed or not. (There are a few caveats regarding "how many people"). Disparity of force also applies to many other scenario's besides just multiple opponents.
For instance, if you are attacked by a single unarmed assailant but now find yourself on the ground being stomped and kicked by a "Shod Foot", you are now considered to be trapped and unable to get away, and it is "generally" accepted you can at that point employ deadly force.
However, if you had remained on your feet and both trading punches and you are able to "roll with the punches", move about and look for a point of escape, you are usually NOT justified in employing deadly force just because you were getting your butt kicked in a fair fight. (Caution: the above situation may not be covered in the statutes of every State).
Another example would be if you are a disabled person and lack the mobility to flee or get away or recovering from surgery and on crutches or in a cast, you may be justified in employing deadly force against an otherwise unarmed opponent.
There are a lot of fine lines and subtle nuances in the law that you MUST be clear on before employing deadly force as a response.
If a person is "Attempting to Disarm You" or made the statement, "He's going to take your gun shove that gun where the sun don't shine", you are most certainly justified in using lethal force as your response. He is in essence telling you that he feels he is capable of disarming you and you should reasonably fear that once he gets your gun, He Will Kill You with it.
Above all... there is what is often referred to as the "TRIAD" of circumstances where lethal force is justified. All three aspects must be present at the same time in order for deadly force to be justified. That triad is Ability, Opportunity, and Jeapardy. Also, the threat must be "Immediate, and Otherwise Unavoidable" in order for you to be justified in using lethal force.
If you just say you are "in fear of your life" but that fear is unreasonable because the person did not possess the ability or opportunity to kill you, You Will Not Be Justified in using deadly force. All three factors of the equation must be present at the same time for deadly force to be justified.
Judicious Use of Deadly Force by Massad Ayoob as well as other titles are available from The Police Bookshelf at his website
Good Luck, Stay Safe and learn as much as you can.
No one want's to see an innocent person go to prison because they were not clear of when and how they were justified in their actions.
Last edited by Bark'n; May 28th, 2007 at 08:49 AM. Reason: clarity and emphasis
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
Ability. Opportunity. Jeopardy. Generally speaking, if these three factors exist in an assault, then lethal force is justified. Laws vary, but the underpinnings don't really change.
A half-dozen people jump on you and commit battery. They're able to harm you. They have every opportunity, being in immediate physical contact with you. And your life is in jeopardy, by almost any standard, if they're seriously attacking you. Likely, in a group of strong folks, it's not unlikely that one or more is armed with a lethal weapon of some sort, which is almost certainly going to be used on you should the tables begin to turn. By all means, you have the right to defend your life, to the degree necessary to repel the attack, no matter the cost to the BG's.
IMO, the "reasonable man" standard pertains, here. If you believe the attack is in earnest, and that the person is actually attempting to disarm you, the conclusion you should reach is that he believes himself capable of surmounting your defenses, taking your gun, and (presumably) using it. You're very likely to get killed, if he gets your weapon. By all means, I would defend against that, to the degree necessary, no matter the cost to the BG.is an unarmed perp trying to disarm me an act of lethal force ...
AOJ: Basically, if you use those measures when you believe you're at risk of grievous harm or death, act accordingly.
By the way, in no place where I've lived is it a legal requirement that a BG has a separate lethal weapon in order for me to be attacked, or for me to be at risk of grievous harm, or for a crime to be committed. The standard is this: if I'm at risk, whether due to an edged weapon, a firearm, a stick, a bat, a club, a pen, a steel-toed boot, multiple steel-toed boots, 250 lbs of muscle beyond my ability to withstand ... any of that ... then, I'm at risk of grievous harm. I then have the right to defend myself. No matter the threat, if the threat is real. Disparity of force is, at the core, the whole rationale behind what makes a lethal weapon, well, lethal. It's so far beyond the ability of your hands, generally speaking, that it's what tips the scales. In exactly that sort of way, a half-dozen aggressors tips the scales. Game's on. Defend yourself.
I just sat here and type some babbling response, but ccw9mm said it better.
Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this
Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com
Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.
Ditto the "reasonable man"
If you have good reason to believe that your life is in immediate deadly peril and there is no possible way for you to remove your person from that imminent deadly threat then the use of deadly force is pretty much justified.
Naturally your age, gender, physical & medical condition would all factor in.
Justifiable deadly force varies State To State - in PA. (for instance) we have a first obligation to attempt a retreat.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
"Justifiable deadly force varies State To State - in PA. (for instance) we have a first obligation to attempt a retreat."
It is impossible to generalize the use of deadly force. In OK we have the Stand Your Ground Law. Since anyone with a valid permit can pack in OK it is good to know What OK law is. Here is the whole thing.
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
Cite as: O.S. ? __ __
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
J. As used in this section:
1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
I got taught this definition and I think it may have some relevance although it comes from the military:
"Deadly force is that force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which a reasonable and prudent person would consider likely to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm."
It doesn't take much to cause "serious bodily harm" to someone. I don't want this to happen to me, and I consider myself a reasonable and prudent person. I guess what I'm saying is if someone wants to fight and I don't - I'm not going to slug it out if I can help it.
We have some other justifications that might be of interest too:
In self defense or defense of others.
In defense of property involving national security.
In defense of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others.
To prevent or interrupt serious offenses against persons.
Apprehensions or arrests.
You're much better off if more than one apply. Also there are these things that should apply as well:
As a last resort.
When all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
Last edited by aus71383; May 28th, 2007 at 02:44 PM. Reason: spelling
Very well covered here. Disparity of force IS a viable reason to use lethal self-defense if warranted.
Two 90 year old men coming towards you on walkers saying they are going to "kick your ass" is not a reasonable disparity of force situation to involve lethal self-defense....
Two 21 year biker dudes walking at you rattling a 3 foot chain a-piece saying they are gonna "kick your ass" would more suitably justify drawing a weapon and being prepared to employ lethal self-defense!
"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.
<----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)