Women no longer the weaker sex?


PDA






PinnedAndRecessed
June 14, 2006, 01:44 PM
Just completed class #1 toward applying for a CCW permit.

One thing I learned is that one must receive significant injury before one is allowed to use their weapon to defend themselves.

I.e., simply because Joe Blow pops me on the nose with his fist does not entitle me to pop Joe with a 45. Ok. No problem.

But I was amazed to learn that if Susie Homemaker is popped on the nose by Joe Blow, Susie is also not entitled to use her legally carried weapon to defend herself until she, too, has sustained significant injury.

Seems the mindset of American jurisprudence has changed over the last quarter-century. What with women's lib and equal rights, just because a woman (5'5", 120 pounds) is attacked by a man (6'0", 220 pounds), it is no longer assumed that her life is in danger. Now she's judged by the same standards as a man.

Well, Gloria Steinem, et al, I hope you're happy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Women no longer the weaker sex?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
June 14, 2006, 01:52 PM
In my neck of the woods, if a small woman was punched in the face by a large man, the disparity of force rule would pretty much automatically kick in, especially if it appeared that the man was going to pursue the attack. As it should, in my opinion. Of course, this is assuming that the woman didn't initiate the physical part of the fight. There are always caveats.

Biker

Barbara
June 14, 2006, 01:57 PM
Well, Gloria Steinem, et al, I hope you're happy.

Not quite, but we're getting there!

hso
June 14, 2006, 02:02 PM
one must receive significant injury before one is allowed to use their weapon to defend themselves.

I hope that isn't correct because it certainly isn't reasonable.

In TN and many other states you are not required to actually wait to be injured to defend yourself with a firearm. The reasonable threat of great bodily injury or death is sufficient. That threat varies depending upon the circumstance.

A 110lb female who is 75 yrs old is recognized as being at greater risk from an attack by a 25 year old 160lb female. A 220 lb 25 year old male would not be considerd to have the same risk from the 160lb 25 year old female. As such the law in TN would view the 75 year old woman as being justified in defending herself with a firearm and may not consider the 220lb man to be justified. If the person being attacked was a 75 year old man the law would also consider use of a firearm in self defense to be reasonable. If the 25 year old woman had a knife all of them would be considered to have taken reasonable action in using a firearm to defend themselves. It's all about disparity of force here to determine if use of deadly force is reasonable.

If the 25 year old woman says "I hate your" it wouldn't be considered reasonable to be in fear of your life and shoot them. If she said, "I'm going to kill you!", it could be. If she said "I'm going to kill you!" to your face and started to come towards you then it could be reasonable to use deadly force. If she said it over the phone and you saw her coming down the street an hour later you wouldn't know if she was coming to apologize for having lost her temper or if she's come to actually kill you.

Other issues also apply, but I'm sure others will point those out.

Drysdale
June 14, 2006, 02:05 PM
In Texas, as long as you're convinced that you're in imminent danger of harm, you can use your firearm to protect yourself. Sorry you can't wherever you are. :(

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
1995.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


There's a lot more, but if you're in fear for your life, pretty much your job will be convincing a judge and possibly a grand jury of that.

mbt2001
June 14, 2006, 02:19 PM
Call your representative and explain your concerns. There is a clear bias here toward the criminal. :scrutiny:

I guess my thought is this... If you cannot use deadly force when being assaulted, then the use of force is curtailed by proxy AND IT BECOMES ILLOGICAL THAT IT IS A CRIME! Assualt is a crime right? Why should have HAVE TO BE ASSUALTED to a certain level before you can resist it... :fire:

What the hell is the world coming too??? :fire: :fire:

Sometimes I think we are being forced back into the DARK AGES by statute. Guns were invented to allow people to protect themselves, the same way every other weapon was invented and now that we have one that makes size and strength a relative non-issue, you cannot use it.:banghead:

PinnedAndRecessed
June 14, 2006, 02:25 PM
I hope that isn't correct because it certainly isn't reasonable.


As I understood, if a perp threatens someone with knife, gun, pipe, etc., then that someone is allowed to use deadly force.

But if the perp batters someone with only hands/feet, it must become apparent that the victim's life is truly in danger (before the victim can pull his weapon).

And that can only be after the victim has sustained significant injuries.

hso
June 14, 2006, 02:35 PM
Pinned,

In TN if a 300 lb bar room brawler comes at me after saying, "I'm gonna kill you", there is sufficient disparity of force for it to be reasonable to use deadly force to defend myself because this guy has the means to kill me and the proximity to do it and has established the intent to do so. Even if he says, "I'm gonna break you in two", I am at threat of great bodily harm and it is reasonable to use deadly force to protect myself. If it's a 12 year old kid saying these things it may not be reasonable to belive I'm at risk of great bodily harm or death at his hands. It's reasonable threat of great bodily harm or death that is the deciding factor here.

Waiting to get maimed before defending your life is absurd.

PinnedAndRecessed
June 14, 2006, 02:42 PM
Waiting to get maimed before defending your life is absurd.


(Maybe the teacher is full of it?)

According to his explaination, a CCW holder would have already taken a few punches to the face, was on the floor, and the perp was proceeding to kick (the victim), before the CCW holder would be justified in defending himself with his weapon.

I will definitely pursue the subject. It was my first class.

HankB
June 14, 2006, 02:42 PM
PinnedAndRecessed, what state are you in?

TX does not require that you allow yourself to get beaten to a pulp before defending yourself with a firearm - you basically have to be in reasonable fear of suffering grave bodily harm or death. Whether your actions are "reasonable" will depend on a number of factors - "hso" gave a few examples - as well as whether or not you escalated the situation. (If another driver flipped you the bird, you did the same right back, and then you both stopped your cars at the roadside while trading screamed obscenities in front of onlookers . . . you're likely to have a bad day in court if he throws the first punch or even comes at you with a bat before you shoot him.)

Assuming you do NOT contribute to escalation, given the prevalence of AIDS, hepatitis, etc., there's even less reason today to engage in fisticuffs where you might get bitten or cut by a bad guy before employing reasonable force - including gunfire - to protect yourself.

I'd suggest you review your own state's laws on the use of deadly force, and don't just take your instructor's word for it . . . his interpretaton may well be very wrong.

PinnedAndRecessed
June 14, 2006, 02:53 PM
what state are you in?


Oklahoma.

Freddymac
June 14, 2006, 02:54 PM
JUST KIDDING... That is seriously messed up. If some one is being attacked, they should not have to wait until they have “sustained significant injury” before defending ones person. And who decides when you have sustained significant injury? Is there a set number of punches or kicks? I think that your instructor should re-read the law and clarify his point. I’m not saying that you should shoot anyone who bumps into you, but I think that using deadly force requires “the fear for ones life, the fear for another’s life, or the fear of bodily harm to you or another”. This is based on the prudent man rule, or prudent woman rule as the case may be. Basically, what would a prudent person do in that situation. But every state has their own version, so the best thing is to research it your self. When it comes to the law, don’t believe anyone that is not a lawyer, judge, etc.

SMLE
June 14, 2006, 03:00 PM
one must receive significant injury before one is allowed to use their weapon to defend themselves. If that's really the law, then the law is full of feces. :mad:
Here in New Mexico, you can use force to defend yourself from the THREAT of death or great bodily harm. That means that if YOU believe your attacker has the "present ability" to harm you, you can shoot the SOB.

Mr_Dictionary
June 14, 2006, 03:02 PM
The requirement to take a punch or two is absurd. ANY blow to the head is potentially fatal or capable or inflicting grevious bodily harm. Even minor concussions have been known to cause death as have unexpected outcomes like tumors, aneurisms, and enlarged blood vessels that all effect how the brain handles impact.

You instructor's argument is horribly flawed. By extension, if someone picks up a bat, takes a swing, and misses I can't respond with force. Instead I'm supposed to allow him to hit me and then respond? Yeah, that's wise.

The simple answer is that you must reasonably believe (that means you can convince a jury) that you are currently in danger of receiving serious physical harm to your person.

pcf
June 14, 2006, 03:07 PM
Talk to the guy that you're going to call at 2:30AM whent things go south, your lawyer.

Anyone who says that you are not in a serious risk of being beaten to death or unable to defend yourself after being puched in the nose, probably has never received a solid hit to the bridge of the nose (or a good punch to the face). It's been a while for me but last time I got hit in nose I ended up on my butt, tears in my eyes, and a hard time breathing, glancing shot, but it broke my nose. Unlike Chuck Norris TV one lousy punch to the face is all it takes to go from UFC mode to seeing stars. You have to be a good and hard fighter to take a shot to the face and keep your head in the fight.

If you encounter someone who implies that you're not at serious risk of bodily harm, death, or being disarmed by someone trying to punch you in the face, should have no problem allowing you to punch them in the nose and then try to retain their firearm.

SMLE
June 14, 2006, 03:11 PM
A blow to the head of suffecient force can cause TWO injuries. This is called a "coup/contra-coup" injury. The first injury is from the brain being bounced off the side of the head that is struck, then bouncing off the other side of the skull on rebound. Also, a blow that causes the head to turn sharply to one side can cause brain injury as well as cervical spine injury. When someone is punching you in the head, they are putting you in danger of "great bodily harm".

Biker
June 14, 2006, 03:39 PM
I don't want to step on any toes here, but guys have been duking it out for millenia. Does everything really have to come down to putting holes in people?

For example, if a guy grabs my wife's butt or makes a lewd comment to her, there's a good chance I'm goin' upside his head. If he's legally carrying, does this give him a right to hole me?

If a guy gets in my face for no good reason I may hit him. Is this a reason to hole me?

Millions of men get punched every day, I would wager, without dying from the punch. I think that we're getting a bit carried away with the gun thing.

Biker

PinnedAndRecessed
June 14, 2006, 03:53 PM
Does everything really have to come down to putting holes in people?


OK state law stipulates that one may not use deadly force to defend a non-deadly attack. What you're describing constitutes a non-deadly attack.

This is what I was questioning my teacher about. At what point does the non-deadly attack become deadly.

That's when he presented the above scenario, viz., several punches to the face followed by two kicks to my body. He was speaking off-the-cuff and hypothetically.

f4t9r
June 14, 2006, 04:14 PM
Once again I have to agree with Biker !!!!!
I was born in the 50"s and my whole life has been lived the way you said it.
Every now and then one has a confortation in life that you just deal with and nobody has to die or have serious injury by a gunshot.
I know some circumstances are way different then others and there is a time and place for how to deal with whats going on at that time.

Old Fud
June 14, 2006, 04:31 PM
So was I, and I saw my share of fist-fights. However - - -

Mr. Biker Sir,

I am 67 years old, so not too strong.

I ride a Honda Pacific Coast, which means I'm a RUB who hasn't graduated as high as a GoldWing yet.

If you think I molested your wife, (I didn't and if I so much as touched her it was an accident) and start to whomp me upside my head,
I will be entitled to stop you any way I can.

That includes baseball bats, jack-handles, Brass Knucks and hole-punches.
End of discussion.

Fud.

Zundfolge
June 14, 2006, 04:42 PM
For example, if a guy grabs my wife's butt or makes a lewd comment to her, there's a good chance I'm goin' upside his head. If he's legally carrying, does this give him a right to hole me?

1) If you're willing to resort to violence after a lewd comment or even a playful (albeit disrespectful) ass grab than you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

2) If you did "go upside his head" in any states, yes he'd have the legal right to put a hole in you (another good reason to avoid resorting to violence over such a minor affront).

Of course I make it a point not to grab asses or make lewd comments (especially if the wife is with me ... I'm definitely more worried about what she'll do that what you'll do :p )

akodo
June 14, 2006, 05:26 PM
Biker,

yes, in the days of old (or not so old...) a punch was just a punch. Two kids or even young adults would think nothing of settling a dispute with fists. (Okay, maybe not 'think nothing of') However, there were some other attidudes that went along with it. Kind of like 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, after the fight was over, the fight was over, that's it, matter settled. Second, while a few punches were thrown, the idea of bringing out a knife was absolutely unconsionable, and a gun even more so. Hell, criminals were even at the point were most would only steal, and if confronted would rather submit and face the law tha commit murder.

Unfortunately, attitudes have changed a lot. Now, if two guys have a disagreement that results in one punching the other, unfortunately, the punched guy is has had his 'image' hurt, so he will go get 4 friends who will en mass get even, basically for the sake of 'saving face' (Of course, to me, wining 5 on 1 makes you look like more of a looser and a coward than loosing in a 1 on 1 fight)

Along with that, we live in an era when kids shoot other kids for basketball shoes. (again, the perps personal image of himself is considered more important than anything else, including the live of another human being), and it is very common for any fight to escalate to the most lethal elements at hand, PLUS for people willing to get in fights to come prepared by having the most lethal elements they posess already in hand.


Now, on to your examples. Truth of the matter is, in the situation you described, the punch is usually followed by mannerisms that shows the agressor is done. I grab your wife's ass. You punch me. If you turn around and begin escorting your wife away, yes, me standing up, pulling out gun and shooting is unacceptable. However, you standing over me, screaming how you are going to kick my ass, that is entirely different.


Still, I say stick to thowing your drink in the person's face.

torpid
June 14, 2006, 06:21 PM
Biker, I hate to sound like a trembling lily but...

Lately I've been seeing videos and reading of a lot of incidents where folks who are already rendered unconcious are being punched, kicked, and stomped in the head for long after they've hit the pavement and ceased to be moving. Some resulted in permanent brain damage and some in death.

Chivalrous behavior isn't neccessarily following on the trailing end of a punch (if it ever was).

I also used to work with a kid who was rendered brain dead by his head hitting the curb following a solid punch (they eventually pulled the plug on him), so I'm a little more leery of enduring physical assaults than I may have been in the past.

I also do my damndest to not interact or antagonize with folks who I feel may assault me.

It's not a 1950's schoolyard out there, and If you choose to fight by those "rules", you may be unpleasantly surprised by someone who doesn't. A lot of people seem to have no sense of fair play or empathy when it comes to physical violence.

Malum Prohibitum
June 14, 2006, 06:22 PM
There are different standards for justified use of force and justified lethal use of force. FOr example, one of the justifications for mere use of force may be that you are the mother of the person against whom force was used, and the force was reasonable and for disciplinary purposes (turnin' him over yo' knee, or, as Oklahoma law puts it - seriously - "spanking, switching, or paddling").

Homicide is not a crime if it is committed by a person other than a police officer:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,

3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Section 21.24.733

Biker
June 14, 2006, 06:29 PM
Old Fud

Of course you're right. I was referring to two guys about equal in size and all that good stuff. I wouldn't mess with ya!:)

PandR

Of course, I understood your point from the beginning.

frt9r

Old school Bro. The way it should be.

Zundfolge

I too fear my OL more than any man.

Akodo

I've noticed that disturbing trend too, but luckily, I live in Idaho and things are a bit more down home here. We can still bloody a nose with a bit of honor. I understand what you're saying, in any case. However, I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste a perfectly good brew on an a-hole's face when a punch is free!

:)
Biker

Art Eatman
June 14, 2006, 06:30 PM
Hey, guys, remember that while our moral views about this may have some sort of uniformity, or we might have some sort of consensus, the actual laws vary greatly from state to state.

Don't try to mix 'em up, okay? It gets me all confused about the point of a post. :)

But let's stay with the ideas of the original post, okay, Biker? :)

Art

Malum Prohibitum
June 14, 2006, 06:34 PM
Well, Art, this is the main one (Okie law) to keep in mind for this thread:

When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished

Please keep in mind the other sections quoted two posts above may protect you when defending third persons (other than you family or master or servant).

CAnnoneer
June 14, 2006, 06:41 PM
Small things grow into big things. If you get punched, how certain can you be it would not be followed by a bottle broken off your skull and then a knife into your kidney? Should you take that chance? Under what assumptions?

Also, weight and age are are secondary things to consider in a defensive scenario. Perceived intent is foremost. Somebody older, weaker, lighter, shorter, and sicker than you, can pull a knife and stick you before you can say "hey, wait!"

Biker
June 14, 2006, 06:43 PM
Yeah Art, guess I oughta change my handle to Extreme Thread Drift.:o
Anyone got some ritalin?

Biker

glummer
June 15, 2006, 03:34 PM
:what: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,

This would seem to allow a lot of latitude; attempted burglary, or attempted felony-level assault would = no criminal homicide. A punch in the face is certainly assault; is it a felony in OK? :scrutiny:

another okie
June 15, 2006, 04:58 PM
I live in a rural area of Oklahoma with a pro-gun District Attorney who I have seen at gun shows. However, he filed murder charges against a teenager who shot and killed an older Golden Gloves boxer who had him pinned in the teenager's car and was pummeling him. The jury acquitted in just a few minutes.

When asked why he filed the charges the DA said, "you don't bring a gun to a fist fight." That seems crazy to me. A trained boxer can seriously injure or kill you pretty easily, and how do you know it's "just" a fist fight?

There may have been other factors involved - the dead guy was well-connected, it was illegal for the teenager to have a gun in his car, and there were allegations that the kid had passed the guy repeatedly and exhibited road rage. Who knows? I suspect that the DA had (and still has) what I call "need to file" syndrome, which afflicts many police officers and DAs, who seem to think that if something violent happens there needs to be someone in jail.

The law gives huge discretion to police officers and prosecutors, who can make your life miserable for years even if you are completely innocent. Run away or drive away if you can.

If you enjoyed reading about "Women no longer the weaker sex?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!