Disability isn't a blank check to do whatever it takes to defend yourself. Recently, an elderly man was beaten on Chicago public transportation first by a pickpocket he caught in the act and then by a mob. Andrew Branca discusses the incident in detail on his website (
www.lawofselfdefense.com). You must be a member to get access but the bronze level is free. Although the pickpocket is bigger than the old man, several decades younger, and has him down on the floor in a position of complete disadvantage, Branca maintains that the old man still wasn't permitted to respond with deadly force. He has stated on many occasions that you can't use deadly force to defend against a less than deadly attack. The implication is that, if you can't save yourself without resorting to deadly force, you are obligated to take the beating. Therefore, it's important to have a less than deadly alternative such as martial arts or pepper spray.
Have no intention of signing up for a "Free" stuff because if it is free then you are the product generally, no offense to Mr. Branca who obviously has to pay the bills. I prefer to buy his books etc. rather than pay continuing fees but that is just me.
Here is the story of the event apparently,
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/202...allegedly-beat-man-while-riding-subway-train/ The pickpocket was a female teen who then got help and returned with her posse to carry out the assault. Here is a bit more
https://www.foxnews.com/us/exclusive-chicago-subway-video-man-attacked-11-teens. You can watch the video and get a bit more out of it.
When dealing with issues of self defense, it a summation of the events and factors involved and what a reasonable, prudent person would do. There must be an objective fear of "death" or "serious bodily injury" which a jury will agree exists. Injuries to the head, spine, chest, etc. are generally believed to constituted serious bodily injury even by means of merely physical force without weapons. However, one must also take into account the ability of the perpetrator to deliver serious injury--size, height, weight, exhibited training at the time or known to the victim, can all make a difference. Then you have the victim, did the victim provoke the assault or engage in mutual combat, did the victim try to avoid a conflict--retreat, indications of no intention to fight, etc.. Then victim characteristics where age, sex, size and weight, prior injuries, and disability come into play. Then the actual fight characteristics, disparity of force, being unable to flee, amount and application of force to specific sensitive areas, location of the assault, were the attackers retreating, and so on.
All of that has to be considered in such cases. Simple declarations of the law means this or that simply does not fit complex scenarios of self defense that often occur.
In the apparent case that Branca was referring to, given the number of assaults in Chiraq, I do not know for sure.
The encounter begins with someone stealing something where lethal force cannot be deployed to stop simply a property theft. The response must be proportional to the offense--lethal force cannot be used generally to stop property theft and the teen leaves to get more muscle to continue the assault after her initial assault ends. "The footage shows one of the female teens first trying to pickpocket the victim while he’s asleep. The man awakens, tries to fend off the teens, but the woman drags and beats the man."
However, at the point of her leaving, then the engagement stops so no force can be used. Holding someone down on the ground, alone does not constitute enough of a risk of serious bodily injury to use lethal force at that point. However, if you combine that with pummeling the head or chest area, lethal force might be justified, ceterus paribus. This is the sort of close call that Branca is referring to where a man is assaulted by a teen female where a jury might feel that lethal force was not proportional to the threat even if the guy was on the ground. A jury might believe that only the amount of force reasonable to being able to get up would be justified if the person is simply keeping you from getting up with minimal force. Lethal force being used to fend off a physical assault by a female teen defendant that does not appear to be physically able to inflict serious damage to a man is a jury question that might be answered different ways depending on the location.
The second part of the encounter is when the person is pushed to the floor and then kicking begins with a disparity of force. At this point, the law shifts, kicking someone while they are down is a forcible felony in all states and risks serious bodily injury under Illinois law which does generally justify using lethal force. That would include females who typically are much stronger below the waist than above so a kick from a female could quite well be lethal. Furthermore, gravity if you are on the ground, would cause pepper spray to come right back down on you--ooops, you just incapacitated yourself. A taser would not work on multiple targets and a stun gun could only incapacitate one person. The law cannot compel impossibilities and so under the circumstances of a massive disparity of force indicated in the following, "She then appears to run to another car, and returns with a group of teens including five men and two women. They surround the man seated on the train. One man pummels the victim, even lifting himself up on the train’s bars to repeatedly kick him in the upper body and face." would, imho, constitute a threat to serious bodily injury and even death.
