Several of the comments seem to put credence to the old saying, "never start a fight with an old guy, he'll just kill you".
I used to think that was silly. Now that I'm the old guy I realize I can't go toe to toe with younger, stronger, faster men. So...
At my age push me down and I'll likely break something important.
Over half of my concealed carry students are over the age of 55. Over 40% are over 65.
If you are walking on two legs it's possible to learn simple things that can buy you time and space. Like sidestepping someone who is rushing you at the last possible moment, and leaving your foot out. While they trip and eat pavement you can draw your gun.
That walker could be a useful obstacle to an attacker, that gives you space and time. Or at the very least, a useful distraction so they don't see you draw.
The use of force continuum allows for skipping steps if necessary. Age and infirmities are factors to be considered under the totality of the circumstances, but they aren't everything. You still have to articulate that you were in imminent fear of great bodily harm or death.
These three sentences are worth elaborating on. FAR too many gun owners don't have as good of a grip on this as they should.
Yes, in both the "90 pound female vs. a 300 pound bodybuilder" and an "80 year old man vs. a 21 year old athlete", a
reasonable person (by the legal definition thereof) would consider that a single blow from the aggressor could indeed cause death or serious bodily injury.
In neither case do you have to wait to be struck by them. If you reasonably believe an attack is imminent (they've said they are going to attack you, or "give me all your money or I'll beat you old man", etc) then escalation to lethal force may very well be justified even if they are unarmed, and even if they have not yet made physical contact.
The key is do YOU have the belief that an attack is imminent, cannot be avoided (de-escalated), that such an attack could kill or seriously injure you, etc.
And if the jury doesn't buy it, or there's any question, guess what? YOUR statements, no matter how well articulated, will get tossed out and a "reasonable man" virtual substitute will get brought in to their deliberations. "Would a reasonable man think that, given this situation, they would be in fear of death or serious bodily injury?"
And even then, they'll adjust that accordingly to fit you, specifically. A "reasonable man"
of your training and background.
"Am I completely out of options here, and would I survive a hit from that juggernaut."
I can't offer legal advice nor would I as case law and legal definitions of justified use of force vary widely across jurisdictions (ask a local attorney who is familiar with them), and specific locale (self defense rights may be different in your home, vs. in public), but
in general the basic principals are fairly universally established at this point in time.
A 90 pound female or a 90 year old man can "go to the gun" against an opponent that I would reasonably be expected to handle without escalating to lethal force. To THEM, it is already a lethal force event, they are not escalating it. To ME.. I can't. Not unless there's multiple attackers, they draw a weapon, they find and go for MY weapon, or I am in a fist fight and end up on the losing end to the point I feel I'm likely to die (they're bashing my head in to the pavement, sort of thing.)
Until that blurry line is crossed, I'd have to tough it out.
So for a close quarters fight against one or two unarmed aggressors I would have no choice but to fight it out. I'd be on horrible legal footing if I drew a gun. Whereas most healthy males
might be able to draw if it was 2 on 1, they aren't likely to get out of that without serious injury. Whereas a jury who has watched too many movies might think "this guy has been in martial arts for 30 years and taught classes for the last 20, he should be able to handle two on one."
What would a reasonable man think? That's different depending on who you are. What would a reasonable 80 year old man using a walker think? What would a reasonable 40 year old martial arts instructor think?
(Whether I could actually defend against two attackers is irrelevant, because if it goes to trial the jury decides where the line in that big gray area resides, and they're just normal folks who know what they know. And most of what they know is wrong, learned by watching too many hollywood movies and TV shows.)
I'm just tossing the above out to give some idea of how murky the water becomes.
The reason I'm going down that path, is folks naturally draw conclusions and form ideas based on "perfect mental scenarios" that play by the rules they decide in their own head. This shapes their perception of reality, and skews that reality.
"I can't ever envision myself shooting someone in a fashion which would be deemed questionable, there's no way I'd end up in front of a jury."
--- Said by every student who ever walked through my door.
What happens if you shoot and kill an unarmed person, alone, there are no witnesses? (Or the "weapon" is questionable. See Harold Fish.)
What happens if an attacker starts to run away WHILE pointing a gun at you, gangbanger style, and you shoot them? The only penetrating wound is through their back? It'd look like you shot someone running away through the back. If they hadn't shot their gun, but were POINTING it at you, you would still feel justified in shooting them; they were still a threat. However, there'd be no physical evidence indicating they were a threat; the physical evidence would show that person was running away. It wouldn't show they had a gun pointed back at you at the time you pulled the trigger.
What happens if you get a through & through or a miss on an otherwise good shoot, and wound or kill an innocent bystander?
What happens if you shoot the person TWICE through the head? You might not have been able to react quickly enough to stop pulling the trigger. Might appear as though you went BEYOND stopping the threat, and executed them. (As an example I have split times of .12-.14 on my 9mm, but human reaction time is around .20...)
What happens if you shoot someone who you had prior personal contact with, and that contact was known not to be positive? Can a witness show up with damaging testimony during the shoot investigation and say "yeah, those two were always arguing", etc..
There's plenty of ways a person could end up in front of a jury.
By the time folks leave my classroom they have a solid newfound respect for "murky water", and some ideas on how to steer well clear of them.
(Don't intervene, escape if possible, etc, etc)
What folks fail to realize is you have ZERO seconds to decide life or death, do I go to lethal force, or not. And when you suddenly discover you are in a fight, you might not even know if it's a fight for your life or not.
Meanwhile a jury has perfect 20/20 hindsight and weeks to form an opinion and pick apart the 2 tenths of a second that
you had, to make that decision.
These things are best to work out ahead of time.
And everything you can reasonably do to avoid drawing a gun, is a good thing.... Including learning how to deal with someone in hand to hand.
I mean, seriously - you are not very likely to need to defend yourself with lethal force in your lifetime. MOST violent encounters folks have do NOT qualify to use lethal force - they're plain old bad-breath down in the dirt fist fights.
Even then, you're only likely to experience a violent assault in this country (statistically) once out of every 2 lifetimes. And a lethal force encounter is much more rare, closer to one in 10 lifetimes.
But think on that a minute. Are you married or have a significant other? Because "once out of every 2 lifetimes" means statistically ONE of you is going to face a violent assault in your life. Probably not a lethal force encounter, unless you're real unlucky, but at some point you, or someone close to you, WILL face an attack of some nature.
This is a nationwide statistical average using FBI crime stats - obviously some areas are more safe, others not so much. Risks are much different in a rural small town, than in, say, the south side of Chicago.
Guns are a great equalizer, sure. But you can't bring a gun to a fist fight. Not legally, anyway, in most cases.
And by the time the fist fight you are in turns significantly against you to the point you're at risk of death, probably can't GET to your gun anyway.
(Gramps against The Mountain might be one exception.. 90 pound woman might be another, if she's facing a bodybuilder, and not another 90 pound woman, anyway. )
Just food for thought.