disparity of force?

[mr_dove]

Lets have a discussion on disparity of force here. I first learned about disparity of force in my Az ccw class. I'm not sure if the principle is taught in the Colorado courses or not.

Some states require only a disparity of force in order for deadly force to be used (maybe all states?). Here are some of the basics that I understand.

A woman is always justified in using deadly force against a man whether he is armed or unarmed.

A handicapped person is justified in using deadly force against any able bodied attacker.

A person on the ground or otherwise vulnerable is justified...

A person who is outnumbered is justified...(2 against 1)

discuss.

 

[Azrael256]

It's not that simple. A 6'2" 270lb. bodybuilding woman has a decided advantage over a 5'9" 110lb. man, so you can't say that a woman is always justified in using deadly force against an unarmed man. If he's trying to rape her, I'd say go for it, but if he takes a swing at her over a traffic accident, deadly force isn't going to fly.

Disparity of force should not be reduced to a set of scenarios. They're fine as mental exercises, but not as rules. They are, by their nature, incomplete and assuming a great deal. See the above example. The wise choice is to develop a definition, and apply that to individual circumstances. I define it as a disparity which results in the attacker being able to cause the victim serious injury or death while the victim, for physical reasons, is unable to provide a reasonably effective defense (note that I include running away as a part of "defense"). Obviously this applies only to unarmed altercations, as the introduction of a weapon moves the situation up to the "aggravated" category, and the concept of disparity is essentially irrelevant.

Given that, and making the usual assumptions, the situations you provided are generally correct.

 

[Havegunjoe]

How about....

A 6'3" 280 lb. man against a 5'2" woman of average build. Sounds like disparity of force doesn't it? It does until you find out the guy has health problems and takes a variety of medications, some of which are blood thinners. A well placed punch to the solarplexis by this petite woman could cause internal bleeding and kill the man. I knew just such a man. He was never hurt in a fight but disparity of force would be on his side. It of course is not the only reason to use a gun.

 

[MikeIsaj]

As I understand Pa Law, the main requirement for use of deadly force is that you are being threatened with death or serious bodily injury. Not required to get out the scale and measuring tape. If your attacker has the ability and opportunity to inflict force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, has taken a substantial step towards that act, and you cannot retreat without certain safety, you may shoot to stop the attack. This makes a whole lot more sense to me.

If a five foot woman aims a gun at me, she has the ability, opportunity and has taken a substantial step. Her height, weight and health are irrelevent.

 

[RyanM]

Disparity of force can go the other way, too. If you're a 6'5" bodybuilder and suffer an unprovoked, seemingly unarmed assault from a 5'2" 90 pound weakling, lethal force may well be justified since the only logical conclusion in that kind of scenario is that the tiny little guy must be on drugs, psycopathic, armed, or all of the above.

 

[Fastman]

Hello everyone. Im new to this board and this is my first post. I just would like to say that it is better to be tried by twelve than be carried by six.

 

[GEM]

Interesting issue - one thing you notice in gun discussions is someone always sayss I'm 6'2'' and 250 lbs and no one messes with me.

However, in a knife fighting class I saw how dangerous a little person was to a big dude. Then I worked on a case where the young stud threatened some old skinny dude. The later took out a paring knife, stuck it into the chest of Hercules - once, who dropped stone cold dead.

You have to fear grievous bodily harm.

 

[Jenrick]

From my understanding of the law in Texas, the usage of deadly force not on your property (which goes into a bunch of other areas if the actions occur on your property) is that you must feel that your life or someone else's life (who is unable to defend themesleves) is in danger. Now whether that danger is from a 6'2" 200lb mauler, a 5'1" crack head, or a 75 year old women with a Colt python in your face demanding your car keys, is immaterial.

-Jenrick

 

[Ryder]

Seems that state doesn't think people can recognize when their lives are in danger? The nature of the threat is important but it's more complicated than what anyone can tell you and you don't have to shoot just because it's justified.

For example:

I had a woman shake a tire iron in my face once. I was talking to a guy she didn't want me talking to She outweighed me by 400%. Disparity of force? Oh yeah! I believe I would have been justified using a violent self-defense. It was a credible threat. She was dead serious, insane but serious. I believed her reflexes were at a disadvantage in comparison to me and as it turned out I simply took the weapon away.

Her 25 year old son snuck up behind me with a 2x4 during all this. I did not deem him entitled to the same courtesy as his mother and if he had not dropped the board and backed off things would have got real exciting.

See what I mean? It's your life. These are decisions you make for yourself.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Unfortunately, disparity of force means only what the jury hearing your trial thinks it means.

Anytime you try to set a list of rules, especially using the terms "never" or "always" you're going to get in trouble.

 

[LaEscopeta]

"Disparity of force should not be reduced to a set of scenarios. They're fine as mental exercises, but not as rules."
"These are decisions you make for yourself."
"…disparity of force means only what the jury hearing your trial thinks it means."

I agree with the above. A jury, as finders-of-fact, hears both sides of the story. Lawyers on both sides try to get witness, experts, etc to say their guy is Walter Milktoast, while the other guy is the Incredible Hulk. The judge instructs the jury to shift though it all and to answer the questions "Would a reasonable person in the place of the defendant be in fear for their life or grievous bodily injury? Would a reasonable person believe there was disparity of force between themselves and the attacker(s) that could only be defended against with deadly force?"

Of course if the District Attorney decides there is disparity of force, the case doesn’t get to the jury.

 

[Archangel]

(Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but based on the training I have had, I understand the following to be true.)

To be able to use lethal force, one must be in immediate fear of the otherwise unavoidable grave bodily injury or death of themself (or in some cases, another innocent person).

It is generally accepted that for that immediate fear to legitimately exist, the attacker must have:

the Ability to cause said injury or death,
the Opportunity to cause said injury or death, and
shown Intent to immediately cause said injury or death. (Often referred to as "Jeopardy," as a mnemonic device for police, who preform Administration Of Justice.)

If Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy all exist, or if any reasonable person in the victim's place would believe that they exist, the use of lethal force for self defence is most likely justified. (I say "most likely" because of the "otherwise unavoidable" bit above, but that's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.)


So, where does Disparity of Force come in?

It is one of the things that can fulfill the Ability requirement. Any weapon already counts as the Ability to cause lethal injury, so Disparity of Force only applies to unarmed attackers.

The situations outlined my mr_dove are a pretty good list of the things that can be considered Disparity of Force, with one exception and one that he missed.

The exception is the superior numbers situation. 2:1 may or may not cut it. Facing 3 or more unarmed attackers, you're pretty solidly into the realm of Disparity of Force with legal precident on your side, but facing only 2, you are in a very grey area. Not saying you couldn't use lethal force, but you definitely don't have an unquestionable green light, either. Also keep in mind that disparity can be removed as attackers are removed from the fight. Meaning that if you are attacked by three people, and you shoot two of them, you no longer have a Disparity of Force situation as you draw bead on the third guy.


The other situation is if you know, for a fact, at the time you are attacked, that your attacker is an expert in the deadly martial arts, and you are not, then Disparity of Force exists. (Actually, even if you are an expert too, you could probably argue that you were being attacked with lethal force, it just wouldn't be disparity). So if, for example, you are attacked by Jean Claude Van Damm, you would have a Disparity of Force situation. If you are attacked by Joe Schmoe, and it turns out after the fact that he has a black belt in Tai Kwon Leap, but you didn't know that when you shot him, then you can't argue Disparity of Force.


Also, as for a handicapped person having DoF versus an able bodied attacker, it is possible to become "handicapped" due to an injury during the altercation. So you could be attacked in a manner that would not justify lethal force initially, but would would once you become injured. But that goes the other way, too.


As for relative size of a man vs a woman, if rape is attempted, then lethal force if justified. Otherwise, it still very likely that DoF exists, based on averagy body size & strength, and cultural dispostioning. Even the 6'6" 300# woman being attacked by the 5'2" 125# man can have disparity of force if she has been so conditioned througout her life that women are inferior to men that she is psychologically incapable of fighting back physically.


Basically, it comes down to what the person being attacked reasonably believed to be the case when they were attacked, and being able to back that up in court.