Disparity Of Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
And by the time you saw him do that (assuming you saw it at all) you would be on the ground unconscious.

Like I said before, if I draw to the ready, and they continue to advance, BANG!

I'll take judged by 12 over carried by 6 any day of the week (esp in South Carolina)


Let me ask you this, why would you pull the trigger when someone is approaching you absent of any weapons in the hands, and statments that suggest they are armed? If your only reason for pulling the trigger on them is because you had your gun drawn and they didn't listen to what you said, your going to be found guilty. The police can't shoot people for not listening, and neither can you. You have the burden of proving what you did was reasonable, remember that. Absent of disparity of force factors, you wont have anything to use in your defense if you shot a unarmed man that has his dukes up.

It seems a lot of people on here don't realize that just the facts of what happened up to you pulling the trigger matter in court. If you claim the person could have killed you/caused great bodily harm (And if actions that could have caused that didn't happen its nothing more then speculation, and isn't a defense) you better be able to articulate why you thought that. The fact you pulled the trigger proves you thought you were in some sort of danger, but it doesn't prove to a jury that what you did was reasonable.

To try to clarify this:

Statements in court:

You: I was afraid he was armed, and I was afraid for my life, so I pulled the trigger.

Lawyer: You said that you saw his hands in the air, and that they were empty of weapons.

You: yes they were empty but he could have killed me with his fists.

Lawyer: Do you expect the jury to believe that you were at risk of death, horrible disfigurement, etc by the man you shot, who was half your size, and not a trained fighter?

You: there was no way I knew he wasn't a trained fighter

Lawyer: Sir, are you telling the jury that you shot the man whos half your sized because of the possibility of death or great bodily harm, but you can't give any reason as to how that could have happened?

You: No, 1 person with his fists can kill you, he could have had a knife as well.

Lawyer, did you see a knife?

you: no but he could have had one

Lawyer: So you base your defense on what weapons the man could have had, that you obviously didn't see.

You: I was afraid for my life so I pulled the trigger

Lawyer: Sir, it seems apparent to me that you shot my client without establishing that you were in danger of being killed or suffer great bodily harm. You pulled the trigger based on what you thought could happen, and not what actually happened prior to you shooting my client. The law requires you to base your decision to use deadly force on the facts prior to pulling the trigger. You failed to do that, and as a result you unlawfully shot and killed my client. I don't see how anyone would find your actions reasonable.
 
So, what you are telling me is that legally, I have to allow myself to be attacked and beaten/kicked/stomped to a bloody pulp?

Sorry, not going down that road.

BANG!

I'm still here, and that's the whole point.

I'm over 50, overweight, high bp, never played at sports much, never in the military, no fighting skills and don't plan on getting any. If I get in a hand to hand fight, I'm going to loose, badly. If someone continues to advance on me AFTER I've drawn and warned, I will conclude they -do- intend to do me grievous bodily harm and will act to stop/prevent that attack.

GregGry said:
And by the time you saw him do that (assuming you saw it at all) you would be on the ground unconscious.

Like I said before, if I draw to the ready, and they continue to advance, BANG!

I'll take judged by 12 over carried by 6 any day of the week (esp in South Carolina)


Let me ask you this, why would you pull the trigger when someone is approaching you absent of any weapons in the hands, and statments that suggest they are armed? If your only reason for pulling the trigger on them is because you had your gun drawn and they didn't listen to what you said, your going to be found guilty. The police can't shoot people for not listening, and neither can you. You have the burden of proving what you did was reasonable, remember that. Absent of disparity of force factors, you wont have anything to use in your defense if you shot a unarmed man that has his dukes up.

It seems a lot of people on here don't realize that just the facts of what happened up to you pulling the trigger matter in court. If you claim the person could have killed you/caused great bodily harm (And if actions that could have caused that didn't happen its nothing more then speculation, and isn't a defense) you better be able to articulate why you thought that. The fact you pulled the trigger proves you thought you were in some sort of danger, but it doesn't prove to a jury that what you did was reasonable.

To try to clarify this:

Statements in court:

You: I was afraid he was armed, and I was afraid for my life, so I pulled the trigger.

Lawyer: You said that you saw his hands in the air, and that they were empty of weapons.

You: yes they were empty but he could have killed me with his fists.

Lawyer: Do you expect the jury to believe that you were at risk of death, horrible disfigurement, etc by the man you shot, who was half your size, and not a trained fighter?

You: there was no way I knew he wasn't a trained fighter

Lawyer: Sir, are you telling the jury that you shot the man whos half your sized because of the possibility of death or great bodily harm, but you can't give any reason as to how that could have happened?

You: No, 1 person with his fists can kill you, he could have had a knife as well.

Lawyer, did you see a knife?

you: no but he could have had one

Lawyer: So you base your defense on what weapons the man could have had, that you obviously didn't see.

You: I was afraid for my life so I pulled the trigger

Lawyer: Sir, it seems apparent to me that you shot my client without establishing that you were in danger of being killed or suffer great bodily harm. You pulled the trigger based on what you thought could happen, and not what actually happened prior to you shooting my client. The law requires you to base your decision to use deadly force on the facts prior to pulling the trigger. You failed to do that, and as a result you unlawfully shot and killed my client. I don't see how anyone would find your actions reasonable.
Click to expand...
 
GregGry said:
...It seems a lot of people on here don't realize that just the facts of what happened up to you pulling the trigger matter in court. If you claim the person could have killed you/caused great bodily harm (And if actions that could have caused that didn't happen its nothing more then speculation, and isn't a defense) you better be able to articulate why you thought that. The fact you pulled the trigger proves you thought you were in some sort of danger, but it doesn't prove to a jury that what you did was reasonable....
Click to expand...
An excellent summary.
 
If someone continues to advance on me AFTER I've drawn and warned, I will conclude they -do- intend to do me grievous bodily harm and will act to stop/prevent that attack.
Click to expand...

You must realized that although you might think a attackers failure to obey orders means that they will cause you great bodily harm/death, a jury will likely not. In that situation your basing your opinion on pulling the trigger on the fact they didn't listen to you. One of two things has to happen, either A) you have to prove that they were directly doing something that could cause you death or great bodily harm (AKA they have a gun or knife or B) you have to prove that what you saw was enough evidence that a reasonable person would consider the persons actions capable of causing you death or great bodily harm. You very well might be justfied in using deadly force when being confronted with a person with their fists up. However you have to articulate why you based you decision on using deadly force in a way that someone will be able to understand it other then the fact you were afraid for you life.

With that said you would be able to claim disparity of force for thses reasons: Age, weight, health conditions, lack of training, etc. It would be far far easier for someone to hurt you then me with their fists.
 
You: I was afraid for my life so I pulled the trigger

Lawyer: Sir, it seems apparent to me that you shot my client without establishing that you were in danger of being killed or suffer great bodily harm. You pulled the trigger based on what you thought could happen, and not what actually happened prior to you shooting my client. The law requires you to base your decision to use deadly force on the facts prior to pulling the trigger. You failed to do that, and as a result you unlawfully shot and killed my client. I don't see how anyone would find your actions reasonable.

You: Eff you, butthead. When someone threatens to kill me and makes menacing moves within 20 feet to do so I can only assume he means to do just what he said he was going to do. You want to sit on your candy ass and ask stupid questions go right ahead. I'm outta here.

Judge: Excellent point. Case dismissed. Mr. Attorney, report to jail for 30 days for contempt for wasting the court's time on this trash.
Click to expand...

I can also write creatively!:)
 
Except that what GregGry wrote is a lot like the way a cross examination goes -- unlike your improbable story.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're probably right, esp in CA.
But GreGry seems to maintain that you have to let someone assault and batter you first before you can take any action. I don't think that's the case. It certainly wasn't taught that way in our state handgun carry course.
 
You can be in a situation in the heat of the moment where you really think the only option is to kill someone. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Maybe after the adrenaline subsides, there were other options that became apparent. You can HOPE that the DA and the jury see it the same way you did, but when you say, you would rather be judged than killed, you may well get your wish. All of these maybes and hopefullys are grey areas which may go in your favor or be used against you.

Everyone who carries should condition themselves to legal realities as well as situational awareness. You can't take it for granted that everyone involved will automatically assume you did the right thing for the right reason. Just like you need to live your life in a way that reduces the likelihood you will ever have to pull in the first place, by avoiding bad places and situations, if you have bad people, relationships, history, grudges, ec in your life, it's going to increase the likelihood that the DA isn't going to believe the first version of the story and dig for more.
 
From Bubba613:
GregGry seems to maintain that you have to let someone assault and batter you first before you can take any action. I don't think that's the case.
Click to expand...

Nor do I.

It certainly wasn't taught that way in our state handgun carry course.
Click to expand...

Nor in mine.

From mljdeckard:
Everyone who carries should condition themselves to legal realities as well as situational awareness. You can't take it for granted that everyone involved will automatically assume you did the right thing for the right reason. Just like you need to live your life in a way that reduces the likelihood you will ever have to pull in the first place, by avoiding bad places and situations, if you have bad people, relationships, history, grudges, ec in your life, it's going to increase the likelihood that the DA isn't going to believe the first version of the story and dig for more.
Click to expand...

You can say that again!

The legal portion of my CCW training was invaluable, but to me it was not sufficient to reduce my level of apprehension to a level of comfort. So, I've kept digging. The two links a provided with my previous post are not exactly Dick and Jane level but I believe they are well worth the effort to read them.

One other thing, and I think this came from Fiddletown in another string: it is very important to train and practice, to get the time required for the draw down and to be able to get shots on the target consistently and quickly. That will enable you to put in practice what you know you need to do with less likelihood of drawing too soon, drawing too late, or hitting a bystander.
 
Last edited:
All I've got to say is...glib sayings about judged by twelve, carried by six, and all that kind of stuff will do absolutely NOTHING to make one's prison shower rape 10 years after everyone but your family has forgotten all about you and your self righteousness any more pleasant or palatable...shooting an unarmed person is a darned hard row to hoe, so be careful!
 
When someone threatens to kill me and makes menacing moves within 20 feet to do so I can only assume he means to do just what he said he was going to do. You want to sit on your candy ass and ask stupid questions go right ahead. I'm outta here.
Click to expand...

Anyone can threaten to kill you but if they don't have the potential means to do so you can't legally shoot them. Menacing moves could mean anything. You have to paint a picture of what exactly they did that made you shoot them. If you have no disparity of force on your side your done for in the court system.

Honestly bubba, you need to answer this question. A 100 pound man says he is going to kick your butt. He starts toward you flaling his arms like a windmill AKA catfight style. Would you shoot him assuming that you can see his hands the entire time, and you see no weapons at all? If you would then you obviously don't believe is disparity of force, which is a problem because jurys will. It is unreasonble to think that a 100 pound person is capable of causing death or great bodily harm to a person twice their size with a even remote probability. I can have my 100 pound friends punch me for 5 minutes stright and I will not be seriously hurt, with me just covering my face.



But GreGry seems to maintain that you have to let someone assault and batter you first before you can take any action. I don't think that's the case. It certainly wasn't taught that way in our state handgun carry course.
Click to expand...
When have I ever said that? I said that you have to have make a decision based on facts before you pull the trigger, not possbilities. Do you understand how important that is and what the difference is between thinking your life is in danger and actually having your life in danger? Did your state carry class not mention disparity of force at all, and how if the person your up against has little to no ability based on the facts you have to cause you death or great bodily harm, that you can't pull the trigger and be justified? You can believe your life was in danger but if the facts say otherwise you will be convicted. Didn't they mention that you have to use the FACTS present prior to pulling the trigger, not assumptions/beliefs such as they must be armed, (If you have no positive identification of a weapon then you can shoot based on the idea they might be armed)?

What I am asking you to do is use common sense. I am asking you to base your decision to shoot on what the facts tell you up until you pull the trigger. You have to not only be in fear of someone causing you great bodily harm or death, but the facts have to point that the person can reasonably cause great bodily harm or death with a high probability. You seem to want to ingnore the concept of a person actually being able to cause you great bodily harm or death with a high probability. That is 100 times more crucial when your attacker is unarmed.
 
Based on your reasoning you would have to wait until someone actually produced a gun, pointed it at you, and pulled the trigger before you could respond. After all, you don't know what he's going to do.
Further, half the cops who followed some guy down a dark alley would be sitting in jail if what you said was true. After all, they couldn't really see the guy had a weapon pointed at them.

In your scenario, yup I sure would. If I were on the jury I would vote to acquit anyone in that situation as well. Kick a guy in the head enough times you can sure inflict death or serious bodily harm.
 
Also, I am not going to argue that a person that says I am going to kick your butt isn't serious about a statment like that. I am not going to argue that a person that says that after a period of time might be able to beat you to a bloody pulp. I am trying to get across that you can't just shoot such a person and be justified unless you can prove their actions (AKA the facts) ACTUALLY put you at risk of great bodily harm or death (Great bodily harm is more then just a broken nose by the way). Legally it is assumed that deadly force will only be used to combat deadly force. Fists can be deadly force based on the rules of disparity of force, however your fitness/medical conditions/training/etc wil raise or lower the chances of someone to be able to actualy cause you death or great bodily harm with your fists.

If you chose to reject disparity of force or you don't believe in it, you just lost the only thing that is going to save you if you defend yourself against a unarmed person. Disparity of force is 90% for protecting people that defend themselves and 10% a check and balance system. That 10% is critical if you wrongfully judge someones ability to cause you death or great bodily harm, because it will convict you.
 
Based on your reasoning you would have to wait until someone actually produced a gun, pointed it at you, and pulled the trigger before you could respond. After all, you don't know what he's going to do.
Further, half the cops who followed some guy down a dark alley would be sitting in jail if what you said was true. After all, they couldn't really see the guy had a weapon pointed at them.

In your scenario, yup I sure would. If I were on the jury I would vote to acquit anyone in that situation as well. Kick a guy in the head enough times you can sure inflict death or serious bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Which is more reasonable, believing a man who has his hand in his pocket (and you can see a buldge) that says I am going to kill you, or a man with his fists up that says he is going to kick your butt? Obviously the first one would warrant deadly force way before the person with his fists up.

My situation that you refuse to answer is disparity of force in a more extreme case, however it is a possibility. You seem unable to grasp the concept that physical size of a person is tied with the force they can generate. What I want to know is how exactly are you going to convince a jury that a unarmed 100 pound man that was fighting catfight style, ever put you are a significant risk of bodily harm or death? Not based on the fact you are afraid they could, but based on facts. How many experts do you think will testify that a 100 pound man could have caused you death with just their fists?
 
For the right price, all of them.

I think this discussion has reached a point of diminishing returns. Since you are in WI CCW is a non issue. If they ever pass it, don't carry a weapon as some unarmed guy is going to sucker punch you to the ground, grab your weapon and shoot your butt with it while you're still wondering whether he really means to do you harm.
Me, I'll shoot the guy first when I can articulate a reasonable fear.
Good luck out there.
 
The Harold Fish case was so flawed that the circumstances of the shooting were almost irrelevant. It's a case of a prosecutor doing wrong things for the wrong reason, and a judge letting him get away with it. These things are beyond a defendant's control. The law has been changed, and he will likely win that appeal. If I walk around applying the Harold Fish case to everything I do in life, I would never leave the house.
 
he is whats he been away for? 5 years so far? wonder if he'd rather have sidestepped the guy at least once. maybe he'll do a book when he gets out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Disparity Of Force
Replies
5
Views
743
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
J
  • Locked
Disparity of force and self defense
Replies
0
Views
364
JellyJar
J
M
  • Locked
When Are You Justified in Using Deadly Force Against an Unarmed Assailant?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
thebadguy2k6
T
M
  • Locked
disparity of force?
Replies
11
Views
653
Archangel
A
P
  • Locked
Does the law see a knife as "lethal force?"
Replies
21
Views
2K
ctdonath
C
Back
Top