Physical force, deadly physical force, and knowing the difference in advance of the blow.

[Kleanbore]

Not sure why or how the age difference would matter, given the totality of the circumstances in that situation. Not unless there was some law which stated that victim age 80 and over was a factor.

This case does not involve a defense of justification of the use of deadly force.

 

[fastbolt]

This case does not involve a defense of justification of the use of deadly force.

I thought that was clear. What I meant when I said "totality of the circumstances". Simply put, it clearly wasn't a problem where a 'gun' would've been the reasonable self defense answer at the time of the incident.

 

[Kleanbore]

Simply put, it clearly wasn't a problem where a 'gun' would've been the reasonable self defense answer at the time of the incident.

It doesn't appear that a legal defense of self defense would enter into it at all.

 

[fastbolt]

It doesn't appear that a legal defense of self defense would enter into it at all.

I was giving it (lack of detailed reporting) the benefit of the doubt with this statement in the article:

Zook attempted to protect himself with his hands, but he was unable to.

If the victim believed he was about to be struck by the suspect, and was actively attempting to protect himself from being struck, then it's not unreasonable he may have thought he was in a situation where self defense was appropriate and necessary. Now, what the article doesn't make clear is whether the suspect attempted more than a single punch/blow, despite the victim's efforts to "protect himself with his hands". The details of the victim's statement in the responding officer's report would probably be helpful.

Now, if you mean no legal defense on the part of the suspect, then sure, he appears to be the aggressor and lacked the ability to claim self defense.

 

[Kleanbore]

Now, if you mean no legal defense on the part of the suspect, then sure, he appears to be the aggressor and lacked the ability to claim self defense.

Yes. and therefore the concept of a disparity of force is completely irrelevant here.

 

[trigger puller]

This thought came to me when I was responding to another thread in this forum. KY law (and I presume a lot of other states) makes a distinction between physical force and deadly physical force. Definitions below:

"Physical force" means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement.​

​

"Deadly physical force" means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or which the defendant knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.​

​

Regarding the use of force in self defense KY law says this: (emphasis added)

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.​

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.​

(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.​

​

Here's what's rumbling around in my head: one good punch alone from a strong young person could potentially cause years of suffering, physical infirmity, or even death if it lands just right. Or it could cause a person to fall down and then become vulnerable to a kicking or stomping attack that could also prove crippling or fatal. Or to strike their head on the pavement and suffer a fatal concussion. The older I get (and the more horrifying videos I see online) the more I think there's really no such thing as a physical attack that doesn't have the potential to cause serious physical injury other than perhaps grabbing someone or maybe shoving them.

I'm not a psychic, nobody is. How am I supposed to know when someone starts throwing hands or grabbing me if they're intending to do serious physical injury? Or how do I know they won't inflict such an injury accidentally in the process of trying to rattle me or "soften me up" in order to make me an easier victim?

As someone of retirement age and with some mobility challenges, what can be reasonable expected of me by a jury of my peers in terms of my belief that I'm about to be harmed? Seems to me that as soon as some young attacker puts his hands on me that the threshold has been crossed because he could easily kill me by accident. In other words, almost all physical force could easily become deadly physical force against a weaker, older victim and the victim has no duty to "take a few punches for good measure" before fighting back with deadly force.

Is this an extreme interpretation of the idea of disparity of force or do a lot of people think like this? Do prosecutors? I just know I really hate the idea that my last thought of my final few seconds of life might be "I wouldn't be on the ground being stomped to death if I had drawn and fired."

This is posted in strategy and tactics because all of the above leads to the following question: Does your tactical thinking in terms of the use of force continuum change in light of (a) advancing age and infirmity and (b) realistic knowledge that physical force isn’t like TV and the movies where a guy gets clubbed with a baseball bat and is lucid and conscious 15 minutes later?

Get a membership to USCCA or US Law shield. Once you join them, your first phone call, if you are arrested for protecting yourself, and legally carrying a firearm, should be to them, so they can get an attorney to you. They provide self defense insurance, kind of like car insurance, and they cover you, and your legal fees for ANY self defense situation, wether you use a gun, knife, club, or just your fist. I live in TX and all I am required by law is to "reasonably believe that I am in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." As long as I believe that, I am justified in using deadly force, not just force.

 

[trigger puller]

I suppose I did a poor job in conveying my question because all the legal stuff was just to establish background. The underlying (and unfortunately poorly stated) question is a tactical one.

Does your tactical thinking in terms of the use of force continuum change in light of (a) advancing age and infirmity and (b) realistic knowledge that physical force isn’t like TV and the movies where a guy gets clubbed with a baseball bat and is lucid and conscious 15 minutes later?

I’m going to go back and edit the initial post to reflect this.

As my age and infirmities increase, I will absolutely go to my gun for self defense, if I am in fear for my life or serious injuries. I'd rather take my chances with a jury than with a younger, stronger, attacker who is intent on doing me harm

 

[trigger puller]

Get a membership to USCCA or US Law shield. Once you join them, your first phone call, if you are arrested for protecting yourself, and legally carrying a firearm, should be to them, so they can get an attorney to you. They provide self defense insurance, kind of like car insurance, and they cover you, and your legal fees for ANY self defense situation, wether you use a gun, knife, club, or just your fist. I live in TX and all I am required by law is to "reasonably believe that I am in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." As long as I believe that, I am justified in using deadly force, not just force.

Not sure why or how the age difference would matter, given the totality of the circumstances in that situation. Not unless there was some law which stated that victim age 80 and over was a factor.

Age and physical condition should certainly matter. An 80 year old man attacked by a 20something year old, would almost certainly be a defense for deadly force. At that age, especially, if disabled, their is no way you can use "force"to protect yourself, unless that force is "deadly force" I'm not a lawyer, but I will always protect myself and my family. Besides, if you're 80, do you want to let a criminal kill, or cause, serious bodily harm to you? Regardless of the outcome and court sentence....

 

[Kleanbore]

Trigger puller, you are missing some very important thhings, and you have alloewded yourself to be very seriously missled. The reply mehcanism does not seem to be functioning now. When it works, I will explain.

 

[Kleanbore]

I live in TX and all I am required by law is to "reasonably believe that I am in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." As long as I believe that, I am justified in using deadly force, not just force.I live in TX and all I am required by law is to "reasonably believe that I am in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." As long as I believe that, I am justified in using deadly force, not just force.

Not exactly. Others will decide, based on the evidence, whetter a person in similar circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time, would have believed the same thing

There are other key requirements--that you did not initiate or provoke the incident, and that you used no more force than was necessary.

how you pay for you legal expenses is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[shafter]

It's absolutely crucial to have a plan for both lethal and non lethal encounters in situations where a gun isn't an option. What happens when someone approaches you but doesn't display a weapon? What happens if they attack you physically but it doesn't rise to the level of deadly force? What if your wife and kids are with you and running away isn't an option? What if the situation calls for deadly force but your gun malfunctions or gets taken from you or you don't have it at all?

Health permitting, I would recommend being as fit as possible and learning some striking and grappling. Boxing, wrestling, bjj, are all good options for non lethal encounters. Knowledge of improvised weapons is another good thing to have. There are some that fly completely under the radar and are highly effective with proper knowledge. For others pepper spray may be the best option.

One thing I would not do is assume age or infirmities mean a free pass or that witnesses will accurately interpret what they see.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's absolutely crucial to have a plan for both lethal and non lethal encounters in situations where a gun isn't an option.

Yep.

One thing I would not do is assume age or infirmities mean a free pass or that witnesses will accurately interpret what they see.

That cannot be repeated often enough.

 

[scaatylobo]

This thought came to me when I was responding to another thread in this forum. KY law (and I presume a lot of other states) makes a distinction between physical force and deadly physical force. Definitions below:

"Physical force" means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement.​

​

"Deadly physical force" means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or which the defendant knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.​

​

Regarding the use of force in self defense KY law says this: (emphasis added)

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.​

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.​

(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.​

​

Here's what's rumbling around in my head: one good punch alone from a strong young person could potentially cause years of suffering, physical infirmity, or even death if it lands just right. Or it could cause a person to fall down and then become vulnerable to a kicking or stomping attack that could also prove crippling or fatal. Or to strike their head on the pavement and suffer a fatal concussion. The older I get (and the more horrifying videos I see online) the more I think there's really no such thing as a physical attack that doesn't have the potential to cause serious physical injury other than perhaps grabbing someone or maybe shoving them.

I'm not a psychic, nobody is. How am I supposed to know when someone starts throwing hands or grabbing me if they're intending to do serious physical injury? Or how do I know they won't inflict such an injury accidentally in the process of trying to rattle me or "soften me up" in order to make me an easier victim?

As someone of retirement age and with some mobility challenges, what can be reasonable expected of me by a jury of my peers in terms of my belief that I'm about to be harmed? Seems to me that as soon as some young attacker puts his hands on me that the threshold has been crossed because he could easily kill me by accident. In other words, almost all physical force could easily become deadly physical force against a weaker, older victim and the victim has no duty to "take a few punches for good measure" before fighting back with deadly force.

Is this an extreme interpretation of the idea of disparity of force or do a lot of people think like this? Do prosecutors? I just know I really hate the idea that my last thought of my final few seconds of life might be "I wouldn't be on the ground being stomped to death if I had drawn and fired."

This is posted in strategy and tactics because all of the above leads to the following question: Does your tactical thinking in terms of the use of force continuum change in light of (a) advancing age and infirmity and (b) realistic knowledge that physical force isn’t like TV and the movies where a guy gets clubbed with a baseball bat and is lucid and conscious 15 minutes later?

My state [ NY ] views attacking anyone over 65 when the attacker is at least 10 years younger.

Is a felony,allowing you to use REASONABLE force to save your butt.

Disparity of Force is not defined in the Penal law of this state.

As a retired LEO, I cannot try to speak to other state laws,but I go with what seems reasonable and AVOIDANCE is always the best policy.

 

[paladinFL]

This thought came to me when I was responding to another thread in this forum. KY law (and I presume a lot of other states) makes a distinction between physical force and deadly physical force. Definitions below:

"Physical force" means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement.​

​

"Deadly physical force" means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or which the defendant knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.​

​

Regarding the use of force in self defense KY law says this: (emphasis added)

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.​

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.​

(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.​

​

Here's what's rumbling around in my head: one good punch alone from a strong young person could potentially cause years of suffering, physical infirmity, or even death if it lands just right. Or it could cause a person to fall down and then become vulnerable to a kicking or stomping attack that could also prove crippling or fatal. Or to strike their head on the pavement and suffer a fatal concussion. The older I get (and the more horrifying videos I see online) the more I think there's really no such thing as a physical attack that doesn't have the potential to cause serious physical injury other than perhaps grabbing someone or maybe shoving them.

I'm not a psychic, nobody is. How am I supposed to know when someone starts throwing hands or grabbing me if they're intending to do serious physical injury? Or how do I know they won't inflict such an injury accidentally in the process of trying to rattle me or "soften me up" in order to make me an easier victim?

As someone of retirement age and with some mobility challenges, what can be reasonable expected of me by a jury of my peers in terms of my belief that I'm about to be harmed? Seems to me that as soon as some young attacker puts his hands on me that the threshold has been crossed because he could easily kill me by accident. In other words, almost all physical force could easily become deadly physical force against a weaker, older victim and the victim has no duty to "take a few punches for good measure" before fighting back with deadly force.

Is this an extreme interpretation of the idea of disparity of force or do a lot of people think like this? Do prosecutors? I just know I really hate the idea that my last thought of my final few seconds of life might be "I wouldn't be on the ground being stomped to death if I had drawn and fired."

This is posted in strategy and tactics because all of the above leads to the following question: Does your tactical thinking in terms of the use of force continuum change in light of (a) advancing age and infirmity and (b) realistic knowledge that physical force isn’t like TV and the movies where a guy gets clubbed with a baseball bat and is lucid and conscious 15 minutes later?

As many of the other responders have said its a question of fact for a jury to decide. A 20 year pld attacks a 70+ year old who uses a cane and knocks him to the ground - that might be considered deadly physical force since the young man should have known that this would be dangerous, deadly dangerous, to such an elderly person. The opposite would/ should be true that the older attacking the younger sould known that he is the more in danger. Of course all other things being equal and the jury having access to all information.
it's