To preface this, I am about 5'10" 240 pounds of mostly muscle and look like the kind of guy most wouldnt want to tangle with, but I am a kind and absolutely harmless person, I just enjoy going to the gym and happen to have genetics that promote muscle gain.
I took a CCW class in Nevada a few weeks back at "the gun store" and the instructor was very informative. He worked for the LVPD and spent most of the 9 hour class going over use of deadly force. At one point I asked him specifically about his comment on having to prove that the threat presented a REAL ability and had the capacity to carry out an act of great bodily harm. I asked him a question that I have often asked myself which is "can I consider someone who has assaulted me and who has found that I have a gun through physical contact such as pushing or striking and who has then attempted to take the gun from my hoslter while I try to escape or use equal non deadly force to protect myself as a threat attempting to do great bodily harm to me or my family?"
The instructor stated that I would have one hell of a time convincing any court or DA that another individual presented the capability and threat of great bodily harm due to my age, size, and strength. He then went on to say that as cop he "would not ask a single question if a 70 year old man fired his weapon in self defense, but if someone who was my size used a weapon there would be an arrest and there would be an investigation, and it would be damn near impossible to convince the DA or the court that anyone possessed the ability to do me great bodily harm unless they were pointing a gun at me at the time of the incident" I was pretty shocked, I then went on to say that "I had been an amature fighter and I have seen and experienced some lucky shots and some strikes of opportunity that incapacitated me or came very close to it and that size alone should not be the determining factor" He said "that is just the way it is and if there is no other weapon that was present during the attack other than my gun, I would be the one who got in the most trouble"
I am pretty pissed off about this line of thought. Someone can be very strong and very big, but still suffer strikes of opportunity, the element of surprise, and other physical elements like speed. I would like to think that I would not have to wait until my weapon was pointed back at me to defend my life with it, but in fact when I told him that exact thing he replied that "unfortunately that is what I would have to do in the eyes of the law". I do not think that my size should give me any less of a right to defend myself against a blow that would incapacitate me just as much as it would incapacitate a 120 pound man. Why does someone who is smaller have more of a right to defense than I do, that is just plain ridiculous.
I took a CCW class in Nevada a few weeks back at "the gun store" and the instructor was very informative. He worked for the LVPD and spent most of the 9 hour class going over use of deadly force. At one point I asked him specifically about his comment on having to prove that the threat presented a REAL ability and had the capacity to carry out an act of great bodily harm. I asked him a question that I have often asked myself which is "can I consider someone who has assaulted me and who has found that I have a gun through physical contact such as pushing or striking and who has then attempted to take the gun from my hoslter while I try to escape or use equal non deadly force to protect myself as a threat attempting to do great bodily harm to me or my family?"
The instructor stated that I would have one hell of a time convincing any court or DA that another individual presented the capability and threat of great bodily harm due to my age, size, and strength. He then went on to say that as cop he "would not ask a single question if a 70 year old man fired his weapon in self defense, but if someone who was my size used a weapon there would be an arrest and there would be an investigation, and it would be damn near impossible to convince the DA or the court that anyone possessed the ability to do me great bodily harm unless they were pointing a gun at me at the time of the incident" I was pretty shocked, I then went on to say that "I had been an amature fighter and I have seen and experienced some lucky shots and some strikes of opportunity that incapacitated me or came very close to it and that size alone should not be the determining factor" He said "that is just the way it is and if there is no other weapon that was present during the attack other than my gun, I would be the one who got in the most trouble"
I am pretty pissed off about this line of thought. Someone can be very strong and very big, but still suffer strikes of opportunity, the element of surprise, and other physical elements like speed. I would like to think that I would not have to wait until my weapon was pointed back at me to defend my life with it, but in fact when I told him that exact thing he replied that "unfortunately that is what I would have to do in the eyes of the law". I do not think that my size should give me any less of a right to defend myself against a blow that would incapacitate me just as much as it would incapacitate a 120 pound man. Why does someone who is smaller have more of a right to defense than I do, that is just plain ridiculous.