Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spacemanspiff
...disparity of force is subjective. If all they appear to be intent on doing is attacking you without using a weapon, maybe you should be reaching for the pepper spray, or a taser, or even go and get training in hand-to-hand defense. Wouldn't that be better alternatives?
|
This highlights one of the most difficult conundrums in self defense.
Disparity of force is a real issue. An unarmed big/strong/young person can indeed kill someone, especially someone who is infirm/frail/old. The difficulty can come in convincing a prosecutor or, if you're unlucky, a jury that under the circumstances you were at lethal risk from the unarmed assailant.
But if the threat is legitimately a potentially lethal threat, and if the victim is infirm/frail/old, effective unarmed resistance might simply be a bad dream. And things like pepper spray or a taser can fail and, in the face of a truly deadly threat and depending on circumstances, leave one without enough time left to resort to lethal force.
So there can be some merit to a threat of lethal force, when legally justified, which can immediately be backed up with lethal force if necessary. But that of course brings us back to the problem of having to establish that an unarmed assailant really did present a legitimately lethal threat.
All of that serves to illustrate that Avoidance/Evasion/Escape might often be the best choice if possible.