The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Deadly force / equal force, knife vs. gun law.

**44 AMP** · May 31, 2010, 11:00 AM

And it happens all the time. The key (and sorry, I can't point to a specific case law), is the concept of "disparity of force". They may call it something else, but thats what it boils down to.

You have a gun. Your attacker does not. Therefore, they can be no threat, right? Wrong! The problem arises when the jury looks at the individuals. And the jury only gets to look at it if there is actually something wrong with the shooting, or if the police/prosecutor have an axe to grind, so to speak.

You don't have to see a knife, or a gun to consider someone who is atacking you a deadly threat. And what matters most is what you (a reasonable person) thought at the time, and what you did.

Take the extreme case, 97lb 83yr old granny attacked by 260lb 19yr old thug. Thug has only fists and feet, granny has a .38. Think the jury will see that as an escalation of force? I don't. But they might, if the prosecutor skillfully presents it as such. Especially if granny shot thug in the back.

The devil is in the details, and rumors and gossip don't have enough, or accurate enough details to render a vaild judgement.

May 31, 2010, 11:00 AM	#8
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	Obviously, there's more to the story.... And it happens all the time. The key (and sorry, I can't point to a specific case law), is the concept of "disparity of force". They may call it something else, but thats what it boils down to. You have a gun. Your attacker does not. Therefore, they can be no threat, right? Wrong! The problem arises when the jury looks at the individuals. And the jury only gets to look at it if there is actually something wrong with the shooting, or if the police/prosecutor have an axe to grind, so to speak. You don't have to see a knife, or a gun to consider someone who is atacking you a deadly threat. And what matters most is what you (a reasonable person) thought at the time, and what you did. Take the extreme case, 97lb 83yr old granny attacked by 260lb 19yr old thug. Thug has only fists and feet, granny has a .38. Think the jury will see that as an escalation of force? I don't. But they might, if the prosecutor skillfully presents it as such. Especially if granny shot thug in the back. The devil is in the details, and rumors and gossip don't have enough, or accurate enough details to render a vaild judgement. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.