Engaging an "unarmed person..."

[manta49]

That is one of the great things about living in the USA. Our founding Fathers ensured we would have the right to self defense, both from criminals and our own Government, should that become needed

Yes you have the right to self defense here and in most countries that I know of as well. You are allowed to use reasonable and proportional force, including lethal force if necessary. Shooting a 250 lb man running towards you would definitely not be seen as proportionate or reasonable. Some here do carry firearms, usually they have a specific threat made on their lives. But that doesn't answer my question how would people manage in America if they were not allowed to carry firearms. Having said that I am sure millions of Americans don't carry firearms.

[JohnKSa]

Shooting a 250 lb man running towards you would definitely not be seen as proportionate or reasonable.

In the U.S. it's not that simple at all. Assuming that the defender reasonably believes that the man has a motive and intends to attack, then one would have to look at the circumstances to determine if deadly force is warranted.

If the defender is a small 80 year old woman with very limited mobility then deadly force would almost certainly be considered justified given that she has no other reasonable way to defend herself against a man 2 or 3 times her weight who is able to run. The fact that the man is unarmed would make no difference. He easily has the means to kill her or do her serious bodily injury with his bare hands and she has no effective means of response save using some sort of weapon. He might kill her or break bones by simply pushing her and causing her to fall, even without striking her, and she would have no way to prevent that from happening.

If she happened to have some sort of other method to respond (pepper spray, TASER, etc.) and the circumstances made it reasonable for her to respond with those methods first, then that would likely be a consideration in determining if a deadly force response were justified.

On the other hand, if the defender is a 250lb man who is fit, mobile, and has had some martial arts training, the law would take a very dim view of the defender simply shooting the man running at him.

The principle is disparity of force. If the defender is put at a significant and obvious disadvantage due to disparity of force then deadly force can certainly be justified even against unarmed assailants.

Disparity of force can be due to physical size/strength/mobility or due to the number of attackers. In those cases the defender is legally justified in balancing the scales using deadly force even if the attacker has no weapon.

But that doesn't answer my question how would people manage in America if they were not allowed to carry firearms. Having said that I am sure millions of Americans don't carry firearms.

Since most people in America don't carry firearms, they would manage as they do now. If attacked by multiple attackers or by an attacker who is stronger/quicker/better than they are, they would be injured or killed. If attacked by someone (or someones) who they can fight off without a firearm, they would fight them off.

Firearms are a civilizing influence in that they change the status quo from a situation where the strongest/biggest prevail to a situation where the defender can prevail against a violent attacker even when overmatched physically.

[Moomooboo]

Originally Posted by manta49

Yes you have the right to self defense here and in most countries that I know of as well. You are allowed to use reasonable and proportional force, including lethal force if necessary. Shooting a 250 lb man running towards you would definitely not be seen as proportionate or reasonable. Some here do carry firearms, usually they have a specific threat made on their lives. But that doesn't answer my question how would people manage in America if they were not allowed to carry firearms. Having said that I am sure millions of Americans don't carry firearms.

its about proportionality. Look at the michael brown case. Obviously you may get dragged through a litany of lawsuits.