Yes he [the OP] did say that safe escape was not possible...
OK
The law (in WA State) says NOTHING (at least nothing I've been able to find) about disparity of force as a prerequisite for the use of force to prevent a felony or felonious injury to oneself or others.
When I post the applicable laws in my state, and despite it's meaning being plain as day, you continue to argue as though it isn't clear - well...no offense intended, but that's also getting tedious.
If the law says something different in your state, if it says something about disparity of force being a required element for the lawful use of force - post it. That would at least be useful information and relevant to the discussion. Unless the law in your state - or ANY state - DOES require disparity of force, I think you should refrain from insisting that lack of disparity (i.e., same size, same gender, same age, etc) should be considered as a prohibition against the use of force in defense of self and others.
I'm not aware of
any state in which the law specifies that homicide cannot be justified unless the assailant is armed with a lethal weapon or unless there is a disparity of force.
Lack of disparity of force, or lack of a weapon, is not a prohibition against the use of force, or even against the use of deadly force, in any state of which I am aware --not saying that there are none.
Where it becomes important is in how charging decisions are made and in how cases are tried under the law.
The salient point is that the
defendant will need to
show evidence that the he or she
reasonably believed that
deadly force was immediately necessary to protect agains death or serious bodily injury--
or the jury won't even be instructed to consider self defense as justification.
Should the defendant succeed in that, unless the case is rather clear cut, the prosecution will challenge said evidence and present its own evidence, in an effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was not justified--that is, that based on what the defendant knew at the time, his belief was not reasonable. A jury of peers will determine whether the defendant's belief was reasonable based on the evidence and testimony presented
by both sides.
If the evidence is pretty clear that the assailant was the aggressor and that he was armed, that should be it, but strange things have happened in jury rooms. If the assailant proves after the fact to have been unarmed, a disparity of force can help a lot. Lack of disparity doesn't change your legal rights, but it sure could seal your fate in the judgment of the charging authority, a grand jury, and/or a trial jury.
That's where all of the literature, education, training , and advice on the evlauation of the alleged assailant's
Ability (weapon, physical size and strength, numbers, training, skill, etc.), on his
Opportunity, on the condition of
Jeopardy, and on the subject of
Preclusion comes into play. Those things are
not written into state criminal codes, but they are of paramount importance.
If you consult the right kind of lawyer in your jurisdiction, he or she can explain it to you. In the mean time, study the links in Post 46 and the one in Post 69. And do heed attorney Michael Anthony's warning about trying to divine the meaning of a law (in the context of judicial principles, other laws, appellate rulings, and how a case will be tried) by a lay interpretation of the wording of the statute. I do not mean that to demean your intelligence or ability to read--it's just something that lay people need to learn. Believe me. I've known, and known of, people who learned it the hard way.
I think someone has already suggested the Firearms Academy of Seattle. Darn wise investment.
http://www.firearmsacademy.com/mhayes.htm
In the OP's scenario, the threat clearly exists and can be articulated.
Yes, but remember, the
defendant's articulation of his subjective belief is only Step 1, and it would very likely be insufficient to even get an
instruction on self defense. See the discussion of that in the Washington State Prosecutor's manual cited above; it is based upon relevant Appellate Court decisions.
If you did not respond with necessary force to resist the felonious assault, you would likely suffer injury or death.
I'm sure you meant to say serious bodily injury or death. That's the key question, isn't it?
Would physical force by a single person who is
not larger or more fit be
likely to cause death or serious bodily harm? That's what needs to be answered. It's
possible that one's peers will say yes, but the prevailing thought in the literature (several items of which are cited above) is that that probably won't happen.
I hope this proves helpful.