Deadly force against "unarmed" attackers

[Tim Burke]

Why didn't you arrest the juvi at the hospital ...?

That happens a lot. I've heard that the custodial agency is responsible for the hospital bill if they bring a prisoner in for treatment. By waiting until discharge to take the patient into custody, they avoid assuming that expense.

 

[Chuck Spears]

I am pro rkba, and I CCW, but if I were on a jury, I'd have a real hard time not saying "this dude killed a guy because he didn't want to get punched over a fender bender?"

I have to disagree. I believe Americans have the right to not get punched in the face. There are a number of extremely bad outcomes for taking a punch to the face. I find it unreasonable to require people to take those extreme risks before being able to defend themselves. If you truly think the person can and will cause you bodily harm then I think you should take the shot if you feel you will be unable to fend them off with your words or hands.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Getting punched in the face, under normal circumstances, is not considered a crippling blow or a death blow. Yes, a skilled fighter can incapacitate or kill someone with a well-placed punch to the face. However you cannot use this legal defense unless you knew the individual's background before the incident. The vast majority of people walking around do not have such skills. We must come from the mindset of "what would a reasonable and prudent person do?". While you may be right in your actions, it hinges on your ability to articulate yourself to a jury. The vast majority of little old ladies probably don't run around with magnum revolvers in their purse. If an old lady started whacking at you with per purse, you can't shoot her because ability isn't present. If she starts whacking at you with her purse, then pulls out a magnum and shoots you...you're probably too late to react and that's just an unfortunate reality. Just because a few little old ladies might be criminals carrying a magnum revolver, doesn't mean you can use the exception to the trend to justify preemptive lethal force to all little old ladies. There are young children that have acquired firearms and killed people...does that mean you're going to preemptively start drawing on kids if they walk up and kick you in the shin?

If you can argue in a court of law that ability, opportunity, and jeopardy were present and that a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what they knew at the time of the encounter would react similarly, then you have a basis for legally-justified self defense. However you are going to have a very bad time in court if you merely shot someone of similar size and stature for advancing on you, unarmed, unless you knew in advance they were a martial artist, boxer, or someone with hand-to-hand skills above your own, which introduces a disparity of force.

Here is the crux of the world we live in:
Civilians are allowed to use equal force to stop an attacker. That is why we can only shoot someone if our lives are in jeopardy or grave bodily injury, no less. Law enforcement can use lethal force to stop someone out of necessity. Agree with it or not, it's the reality we live in.

One option that might give you a legal upper hand post-event is to make any and all attempts, if safe to do so, withdraw, retreat, and diffuse the situation. If witnesses say you made all attempts to diffuse the situation before resorting to lethal force, then it'll give you a few exculpatory brownie points. Of course, you can feel free to disregard all of these things, but it'll just make your life that much more difficult in court, if the prosecutor is seeking charges against you.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Cesium, pehaps you remember Ayoob's...

semi-serious advice regarding a hand to hand fight:

You see your attacker take a very practiced-looking stance. You say, "Hey, what are you, some sort of black-belt professional?"

Him: "Yup--and I'm gonna put you in the hospital!"

You: "Oh. I believe you." [BLAMBLAMBLAM....]

Prior knowledge of disparity of force, intent to maim, your reasonable perception of same, with witnesses. All that's missing is the pretty bow on the package!

(Not really advice here, but an easy way to remember what are the elements needed for a defensible shooting of an unarmed attacker--good mnemonic, and fun, too!)

 

[Chuck Spears]

Getting punched in the face, under normal circumstances, is not considered a crippling blow or a death blow. Yes, a skilled fighter can incapacitate or kill someone with a well-placed punch to the face. However you cannot use this legal defense unless you knew the individual's background before the incident.

I disagree. Most states have the phrase "or great bodily harm" listed in the rules. If you don't think a punch can do great bodily harm then you are mistaken in my opinion. Will it always do great bodily harm? No, but it doesn't matter. It is common enough for people to experience severe medical problems from receiving a strong blow to the skull. So as I mentioned in my post, if you feel that you can't handle the person with words or your hands and firmly believe they intend to hurt you, then you should fire. You have no idea what kind of damage you will sustain so why risk it? I have people who depend on my health. I hold my health and safety in higher regard than the life of a violent attacker for that very reason.

 

[NonConformist]

I suggest you actually read the Florida law. It says you are presumed to be right in your assumption the person was a legitimate threat. It doesn't say that the police won't investigate and it doesn't say that charges can't be filed if the investigation shows you weren't right. All it does is relieve YOU of the burden of proving you were right.

And where did I say anything different in my post? I didnt mr moderator man. Im entitled to my opinion, if you get butthurt so easily you probably shouldnt hang on the web!

Why don't you post you real name and experience in this field so that we may judge if you are right? It's only fair, Mas Ayoob writes under his own name, posts here under his own name and his resume is available to all of us. Please post yours.

Jeff

All im saying is according to his stuff that Ive read, his basic gist is "OMG if you do anything to a gun and its not 100%stock the jury will hang you blah blah blah"

AFA him hanging here, cool. But my opinion remains the same! You dont like it, fine, but i dont have to prove anything to anyone because at the end of the day all that matters is my approval of myself!

 

[Fred Fuller]

i dont have to prove anything to anyone because at the end of the day all that matters is my approval of myself!

I'm of the opinion that the opinions of responding officers, investigating detectives, DAs or prosecutors, and grand juries among others carry a bit more weight than my opinion, but then that's just me. Other people's mileage might vary of course.

lpl

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I disagree. Most states have the phrase "or great bodily harm" listed in the rules. If you don't think a punch can do great bodily harm then you are mistaken in my opinion.

A black eye or bloody nose, the injury most typical and associated with a blow to the head are not considered great bodily harm. Most punches to the head won't result in your dying. That is fact. A minority of blows to the head placed by great luck or a skilled fighter can result in great bodily injury or death, but in the eyes of the law this exception to the rule does not negate the rule. Cases of self-defense are judged by the Reasonable Man Doctrine, whereby a reasonable and prudent person would act exactly as if you had. Again, if you were someone with great physical ailments, you can legally use lethal force since getting punched in the head, with your medical conditions, might guarantee a kill.

Using the same logic construct you've created, can we kill someone because they tried to kick me in the leg? A shattered femur is considered great bodily injury, and an extremely lucky blow or one placed by a martial artist can likely break my femur. Can I shoot someone on a golf course that struck me with a golf ball? A golf ball, if struck just so, can cause severe head trauma.

By taking all these extremes based on "what if" rather than "what usually is", you're taking major legal risks. Yes, perhaps in a non-existent world that you envision, not tied up by such much monetary and legal hassle after-the-fact, you can go about shooting people if they so much as take a swing at you. However in the real world, you might survive the encounter, but not the aftermath in the court system. That is ultimately up to you how much risk you take.

You can disagree with me, but what I stated is based on training courses and what the law already recognizes and follows, not opinion. Taking "great bodily harm" in itself is absolutely worthless outside the context of the law and all the other bits and pieces that incorporate with it. Very rarely will a healthy male defendant using self-defense in the manner you describe make it off the hook. Cutthroat prosecutors already chase after anyone using firearms successfully in self-defense. Under the circumstances you've created, it'd make their job that much easier.

"This poor man went to take a slap at Chuck Spear's head. So Chuck Spear shot him in the face". That's going to be damned hard to explain.

Your explanation of "well, his punch could have killed me" is not good enough.

Now, if you're a woman, 9 time sout of 10, disparity of force exists against a bare-fisted man and you can blast him away. If you are handicapped or have physical ailments, you can play the eggshell skull doctrine which illustrates a disparity of force. You, as a healthy male of average size and build going up against another bare-fisted healthy male of average size and build does not, under the reasonable man doctrine, give a disparity of force unless you can come up with some very obvious and additional exculpatory evidence that suggests ability was there.

Look into the definition of great bodily harm, serious physical injury, and the concept of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and the reasonable man doctrine. You cannot form an airtight legal defense by saying that his punching you was "great bodily harm". You'll fail epically.

 

[kcshooter]

Most punches to the head won't result in your dying. That is fact.

Some do. How do I know which one I'm about to be hit with? How do I know when he's gonna stop? How do I know he won't overpower me, take my gun, shoot me and possibly someone else?

If you think it's uncommon for people to end up in a hospital after a fistfight, you should really spend more time in a hospital. Even a broken nose can result in multiple surgeries being needed. Is this not great bodily injury in a reasonable man's opinion?

I have no problem walking away from an incident. I'm mature and responsible enough to know that almost every time, I will be able to turn my back and get out of the situation. If you aren't able to buck up and walk away, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Getting into a fistfight while carrying a gun (for the average citizen) is sheer foolishness.

Should the situation arise that I can't get out of, after warning the attacker against attempting to harm me, I'm ready, willing, and able to defend myself thru the use of a firearm.

 

[Chuck Spears]

"This poor man went to take a slap at Chuck Spear's head. So Chuck Spear shot him in the face". That's going to be damned hard to explain.

Did you bother to read my posts before commenting on them? I advised nothing of the sort. I said personally I would try to end the situation with words. If that didn't work, I'd use my hands if he weren't much bigger than me since I'm a decent sized fellow. If I didn't think any of that would work then yes, I would shoot someone to prevent myself from getting punched in the head. I was perfectly fine with getting punched in the head back in the day. But now I've finished up school, have a career, and more importantly a family that depends on me for income. Just bc most punches don't cause serious damage doesn't mean you should be fine taking one to the skull. If you want to get caught up on "mosts" and stats then why even carry a gun at all? Most people will never need one according to the stats. You may be comfortable living your life by standards set by average occurrences but I won't. I'm not too worried about the legal aspects either. There's several cops in the family and they all have cop friends. I discuss this with them all the time and they've always assured me that with a half decent lawyer I shouldn't have any problems given my perfectly clean record. Then again I have always lived in the Southeastern states where a person is still given the right to defend themselves.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Some do. How do I know which one I'm about to be hit with? How do I know when he's gonna stop? How do I know he won't overpower me, take my gun, shoot me and possibly someone else?

I have no problem walking away from an incident. I'm mature and responsible enough to know that almost every time, I will be able to turn my back and get out of the situation. If you aren't able to buck up and walk away, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Getting into a fistfight while carrying a gun (for the average citizen) is sheer foolishness.

Should the situation arise that I can't get out of, after warning the attacker against attempting to harm me, I'm ready, willing, and able to defend myself thru the use of a firearm.

Pretty much the exact words that the cops have told me. If someone is crazy enough to beat you to a pulp then would you really trust them while they are standing over your unconscious body with your pistol laying there? They were also very adamant that if someone continues to attack even after you draw then you better shoot them. So given the scenario presented in the OP, I say you'd be crazy not to shoot. I would try to diffuse before drawing but once you commit then you have to follow through.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Just bc most punches don't cause serious damage doesn't mean you should be fine taking one to the skull.

I think we have a misscommunication. It doesn't matter what I think. My arguments are based on how the law will view you and I as civilians by default, who can only apply equal force, not lethal force (unless lethal force is applied upon us). That is why we can't shoot someone for kicking our shin or punching our head except under very specific situations. You will require the ability to clearly articulate your case. You aren't trying to convince me. You are trying to convince 12 people which probably have NO experience in self-defense or firearms training.

I agree with you that I don't want to get punched in the face and that I shouldn't have to get punched in the face either and take that risk, however small. I am a lousy fighter and the last thing I want to do is engage physically with someone until I'm so pummeled that I can finally apply lethal force because disparity of force becomes present. What if the first punch knocks me out? I might be killed when out cold.

But now I've finished up school, have a career, and more importantly a family that depends on me for income.

I understand where you're coming from and how you have a greater responsibility to take care of your family. At the same time, if you aren't worried enough about the legal aspects of how to deal with stuff post-incident, dealing with a criminal and very possible civil court case can really ruin your finances too.

There's several cops in the family and they all have cop friends. I discuss this with them all the time and they've always assured me that with a half decent lawyer I shouldn't have any problems given my perfectly clean record.

Cops are not lawyers or judges. Knowing cops can give you a bit of a head start over someone starting from square one, but it isn't sound, legal advise. If they were, we'd have no court systems and reality would mirror Judge Dredd. Cops would be dispensing justice on the streets. Law enforcement are called upon as witnesses to the court, but they are not inherently tied into the judicial system. They are peace-keepers. If law was so simple that you could rely on the legal advise of a cop, why are there so many lawyers that specialize in real estate, traffic violations, divorce, criminal cases, civil cases, etc? Surely a law enforcement officer is not an expert at law? Would you hire one of your cop friends or family to represent your defense in a court of law? I would hope not (maybe as a character witness or expert witness, yes) Unless you have Massad Ayoob or a similar, and exceptional individual whom has a resume that is closely tied into the actual judicial system, you should probably consult an actual lawyer for legal advise.

Also keep in mind...most criminal defense lawyers have a clientele that are *drum roll* criminals. What you want is a lawyer that has experience or specialization in arguing self-defense.

Take a look at what happened at Harold Fish (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/) when pretty much all of us saw it as a clear-cut case of self defense. You can do everything right and still get stuck on murder charges.

Some do. How do I know which one I'm about to be hit with?

Problem is you don't know. That is simply reality. There are no black and whites and it's very nebulous. If it was so clear cut, our judicial system would be processed by robots reviewing facts, instead of by humans that have to be placed in your mindset at the time of the incident. Unless you can clearly articulate in court credible reasons why you thought his ability as a bare-fisted individual put you at a disparity of force, then your probability of being charged with murder are much higher. Keep in mind these cases use the reasonable man doctrine, which is "what would a reasonable and prudent person do, given the knowledge you had at the time?".

Remember...you aren't trying to convince me. You are trying to convince 12 people which probably have NO experience in self-defense or firearms training. Basically you are trying to convince 12 Democrats that you had to employ an evil gun to kill someone who was misunderstood by society. How does that work?

 

[kcshooter]

Problem is you don't know. That is simply reality.

Exactly. Now go re-read your laws, keeping that in mind.

 

[mtruette]

Think

I have to say I agree with Kentucky Dave. Also remember our actions can add to the ammo of the liberals that want to take our right to own guns. Also while you are looking at the statutes Dave posted for you look at the definition of Aggravated Assualt and Aggravated Battery. You look it up and you will remember it longer. Also drive careful and look where you are backing. Thanks Kentucky Dave.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Exactly. Now go re-read your laws, keeping that in mind.

I have, and I've gotten legal education and legal advise which I am satisfied with. Now, is yours from a perspective of legal advise of a different school of thought, or just speculative personal opinion?

While we're "what if"ing here, how would you respond to the following?

Someone takes a strong kick to your leg. Are you going to shoot them because its possible that they could break your femur? It isn't outside the realm of possibility that a highly trained martial artist can break your leg. You don't know if that blow will be crippling or not, and such a blow would make you quite handicapped, which would satisfy great bodily injury. What if a bone shard severs your femoral artery? You wouldn't be handicapped, but dead.

 

[kcshooter]

Now, is yours from a perspective of legal advise of a different school of thought, or just speculative personal opinion?

Father and brother are both lawyers licensed in Missouri and Illinois. My father was indeed a prosecutor for a large city. I have a personal friendship with 2 police officers. I know what will fly as far as a defendable position of self defense, both in the views of law enforcement and the courts. You views are not congruent with the facts.

While we're "what if"ing here, how would you respond to the following?

Someone takes a strong kick to your leg. Are you going to shoot them because its possible that they could break your femur? It isn't outside the realm of possibility that a highly trained martial artist can break your leg. You don't know if that blow will be crippling or not, and such a blow would make you quite handicapped, which would satisfy great bodily injury. What if a bone shard severs your femoral artery? You wouldn't be handicapped, but dead.

This isn't even a remotely complete scenario. "Someone takes a kick at my leg?" That's it??
There are other factors to be considered. Such as what situation has gotten me in contact with this person, why is he angry enough to kick me, what have I done to diffuse the situation, have I made every attempt to leave, have others seen me make the attempt to leave, am I unable to get away from the situation, etc. You can't just take this at face value, and this is what you aren't understanding about this discussion.

If a grand jury were instructed to consider this situation, your description doesn't have any of the situational descriptors that would be required.

Again, if you can't bring yourself to back down and walk away, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Tough guy attitudes and CCW's don't mix.

There's a fine line between mutual combat and a self defense situation. But it's a very easy line to see if you know what you are looking for. I know my abilities to get out of confrontations. My days of brawling were over the minute I decided to carry a firearm on my person at all times. I won't be involved in a mutual combat situation. I would have made several attempts to get away from an attacker prior to his ability to get close enough to kick me. So in my case, yes, I would be justified and would most likely be able to prove this in a court of law.



How does the situation not equate an attempt to cause great bodily injury? The guy has intent, motive, and opportunity to do so. How are you not able to see this?? If you are willing to have yourself incapacitated while carrying a firearm, that's your decision and thats fine with me. I will not allow it to happen. If I can't get away from an attacked I will defend myself. I'm much less worried about prosecution than I am about being seriously injured, crippled, or killed. Of course, that's just my priorities, yours may line up differently.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Well the upsetting thing is that from the legal opinions and advise I've gotten myself from LEO and attorneys, they differ in conclusion and in the past, and I've heard many different things from practitioners in this field. After this discussion, I fear that there is no conclusive agreement that is widely accepted by all. However I will concede that I too would rather be alive to deal with the court system after-the-fact, regardless of how unfair or difficult it may be. Everyone values their life and would revert to base instincts to survive regardless of laws created by society.

No one here has suggested the tough guy attitude. Of course, as a reasonable and prudent person, you are going to make every attempt to avoid, diffuse, disengage, and retreat (if safe to do so) to avoid the situation if at all possible. Such attitudes are both beneficial to your life in general and as a more easily defensible position in front a jury of your peers--that you are not a hot-headed fool looking for trouble, but a sensible individual trying to make it through life with minimal friction.

The punch-to-the-head being debated on earlier posts was not a "complete scenario" either as far as a detailed situational breakdown showing all options and limitations of the scenario. We as debaters made the assumption that everything prior to that exact moment of being the receiver of the punch gave all indications of an imminent attack on your persons. The catch was that this individual was unarmed and the crux of the debate--can you convince a jury of 12 individual minds (not me, a prosecutor, or the judge) that an unknown person throwing a punch constituted an undeniable deadly attack. My position was that it was "iffy". Yours was that lethal force would be easily justified and defensible in court. I hope you are right that your articulation can convince 12 jurors because convincing people to think from your perspective is quite difficult. Look at the pickle we're in right now.

We should be using the same set of head-punching assumptions and apply them to the leg-kicking scenario as we're trying to compare apples-to-apples. There are plenty of assaulting injuries, that under "ideal" circumstances, can cause irreparable harm or death. What we will find are varying degrees of murkiness.

How does the situation not equate an attempt to cause great bodily injury?

Using the AOJ model, opportunity and jeopardy are satisfied. Opportunity being they are within attacking distance with no obstructions betwixt, and jeopardy being they threatened your life. Ability to cause that jeopardy then, must be articulated in court. To prove that the perpetrator of the crime had the ability to take your life in one swing is what you have to convince 12 individuals of. Replace the man with a child, and ability obviously isn't there. Replace the child with a 6'8" 400lb that looks like a bodybuilder, and you create a huge disparity of force which makes it quite easy to show ability. Using an unknown individual of similar size to yourself that -might- be an ex-Ranger, martial artist, etc., is much more difficult unless you can establish pre-fight indicators or dialogue beforehand that verified their superior ability. A typical jury member, probably not trained in martial arts and firearms will be applying the "reasonable man doctrine" in their decision-making process. Would a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what you knew at the time, act in the same manner?

Recall that if charges are being pursued against you to the point of trial, that a self-defense case means you have to admit to homicide, and articulate that it was specifically justifiable homicide, as justifiable homicide covers self-defense essentially. The prosecutor is going to play mens rea (guilty mind) and try to push that murder-2 charge. I suppose we aren't going to reach an agreed conclusion because it's all various shades of gray. You can have the greatest lawyer in the world with a host of expert witnesses and character witnesses, a clear-cut case of self-defense, and the jury can still find you guilty if they are so predisposed to think firearms are evil and it clouts their judgment.

 

[tpaw]

Cesiumsponge writes:

Getting punched in the face, under normal circumstances, is not considered a crippling blow or a death blow. Yes, a skilled fighter can incapacitate or kill

I could not disagree more! What do you consider "normal circumstances" about being punched in the face? Being punched is just that, being punched. I stand 6'2" and weight 250. If I punched you in the face, not only would I probably knock you unconscious, but I'd probably break bones in you face. Not to mention possible nerve or brain damage, or even death from hemorrhaging. And no, I am not a trained fighter unless you want to count my military time. Then, guess what, your gun is mine.

 

[Erik]

I agree with Cesiumsponge, this notion that typical physical conflict, i.e punching and kicking, justifies the use of lethal force is wrong. That some members here fall into the exceptions, i.e. old, infirm, are tiny women, etc does not change that reality.

Now, typical physical conflicts may certainly lead to the justified use of lethal force, but that justification will come, if at all, after the beginning of the fight.

 

[kcshooter]

Now, typical physical conflicts may certainly lead to the justified use of lethal force, but that justification will come, if at all, after the beginning of the fight.

This is where you are entirely wrong and will definitely end up in a court room. You just entered into mutual combat then took someones life. This is the definition of manslaughter, period.

It's very simple. If you carry a gun, you have the responsibility to not get into a fight. I will say again, if you don't have it in you to walk away, you don't need to be carrying a gun. If you are unable to get away after trying every possible route you can to escape the attack, you are now in danger of great bodily harm. This isn't that difficult.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I could not disagree more! What do you consider "normal circumstances" about being punched in the face? Being punched is just that, being punched. I stand 6'2" and weight 250. If I punched you in the face, not only would I probably knock you unconscious, but I'd probably break bones in you face. Not to mention possible nerve or brain damage, or even death from hemorrhaging. And no, I am not a trained fighter unless you want to count my military time. Then, guess what, your gun is mine.

That is why the law and courts already addresses this. It's called ability, and disparity of force.

Recall that as civilians, we can apply equal force, not necessary force as law enforcement can. A reasonable and prudent person (the reasonable man doctrine) would believe, based only on the observation of your superior size and stature, that disparity of force is present. Disparity of force comes into play multiple ways, and sheer physical size is one such way. Therefore, I can use lethal force to stop your attack, which would be considered lethal on someone my size (much smaller). Same applies for women versus bare-fisted men, multiple attackers, or your being crippled or handicapped in some manner (eggshell skull doctrine). I am not making up the term "disparity of force". If you don't trust me since I am a nobody (and I wouldn't either), check it out; it only takes a few minutes of your time.

Ignatius Piazza of Front Sight keeps a blog where topics on disparity of force are common. The last entry on the topic was earlier last month.

Also, an archived article by Massad Ayoob on disparity of force. Ayoob has nearly 30 years of experience on this topic.

 

[mgregg85]

I worry often about this type of situation because I am a pretty big guy, 6' and 250 pounds. So theres fair odds that an attacker would be smaller than me.
I feel that I could hold my own in a fight/brawl with someone my size or smaller. This is assuming that they, like me, have no martial arts training of any kind.

What I am afraid of is someone smaller than me who is a damn good fighter and determined to give me a beating. What am I supposed to do in that situation?
The only things i've been able to come up with is try to become a better fighter. To this end I have been doing some MMA type fighting with some friends who are into that(though I have no martial training, mixed or otherwise). This is helping but I'm hoping to get some real martial arts training some day.

I've been carrying a kimber guardian angel for situations like these so I could avoid using my CCW unless I absolutely had to.

 

[kcshooter]

That is why the law and courts already addresses this. It's called ability, and disparity of force.... Disparity of force comes into play multiple ways, and sheer physical size is one such way.

Then I guess it's a good thing that all the blackbelts are 6'4" and 285lbs.


My point here is I was in a club about 8 years ago, and watched a couple guys start messing with another guy. The two instigators were average-larger size, about 6' and close to 200lbs. The other guy was about 5'9" tops and maybe 150lbs. Words came to shoves, and I've never seen anyone take out even one guy with such speed and precision since. The little guy had both of these guys down on their backs in less than 2 seconds. If you blinked, you wouldn't have seen it happen.
I'm physically bigger than that guy. He could have incapacitated me before I knew it even happened.
Now what?

 

[conw]

I will have to wade through all this interesting info later, but in case no one has mentioned it - an attacker can go from "unarmed" to "stabbing or shooting" in less than a second. If you are being approached and your intuition tells you the attacker represents a lethal threat, act accordingly.

Tune your intuition beforehand as much as possible.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Then I guess it's a good thing that all the blackbelts are 6'4" and 285lbs.

No one here has claimed that martial artists must be huge hulking individuals so I don't know where that misconception came from. Its simply that a large size difference already establishes a disparity of force, no other factors taken into consideration. But like the courts have recognized, unless you know the fact beforehand that your attacker is some trained fighter, an escaped serial killer, a mental patient, or a psycho, or whathaveyou that might provide exculpatory evidence, the jury cannot use those facts in the decision-making process to determine if you were justified in your actions because they played no role in your actions.

There are women martial arts experts and could promptly whoop all our butts in no seconds flat, and in general women are of much smaller stature than men. Would you apply the exact same set of action-reaction thought processes if it was a woman, instead of a man, taking a swing at your head?

The risk is just as plausible and real as Joe Random Goon you might encounter on the streets whom might be a martial artist. Both are not commonplace, but the argument I've been hearing thusfar is "you never know", so application of deadly force is justified if retreat and diffusion is not possible based on arguments I've been hearing. If "you never know if a woman might be a trained black belt", do you react the same way, given the exact same scenario, except gender? And shoot? I'm just curious.