Self Defense and Poor Health

[bullseye308]

Myself and many others have differing degrees of impairment that may prevent us from running from a fight or even fighting at all. That being the case, the question was brought up amongst some friends that a diminished or disabled person may be inclined to shoot earlier in a confrontation than an able bodied person that would be able to fight or get away from the same situation.
How about a case of mistaken identity, some guy thinks you slighted his sister and wants to uphold her honor. Whatever scenario fits, but I'll use myself here. I'm 46 and a little overweight. I have had 6 heart attacks, a small stroke, a bad back, neck, knees, have obvious heart problems and COPD, and muscle and nerve problems. I can't run, can't fight, and if put in a situation where I feel threatened may in fact shoot sooner than I would have 10 years ago.
The question is if you have to go to court after would your health be taken into consideration as why you didn't try harder to talk your way out of the incident and not have to shoot? Many thousands of possible scenarios are possible but I'm just interested in if people think that being disabled, dismissed, or in poor health would help justify you feeling the need to shoot.

I'm using myself as an example and I have quite a few friends with health issues and this is just something that came up. None of us have been in that position and hope to never be, so let's see what you all think.

 

[Tirod]

I will suggest that if you are not confronted by their use of lethal force, you are wrong no matter what. Even healthy fit people get that completely wrong.

Being armed, the level of certainty you will likely express should communicate to the other person just how difficult things may go. Therefore it's not a given that being armed and unhealthy means you are going to appear easy prey. I'm in little better condition than the OP but when I carry I'm first of all not looking to get into a confrontation and secondly if being aggressed against not well versed in backing down - armed or not.

Bare hand combatives and alternate weapons in carry can round out the differences, but first and foremost is attitude. When an aggressor senses fear and subordination is when things go badly.

 

[9MMare]

Pretty sure disparity of force would cover much of what you are describing in court.

 

[MEHavey]

An aggressor's imminent threat of lethal force is in the eye of the beholder (and the jury).
But until you have seen the effect of a single hard blow to the face -- much less a kick to the head or a head slammed against cement -- you have no conception of how much damage can be done.

In that light, In People v. La Voie, Supreme Court of Colorado, 395 P.2d 1001 (1964), The court wrote, "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is imminent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself...."

My general rules however are:
- Avoid situations where threat is foreseeable.
- If you can, Retreat (save in defense of home or others where no retreat is practical)

This isn't England... yet.


.

 

[MEHavey]

-delete-

 

[GRIZ22]

The topic you areally considering is called disparity of force. Masada Ayoob has a good article on it available on line. Just Google "disparity of force".

It doesn't only apply to people with physical disabilities. It also applies to a perfectly fit armed defender being attacked by multiple unarmed assailants or an assailant much bigger and stronger. The Ferguson, MO shootong is one example. Doesn't mean you can shoot them all if attacked by multiple assailants. Each case is judged by the totality of the circumstances. It may end with the police investigation or it may go to a full trial.

I have personal knowledge of a few such incidents. One was a cretin attempting to rob a legally armed person as they entered the subway. The bad guy came up from behind and put the good guy in a choke hold. Now if the good guy was Chuck Norris he could have dealt with this unarmed. But he was not. He drew a 22 auto, reached around under his arm and shot. The bad guy let go and ran away. The bad guy ran one block and dropped dead. The bulket had entered his armpit and lodied in his heart.

Another was a uniformed officer getting stomped on by 3 bad guys. He attempted to defend himself but could see it wasn't working, drew his handgun and shot one of them. DRT. The others fled. They were eventually captured and charged with the death of their comrade.

In both cases investigation of the defending shooter ended with the police investigation. Neither were charged with anything. BTW both incidents occurred in NYC.

 

[Bad Ninja]

I don't think I would shoot "earlier", however due to age and declining health, the threshold where I legitimately fear my life is in danger MAY be lower than it was when I was a buck-strong 30 year old.
Im too old, too slow, and too arthritic to run from most confrontational situations.

My solution is situational awarenes, which IMHO, is the best tool we have concerning personal safety.
It's saved my butt more times than any gun i have ever owned.

 

[Shaq]

The topic you areally considering is called disparity of force. Masada Ayoob has a good article on it available on line. Just Google "disparity of force".

It doesn't only apply to people with physical disabilities. It also applies to a perfectly fit armed defender being attacked by multiple unarmed assailants or an assailant much bigger and stronger. The Ferguson, MO shootong is one example. Doesn't mean you can shoot them all if attacked by multiple assailants. Each case is judged by the totality of the circumstances. It may end with the police investigation or it may go to a full trial.

I have personal knowledge of a few such incidents. One was a cretin attempting to rob a legally armed person as they entered the subway. The bad guy came up from behind and put the good guy in a choke hold. Now if the good guy was Chuck Norris he could have dealt with this unarmed. But he was not. He drew a 22 auto, reached around under his arm and shot. The bad guy let go and ran away. The bad guy ran one block and dropped dead. The bulket had entered his armpit and lodied in his heart.

Another was a uniformed officer getting stomped on by 3 bad guys. He attempted to defend himself but could see it wasn't working, drew his handgun and shot one of them. DRT. The others fled. They were eventually captured and charged with the death of their comrade.

In both cases investigation of the defending shooter ended with the police investigation. Neither were charged with anything. BTW both incidents occurred in NYC.

And, age is also a factor. In the above-described scenario, Chuck Norris would be able to deal with such a situation without deadly force...when he was young. At his current age, he would likely not be able to if his attacker was young.

 

[salt&battery]

The topic you areally considering is called disparity of force. Masada Ayoob has a good article on it available on line. Just Google "disparity of force".

It doesn't only apply to people with physical disabilities. It also applies to a perfectly fit armed defender being attacked by multiple unarmed assailants or an assailant much bigger and stronger. The Ferguson, MO shootong is one example. Doesn't mean you can shoot them all if attacked by multiple assailants. Each case is judged by the totality of the circumstances. It may end with the police investigation or it may go to a full trial.

I have personal knowledge of a few such incidents. One was a cretin attempting to rob a legally armed person as they entered the subway. The bad guy came up from behind and put the good guy in a choke hold. Now if the good guy was Chuck Norris he could have dealt with this unarmed. But he was not. He drew a 22 auto, reached around under his arm and shot. The bad guy let go and ran away. The bad guy ran one block and dropped dead. The bulket had entered his armpit and lodied in his heart.

Another was a uniformed officer getting stomped on by 3 bad guys. He attempted to defend himself but could see it wasn't working, drew his handgun and shot one of them. DRT. The others fled. They were eventually captured and charged with the death of their comrade.

In both cases investigation of the defending shooter ended with the police investigation. Neither were charged with anything. BTW both incidents occurred in NYC.

trying get a permit in NYC to carry is like trying to get a permit to build a mosque inside Vatican property. in the state of Washington a reporter was covering a BLM protest along with others protesting. when they found out he worked for a site that was against them they surrounded him started throwing objects at him. he pulled out his legal handgun to scare them for not even a minute. never fired it. a swat team rappelled out of a copter tackled him and arrested him. saw the whole thing on you tube. making it seem like you will never be charged in a shooting is bad advice

 

[bullseye308]

Thank you, disparity of force is what I was looking for. Many different situations where that applies. I do practice situational awareness and avoid places where trouble is known to be whenever possible. So far personally I have never had to draw and was able to get out of a few hairy situations with nothing more than some flared tempers and an insinuation of grave bodily harm.
Some of us take less damage to equal great bodily harm than others and that is kind of what I meant. In my case it wouldn't take much of a hit to rebreak my neck, back, 7 ribs, collar bone, or shoulder. With my heart and COPD I cannot have any kind of surgery that isn't life threatening and even then my Dr would be hesitant to do it. Just about anyone attacking me could do me great bodily harm without much effort if I can't get away or diffuse the situation.
Like I said, I practice situational awareness and avoid bad places, I try to be nice and polite to everyone I meet, and avoid confrontation at all costs. Only if I had no other choice would I draw and fire, and at that point I would definitely be in imminent danger. Hopefully that day will never come.

 

[Danoobie]

I would be concerned that you will be much more likely be a target victim, due to declining health.
The predators like to isolate the weak and slow at the outskirts of the herd .
So that not only will you have to defend yourself more aggressively, the whole attack may happen
on an accelerated time-frame.

It may be key, in your situation, to avoid getting isolated, in bad places. IMO, worry less
about what to do in court, and more about not ever having to go there, in the first place.

 

[Kendahl]

Look up "disparity of force". The law gives more latitude to a victim who is at a physical disadvantage compared to his assailant. Your afflictions are a good example. Multiple attackers is another. The critical element still is whether you had a good reason to fear imminent serious injury or death.

 

[GRIZ22]

And, age is also a factor. In the above-described scenario, Chuck Norris would be able to deal with such a situation without deadly force...when he was young. At his current age, he would likely not be able to if his attacker was young.

Yes, age is a factor. I still think Chuck can handle one or two bad guys now

trying get a permit in NYC to carry is like trying to get a permit to build a mosque inside Vatican property. in the state of Washington a reporter was covering a BLM protest along with others protesting. when they found out he worked for a site that was against them they surrounded him started throwing objects at him. he pulled out his legal handgun to scare them for not even a minute. never fired it. a swat team rappelled out of a copter tackled him and arrested him. saw the whole thing on you tube. making it seem like you will never be charged in a shooting is bad advice

Intetesting to know if that reporter was charged in the incident you related if it all was on video.I wasn't trying to make anyone seem they will not be charged in a SD shooting. A lot of people keep saying you will always be charged. The two incidents I related illustrate there in some common sense being exercised in NYC. Maybe not much but some.

At the other extreme in NYC, there was a DA in Queens who prosecuted every shooting. SD or not. Civilian or police. Fortunately, grand juries refused to indict on most clear SD shootings.

 

[salt&battery]

Yes, age is a factor. I still think Chuck can handle one or two bad guys now



Intetesting to know if that reporter was charged in the incident you related if it all was on video.I wasn't trying to make anyone seem they will not be charged in a SD shooting. A lot of people keep saying you will always be charged. The two incidents I related illustrate there in some common sense being exercised in NYC. Maybe not much but some.

At the other extreme in NYC, there was a DA in Queens who prosecuted every shooting. SD or not. Civilian or police. Fortunately, grand juries refused to indict on most clear SD shootings.

never found out what happened to that reporter but as far as I see it getting treated by swat like he shot the pope is bad enough. I am sure after the show swat put on they charged him. I was born in Bklyn NY till 18 then moved about 40 miles away

 

[Kleanbore]

How about a case of mistaken identity, some guy thinks you slighted his sister and wants to uphold her honor. .... I can't run, can't fight, and if put in a situation where I feel threatened may in fact shoot sooner than I would have 10 years ago.

Does the presence of a person who believes that his sister "has been slighted" and who wants to "uphold her honor" place you in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm? Could you argue effectively that a reasonable person under similar circumstances, knowing what you knew at time at the time, would have resorted to deadly force?

If yes, the disparity of force of force issue that others have discussed would become germane.

Otherwise, no.

"Feeling threatened" is not , in and of itself, an acceptable reason for resorting to the use of force, deadly or otherwise.

Regarding your greater susceptibility to serious injury, you would best be served by being able to document that that risk had been made known to you before the incident. Goes back to "knowing what you knew at the time".

 

[FL-NC]

I'm confident that your physical state would be taken into consideration. An elderly person, a double amputee, etc. also have less options available to them than, say, a healthy 20-something Marine.

 

[GRIZ22]

Yes, age is a factor. I still think Chuck can handle one or two bad guys now



Intetesting to know if that reporter was charged in the incident you related if it all was on video.I wasn't trying to make anyone seem they will not be charged in a SD shooting. A lot of people keep saying you will always be charged. The two incidents I related illustrate there in some common sense being exercised in NYC. Maybe not much but some.

At the other extreme in NYC, there was a DA in Queens who prosecuted every shooting. SD or not. Civilian or police. Fortunately, grand juries refused to indict on most clear SD shootings.

Correction that was a DA in Brooklyn. A friend got involved in an obvious SD shooting in NY (attempted carjack) and I remember him saying he was lucky he was 2 blocks into Queens.

My error.

 

[Alte Schule]

Twenty plus years ago when Texas first adopted concealed carry one of the first arrests of a person with a carry license was an elderly man who was, if my memory serves me right, involved in a minor traffic accident with a much younger man. The younger person came to the elderly mans vehicle and began punching him in the face through the open window. The elderly man drew his CC pistol and shot the guy DRT. He was arrested.
The district attorney refused to accept charges stating that if your face is being used as a "punching bag" you have every right to use the force necessary to stop the assault up to and including lethal force.

 

[Kleanbore]

Twenty plus years ago when Texas first adopted concealed carry one of the first arrests of a person with a carry license was an elderly man who was, if my memory serves me right, involved in a minor traffic accident with a much younger man. The younger person came to the elderly mans vehicle and began punching him in the face through the open window. The elderly man drew his CC pistol and shot the guy DRT. He was arrested.
The district attorney refused to accept charges stating that if your face is being used as a "punching bag" you have every right to use the force necessary to stop the assault up to and including lethal force.

In that instance, the defender was already under attack--it was much mor than a matter of "feeling threatened".

The district attorney's words might not hold in many cases--if a disparity of force existed, the attacker had the ability and the opportunity to cause death or serious harm; the the defender was obviously in jeopardy; and since the defender was seated in his car, it is possible that he had no choice.

But I would not rely on the DA's reported explanation as advice on the justification of deadly force.

 

[hdwhit]

bullseye 308 wrote:
The question is if you have to go to court after would your health be taken into consideration as why you didn't try harder to talk your way out of the incident and not have to shoot?

You should ask that this thread be moved to Legal where the attorneys can answer that question with some certainty.

Assuming your attorney can get your poor health in the record, I think as a practical matter the weight to be attached to it will probably be left to the jury.

 

[olafhardtB]

I have in some civil confrontations turned off some pretty persistant verbal abuse by simply saying, "Look I have serious heart disease and my chest is hurting." My point is that doing anything to upset a seriously disabled person might kill them. I feel as though I could be killed by just getting in a serious argument and I have medical records to back up my feelings.

 

[strambo]

Yes, it is definitely a huge factor as many stated above. I'm pretty fit and highly trained in H2H, so barring something else, I may have a hard time if I shoot an unarmed male of similar size. Bring in multiples, a size/strength disparity, weapons etc. and that changes things. Either way, I do everything I can to avoid it altogether (not hard, I'm an introvert anyway).

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes, it is definitely a huge factor as many stated above.

But of course it would not become a factor unless force were necessary in the first place.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I don't think disability has anything to do with "the point in which lethal force is deemed necessary". That "point" should be the same for everyone.

The difference is options. The disabled have far less options than a fit healthy person. A fit 220lb man who has a single aggressor of the same or less size might not be as justified as the OP in using lethal force.

Therefore, drawing earlier isn't the best train of thought, it's that if you felt you had to draw you might be deemed more easily justified given your disabilities.

 

[strambo]

I don't think disability has anything to do with "the point in which lethal force is deemed necessary". That "point" should be the same for everyone.

The difference is options. The disabled have far less options than a fit healthy person. A fit 220lb man who has a single aggressor of the same or less size might not be as justified as the OP in using lethal force.

Therefore, drawing earlier isn't the best train of thought, it's that if you felt you had to draw you might be deemed more easily justified given your disabilities.

Your first two paragraphs are contradictory.

If someone attacks you ala shoving-fist fight, you can use reasonable force (like force) to defend yourself. That's assuming similar size etc. Sub in handicaps like the OP and the shoving fist-fight threat is now a threat of grave bodily injury to the handicapped person where it wouldn't be to an able bodied individual.

This is also being over-complicated. Forget the hypotheticals. Are you in fear of immediate grave bodily harm or death (and is that fear reasonable given the circumstances to include your health) or not?

My hand to hand instructors have a couple sayings to help know if your in a lethal force situation. 1. If you are asking yourself if it is ok to use this (lethal force h2h) then it's not ok.

2. Insert any situation and finish it with "and then I stabbed them in the neck". If the story finished that way sounds reasonable, ok. If not, it wasn't a deadly force situation.