Infidel, both of these statements are extremely irresponsible. They do not constitute good advice.
There are numerous links available to us here that explain what most experts consider justification for the use of deadly force. Being confronted by someone, particularly an unarmed someone, who "looks" like he "could" beat one to death does not fall into that category. I'm not sure I would accept any advice from that author.
Deadly force can be justified under certain circumstances in the event of a serious attack by someone who is unarmed. Usually, the reason has to do with a disparity of force. You can learn a lot about what that means from reputable instructors, but remember that the ultimate determination would be made by others about what was reasonable.
The knockout game is a serious business. I think that conw's input here makes a lot of sense.
Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see.
Guys like me, on the other hand, will continue to carry our guns. And if we’re someday confronted by an unarmed scumbag who looks like he could beat us to death... we’re going to draw, aim, and engage as necessary.
There are numerous links available to us here that explain what most experts consider justification for the use of deadly force. Being confronted by someone, particularly an unarmed someone, who "looks" like he "could" beat one to death does not fall into that category. I'm not sure I would accept any advice from that author.
Deadly force can be justified under certain circumstances in the event of a serious attack by someone who is unarmed. Usually, the reason has to do with a disparity of force. You can learn a lot about what that means from reputable instructors, but remember that the ultimate determination would be made by others about what was reasonable.
The knockout game is a serious business. I think that conw's input here makes a lot of sense.