Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Could someone please explain this to me and when it applies? I've heard the term often and get the gist of it but sometimes people say it and it makes me wonder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Part of this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_77824400) discusses the concept and is shown below.

"Situation: You face a savage attack by a bigger and stronger man whose sheer physical power is a deadly weapon.

Lesson: The law allows recourse to the gun in such cases, However, there can be other factors.

You, the general public, often do not realize that it is justifiable to use the deadly force of a firearm in defense against an ostensibly unarmed person. The law calls these "disparity of force" cases. When a bare-handed assault is so one-sided it is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the greater power of the attacker becomes the equivalent of a deadly weapon. that warrants the victim's recourse to a per se lethal weapon in self-defense.

Force of greater numbers is one example of disparity of force. Others include male attacking female, able-bodied attacking the disabled, adult attacking child, an attack by a person known to the shooter to be highly skilled in destructive unarmed combat, and other such "unfair" matchups. A great difference in size and strength that favors the attacker is another disparity of force element . . ."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
Ty said:
Could someone please explain this to me and when it applies? I've heard the term often and get the gist of it but sometimes people say it and it makes me wonder.
What it means is "difference in ability to apply force". If I'm unarmed and you have a baseball bat, then there's a disparity of force and you have the advantage. If I'm 5'6" and 100 lbs and you're 6'6" and 300 lbs of muscle, again there's a disparity of force and you have the advantage. If we're about the same size and shape, but you're a 10th dan black belt and I've never studied any sort of fighting, again you have the advantage. If you have two buddies and I'm alone... you get the idea.

It's relevant when determining when you're justified in using a deadly weapon. If you and I are the same size, same build, same fitness level and have roughly the same fighting skill, neither of us armed, then there is no disparity of force. You can threaten to break my legs but the court would say that the threat isn't credible because I have the ability to defend myself against you. Likewise if you're smaller, weaker, etc. than me, your threat isn't credible and I have no reasonable fear of serious injury or death.

If, however, there's a significant disparity of force in your favor, then your threat is credible, I do have reason to fear serious injury and I therefore have the right to pull my gun to defend myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
Good explanations, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
I've also wondered about those types of situations. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
I've always struggled a bit with this. I'm 6 foot, 200 pounds, but let's say someone of typical size is clearly going to fight me and is intent on killing me with his bare hands. I don't know about you, but I think I would go for the gun before trying my chances at winning him in a hand-to-hand battle. Afterall, if the guy is a pro wrestler, gets the upperhand, and is on top of me and about to bash my brains into the concrete floor, it's a bit too late to calculate disparity of force, right? And that's not really the best of situations to unholster and use a concealed weapon - doing so could now get me shot.

Simply unholstering before (and just before) the guy is about to attack me is more likely to result in the fight being avoided. And if you consider it, if the guy continues and you do shoot him, it then becomes easier to justify disparity of force - "The guy had already threatened and assaulted me. He was so intent on killing me that even the presentation of my weapon was not enough to deter him."

Am I off-base here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
apollosmith said:
Am I off-base here?
I think your approach could land you in legal trouble. Unholstering could be construed as assault, in my non-lawyerly opinion, and shooting could be called manslaughter or even murder depending on the specifics. All the prosecution would have to do is prove that your fear of serious bodily injury or death wasn't reasonable.

This gets complicated by the fact that you have a gun on you. If the assailant can get your gun away from you, then you're facing a deadly threat, so you could argue that your fear of death arose from that possibility, not from the physical capabilities of the assailant. I'd be worried that a good prosecutor could spin that as your mistake (bringing a gun) being the thing that escalated the fight to deadly force.

I carry OC spray for use against assailants that don't have a disparity of force advantage. Two things always accompany my sidearm: OC spray and my cellphone. To me, the gun is to defend my life, the OC spray is to defend my gun and the cellphone is to defend my freedom and property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
According to state law, if you reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger, to the point of serious bodily injury or death, then you are justified in using lethal force. But be ready to defend that in court, especially with an unarmed BG.

I would try everything short of lethal force. But you have to remember that the average man can cover 20 feet in just a couple of seconds. How long does it take you to draw your weapon? Waiting until "just before the BG attacks" is not a good idea. If you draw your weapon with the BG 15-20 feet out, and he continues to advance toward you, in my eyes that is imminent. If you give the BG enough time to recognize that you have a gun, and you give him proper warning, and he still continues in, that is definitely imminent. I'm not going to wait until the BG is 5 or even 10 feet out. You will not have enough time to draw your weapon if he is that close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Just because they appear to be unarmed doesn't mean they won't pull a knife or other weapon when they get closer to you. I'm not in High School anymore and I consider all physical attacks against me to be serious and a possibility for grave bodily harm or even death.

That being said, I would consider shooting them a last resort. First resort would be to escape if at all possible.
 
G

·
I agree with spray, flashlight, ect as a less lethal option. My wife carries a taser, one of those cool new compact deals, and I am thinking about one myself. Having seen the limited effects of 9mm ball and reading about the lack of efficacy handguns and being tased my money is on the taser. I would not carry a handgun if there wes a pistol sized multi-shot taser effective to 100 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
hedonistic said:
I agree with spray, flashlight, ect as a less lethal option. My wife carries a taser, one of those cool new compact deals, and I am thinking about one myself. Having seen the limited effects of 9mm ball and reading about the lack of efficacy handguns and being tased my money is on the taser. I would not carry a handgun if there wes a pistol sized multi-shot taser effective to 100 yards.
A taser is a nice less-than-lethal option, but does have some drawbacks. Maximum range (for C2) is about 15 feet, you get one shot, and the bad guy is back to normal about 5 seconds after the juice goes off. Shot placement is critical, and things get iffy depending on the clothing the goof is wearing (heavy leather coat, for example).
 
G

·
UtahCFP said:
A taser is a nice less-than-lethal option, but does have some drawbacks. Maximum range (for C2) is about 15 feet, you get one shot, and the bad guy is back to normal about 5 seconds after the juice goes off. Shot placement is critical, and things get iffy depending on the clothing the goof is wearing (heavy leather coat, for example).
Thats why I carry a gun, the wife refuses because she "cant" carry at work. She has spray and a taser and I am almost happy with that. Having been tased a few times and sprayed once :crying: I'll take the taser (from the target stand point.) I was sprayed with 200K SHU she carries 4.93 million SHUs :shock: I never want to be sprayed again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Others concealed carry holders that I know believe that it is unwise to carry additional weapons in addition to a loaded firearm. For example, a knife, taser, pepper spray, etc. Their reasoning is that if ever do decide to use lethal force (i.e., the gun), then your actions may come into greater question since you had other options you could have used beside the gun. Several here obviously carry additional means of protection, and I am not challenging that. I was just wondering if there is any merit to this thinking.
 
G

·
It started with my own personal stalker at school this year 5"4' 120ish female. I am 6ft 180ish and have martial arts and law enforcement training. If it comes right down to it spray is more defensible than hands on or a gun. I have broken a wrist and caused multiple other injuries in simply applying arm locks pain compliance ect.. The force continuum applies to soldiers, law enforcement and even you and I. More options dose not mean you have to try them all first, just more tools in the box. Personally my favorite tool is the trained dog more intimidating than guns, clubs, knives, well anything short of an RPG :lol: I also think a taser can be a decent alternative to a firearm, given the choice there is no contest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
bbjoe said:
Others concealed carry holders that I know believe that it is unwise to carry additional weapons in addition to a loaded firearm. For example, a knife, taser, pepper spray, etc. Their reasoning is that if ever do decide to use lethal force (i.e., the gun), then your actions may come into greater question since you had other options you could have used beside the gun. Several here obviously carry additional means of protection, and I am not challenging that. I was just wondering if there is any merit to this thinking.
On the other side of the coin is providing you with more options than run, 9-1-1, and *BANG*.
 
G

·
bbjoe said:
Others concealed carry holders that I know believe that it is unwise to carry additional weapons in addition to a loaded firearm. For example, a knife, taser, pepper spray, etc. Their reasoning is that if ever do decide to use lethal force (i.e., the gun), then your actions may come into greater question since you had other options you could have used beside the gun. Several here obviously carry additional means of protection, and I am not challenging that. I was just wondering if there is any merit to this thinking.
Having other options can also be deemed prudent and reasonable, just as an officer must defend his use of firearm so must you. Here is merit for a knife weak side if some one is wrestling you for your gun.. well you get the idea.

UtahCFP said:
bbjoe said:
Others concealed carry holders that I know believe that it is unwise to carry additional weapons in addition to a loaded firearm. For example, a knife, taser, pepper spray, etc. Their reasoning is that if ever do decide to use lethal force (i.e., the gun), then your actions may come into greater question since you had other options you could have used beside the gun. Several here obviously carry additional means of protection, and I am not challenging that. I was just wondering if there is any merit to this thinking.
On the other side of the coin is providing you with more options than run, 9-1-1, and *BANG*.
That is the point!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top