Another Firearms Training Issue?

[lklawson]

Show me the cite and I will correct my statement.

I'm sorry Bill but Disparity of Force is a well known, well understood, well used, well... well, it's a well worn legal concept.

Here's a few discussions from Lawyers and Expert Witnesses.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes_SDLaw.pdf
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Network_2014-09.pdf

There are an absolute crap-ton of other citations.

By the way, if you ever think you might have to use force in self defense, in particular if you every (even infrequently) carry a firearm for self defense, I very strongly recommend that you get some sort of "self defense insurance" product such as offerings from The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network, Texas Lawshield, United States Concealed Carry Association, Second Call Defense, Carry Guard, or some other similar product.

I'm aware of a great number of situations in which a legally innocent person who engaged in justified and legal self defense was put through the wringer.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[billsmith98]

Was the weapon a Glock? But you are correct in that at first blush it appears to be a training issue. If you are going to carry then you should also ensure that you spend the time for ongoing regular practice and training....

Sent from my LGL56VL using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sorry Bill but Disparity of Force is a well known, well understood, well used, well... well, it's a well worn legal concept.

Agreed. It is still not encoded in law. Show me the cite and I will retract my statement.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. It is still not encoded in law. Show me the cite and I will retract my statement.

But in practical terms that is just dumb and will leave you with your legs cut out from under you in a court case.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

"Disparity of force" is but one element in the question "Would a Reasonable Person Believe They Were In Imminent Danger?"

Here are some articles you can read on disparity of force:

Disparity of Force: Five Real-Life Self-Defense Cases

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Network_2014-09.pdf

Disparity of Force - USCCA-Concealed Carry Self Defense Insurance & CCW Info

Disparity of force is a very well recognized, well known legal concept.

 

[hoshin1600]

why are we still hung up on the disparity of force issue???
can we move on? im sorry i mentioned it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"Disparity of force" is but one element in the question "Would a Reasonable Person Believe They Were In Imminent Danger?"

Here are some articles you can read on disparity of force:

Disparity of Force: Five Real-Life Self-Defense Cases

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Network_2014-09.pdf

Disparity of Force - USCCA-Concealed Carry Self Defense Insurance & CCW Info

Disparity of force is a very well recognized, well known legal concept.

"legal concept" yes.

Not law. Give me a cite, not a list of links to people using a term of art.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

why are we still hung up on the disparity of force issue???
can we move on? im sorry i mentioned it.

We're 'hung up' on it because people confuse legal arguments and "concepts" as some call them, with actual law.

Anything can be raised as a mitigating factor or a compounding factor, etc, by defense and prosecution. We've all presumably heard of the "Twinkie" defense and the "Affluenza" defense, right? None of those are enshrined in law. There is no law that says "unless you are rich," or "if you have had a lot of Twinkies that day."

People make arguments, and yes, disparity of force is a *concept* that is often used in courts. It is not the law. That's it.

 

[jks9199]

"legal concept" yes.

Not law. Give me a cite, not a list of links to people using a term of art.

Bill,
I'm sure you know that there is the black letter law and there is the law of precedent or case lawa/common law. They go hand in hand in most of the US; one is read through the lens of the other. The law says "It is illegal to assault or batter someone, and anyone who does this is punished by..." Common law tells us what actions start to add up to a battery or assault, or, in the topic at hand, what actions justify it or make it excusable. There may not be an actual black letter law saying "X justifies Y"; that's why some of the Stand Your Ground laws got passed -- to address that concern.

We don't have a legal system that requires everything to be written out and spelled out -- and that's a semi-deliberate choice made. We have leeway built into the system to allow judges, prosecutors, and even cops to try to make sure that there is actually some justice in the system, rather than a purely legalistic approach.

I doubt that there is a specific black letter law breakdown of the affirmative defense of self-defense, in any state. (Maybe Louisiana; as I understand it, they're a Napoleonic Code state.) Instead, there are volumes of case law where judges at many levels in the system have weighed in, and where juries have accepted the defense. That's the best you're likely to get.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill,
I'm sure you know that there is the black letter law and there is the law of precedent or case lawa/common law. They go hand in hand in most of the US; one is read through the lens of the other. The law says "It is illegal to assault or batter someone, and anyone who does this is punished by..." Common law tells us what actions start to add up to a battery or assault, or, in the topic at hand, what actions justify it or make it excusable. There may not be an actual black letter law saying "X justifies Y"; that's why some of the Stand Your Ground laws got passed -- to address that concern.

Correct. However, and I think this is the important part, people (by which I mean the common everyday man in the street) hear that a 130 pound young man was killed by a 260 pound older man who claims he was in reasonable fear of his life from the smaller and younger man, and they scoff, without understanding, that 'disparity of force' laws mean that the larger man could not have reasonably acted in self-defense. They then proceed to argue as if such things are actual law instead of arguments made pro-and-con in a court of law. Because 'disparity of force' is NOT law, there is no black or white to it; it's all down to argument in court. Therefore, their opinion that size maketh the reasonable man, is incorrect in the extreme.

We don't have a legal system that requires everything to be written out and spelled out -- and that's a semi-deliberate choice made. We have leeway built into the system to allow judges, prosecutors, and even cops to try to make sure that there is actually some justice in the system, rather than a purely legalistic approach.

Mmmm, but to quote Charles Dickens' "Mr. Bumble," "The law, sir, is an ***." It is not, to be sure, intended to be either fair or reasonable. It is what it is and it says what it says. The Supreme Court, when called upon to do so and it chooses to grant cert, will look to both the intent of Congress when it was passed, or to the Constitution if the question is Constitional in nature, to determine what exactly the law means.

However, minus a great deal of legal sturm und drang, if a law is passed that says jaywalking is illegal on Thursdays, then it is illegal on Thursdays and NOT on Wednesdays. That is to say, anything which is not prohibited is permitted in our legal system. And this is as it should be in my opinion.

Therefore, when a self-defense law says that a person may defend themselves with deadly force if a reasonable person would fear for their life or imminent great bodily harm, that is what it says. There's nothing in it about relative sizes of the people involved, or their ability to defend themselves, etc. All of that is for a court to decide if it gets to that point. The defense and prosecution will argue opposite sides, the judge or jury will decide if 'reasonable' was what happened. But again, the legal standard is 'reasonable' and not 'disparity of force'.

I doubt that there is a specific black letter law breakdown of the affirmative defense of self-defense, in any state. (Maybe Louisiana; as I understand it, they're a Napoleonic Code state.) Instead, there are volumes of case law where judges at many levels in the system have weighed in, and where juries have accepted the defense. That's the best you're likely to get.

No. Juries are not bound by case law (precedent). Juries receive instructions and decided the facts of the case in question unless there is a directed verdict by the judge. Certainly the attorneys involved will cite previous cases as precedent and attempt to persuade jurors that a particular previous finding or ruling by a court establishes precedent for or against the defendant. Juries are free to ignore that.

What *can* happen if a jury disregards a clear precedent is that the case gets overturned on appeal, where arguments of case law matter. I'll grant you that.

I don't think anyone in this thread, including me, thinks that disparity of force would not be considered in a criminal trial of someone who invoked the right to use of deadly force in self-defense; I am sure it would be if the circumstances appear that there was one. I am arguing - and apparently not making myself sufficiently clear - that 'disparity of force' does not exist as a self-defense statute anywhere that I am aware of. Therefore quoting it as if it were a point of law is incorrect.

 

[hoshin1600]

that 'disparity of force' does not exist as a self-defense statute anywhere that I am aware of. Therefore quoting it as if it were a point of law is incorrect.

maybe we are not making ourselves clear BIll, Not one person here has said that there was a statute law that included disparity of force. you are the only one who keeps saying that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

maybe we are not making ourselves clear BIll, Not one person here has said that there was a statute law that included disparity of force. you are the only one who keeps saying that.

I said there is no such law. You said: "i think you are incorrect, i believe there is a factor of "disparity of force"...like a woman Vs a man , mulitiple attackers, or involved weapons."

I said show me the cite. I then received a number of responses with links to jury instructions, definitions, and opinions by noted scholars. No cites.

I was responding to your assertion that I was wrong about 'disparity of force' being encoded in law. I said it's not, and it's not.

 

[hoshin1600]

that is a misunderstanding.
my intent was that i disagreed with what i belived your point of view was not about the statue law

The amount each one weighs has no legal place in self-defense

as i read that i took that to mean that ones size does not matter in any way.

i though i was clear enough in consecutive posts after that one that while there is no statute law, that size is a "factor" in deciding if the persons actions were justified or as you keep saying "reasonable".
i never once said there was a statute law nor did i argue that there was.
you said what i posted was Jury instructions and i agreed that yes that was what i posted and my intent.
my intent was to show that ones size has influence in making that decision on whether deadly force was justified.

Second, victim drawing his firearm. Was he justified in doing so?

this was your original question and my post was in response to it.

i will apologize for any misunderstanding, i never said that there was a statute law of disparity of force. i was under the impression that we agreed on that point.
i moved on and didnt want to continue in that direction but others took up the banner and carried it forward.

 

[hoshin1600]

Despite the misunderstanding I appreciate the discussion. It makes me better at what I do.

 

[FightHACKS]

Show me the cite and I will correct my statement.

I think you are both actually correct and saying the same thing. Though there may not be any "Disparity of Force" wording in any laws or statutes, a "disparity of force" should definitely play into whether or not one's actions are / were reasonable i.e. "standard of reasonableness".