TexasCHLforum.com

I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.
It is interesting that we all point out what is probably obvious - the jury is going to consider physical capability. IE - if you're physically capable, you start at a disadvantage in the courtroom.

Javier730 wrote: Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

I wouldn't, no. Partly for the reason you outlined above. Partly because "becoming aggressive" with me doesn't mean that I should kill you, at least in my head, even if legally justified. Maybe that will change when I'm older and a little less capable. The risk, however, is the same - I could get killed simply by being knocked out and hitting my head wrong.. Or wind up serious crippled because due to a brain injury..

AJSully421 wrote:Disparity of force. (2 on 1, even if unarmed, age difference)

I don't get this argument. I've seen skulls broken, 1:1 - no disparity in size force. Any physical assault can be deadly. Why does it have to be 2:1 or a big difference in age or size?