cb1000rider wrote: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?AJSully421 wrote:Disparity of force. (2 on 1, even if unarmed, age difference)
As has been said, it does not necessarily have to be, but it makes justifying it easier and is a better story to tell the 12 people who will decide your fate. As for me, I have never been in a single fight. I have no idea what I am doing. So if some guy starts getting after me 1:1 and he starts in on some kung fu stuff, I am going for guns because there is certainly a disparity of skill there. Tough to prove. A lot tougher than simply saying 2:1.
If you remember in the George Zimmerman trial, they had someone who was his sparing partner, or trainer or someone testify that he was "Physically soft"... this gave the impression that even though Trayvon was younger and skinnier, that he had the upper hand on Zimmerman, had him in a bad spot on the concrete, and that DF was justified.