TexasCHLforum.com

I just saw this video (the claim it shows the same Michael Brown who was shot and killed in Ferguson, MI. It is not. It happened in Dallas, Texas sometime in 2012. See here http://downtrend.com/71superb/mike-brow ... -are-real/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

I posted here just to show that hands can inflict grave bodily harm or death. The poor old man was knocked off badly the second time, he was assaulted by the second thug.

Beaware, be prepared and keep your distance from some rotten souls.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Fear of Serious Bobily Injury (Blows to the head, neck, face, or spine).

Either one, make it loud.

What cowards. Disparity of force because of age, size and number of assailants. Preventing a robbery and serious bodily injury. A person in this position would definitely be justified from removing these vermin from the gene pool. That is disgusting.

Disgusting and yes, probably drug related.

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?

cb1000rider wrote:

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?

I agree with your statement. Any assailant can be dangerous, but in this case, disparity of force would be easier to explain to 12 of my peers. If a one on one fight between individuals of the same stature was about to take place and one individual pulled a firearm and shot him, it could be considered justified but it would be difficult to prove. Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

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..

cb1000rider wrote: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..

Age difference= disparity of force. We all understand the dangers of any confrontation but some cases, the threat is easier to prove than others, especially to 12 people who could not find a way out of jury duty. 1 on 1 fair fight not so easy even though we all know the threat is there.

cb1000rider wrote:

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?

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.

I think people are forgetting that drawing your weapon and firing your weapon are two different things. If the use of force (striking someone in order to defend yourself) is justified, producing a firearm is also justified. This should not be difficult at all for capable attorney to explain to a jury.
I haven't been in a fight in years. I'm a firm believer in de-escalation and would be more than willing to walk away, but back me into a corner and I wouldn't hesitate to use every tool at my disposal to ensure that I make it home to my family.
ETA: if you are 6'6" you might have a harder time convincing a jury. 5'9" probably not so much.

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.

As the PC (Tom Selleck) said on "Blue Bloods" (to my surprise since it's a TV show) there is no such thing as unarmed, just less well armed. A fist is a weapon. A foot is a weapon. A head can be a weapon. My 5'4" wife facing a 6'4" 250 lb attacker, is not facing an unarmed thug. Neglecting any possible training, a 5'10" 160lb man facing a 6'4" 250 lb man is not facing an unarmed thug....he's facing one that is better armed.

VMI77 wrote:As the PC (Tom Selleck) said on "Blue Bloods" (to my surprise since it's a TV show) there is no such thing as unarmed, just less well armed. A fist is a weapon. A foot is a weapon. A head can be a weapon. My 5'4" wife facing a 6'4" 250 lb attacker, is not facing an unarmed thug. Neglecting any possible training, a 5'10" 160lb man facing a 6'4" 250 lb man is not facing an unarmed thug....he's facing one that is better armed.

I'm 47, 5'9", soft in the middle, have had a muscle removed from my back (making me weaker and more uncoordinated than I'd normally be) and have never really been in any fights. My attacker wouldn't have to be 6'4" 250# to have an advantage. Maybe even someone the size of your 5'4" wife could have an advantage on me!!

I know a man who spent 25 years in prison for beating a man nearly to death with his bare fists in a bar fight. I saw him twist a crowbar into something that looked more like a pretzel and simply say, "I bent your stick." I'd definitely be at a significant disadvantage if I were to face someone like him. I'd likely be unconscious with the first hit and dead in the next few.

Javier730 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

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?

I agree with your statement. Any assailant can be dangerous, but in this case, disparity of force would be easier to explain to 12 of my peers. If a one on one fight between individuals of the same stature was about to take place and one individual pulled a firearm and shot him, it could be considered justified but it would be difficult to prove. Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

Would I draw on another overweight 5'10" man who was getting aggressive with me? ABSOLUTELY I would. I'm a 62 year old man with a crippled back and other health issues. I'm in no condition to go "mano a mano" with anyone.....but more importantly, nor should I have to, regardless of my physical condition. If someone doesn't want to get shot, they should refrain from physical aggression with me. If they can't refrain, and they get shot, THEY started it. I ended it.

I am a peaceful man. My attitude in life is, don't want none? Don't start none, and there won't be none. The ball is always in the other person's court. I merely respond to the realities. I try to always be polite, personable, and friendly. If the other guy is polite, personable, and friendly, then Iwill remain polite personable, and friendly. And I will continue being polite, personable, and friendly, right up to the moment I have to draw my gun. Beyond that point, polite, personable, and friendly have all three left the building, and I'm liable to utter a curse word or two.

Thankfully, as long as I did not issue "fighting words", there is nowhere in the law that says I have to submit to physical aggression before I am allowed to produce a weapon to protect myself, so long as I'm not the one to initiate the confrontation.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

I agree they are different decisions. However, I phrase it a little differently: "If I am drawing, I am willing to fire if necessary."

I believe there are some people who have the belief that merely drawing a handgun is some kind of magic talisman that will cause the other person to flee in horror. They do not have any expectation that if they draw, they may need to shoot. Merely drawing may be all that is required 95 times out of a hundred, but sometimes the other person's reaction will quickly escalate the situation where shooting is necessary. A person who hasn't thought that through and is simply displaying an empty threat instead of serious purpose is going to find things going quickly sour.