Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Pretty much, with a couple exceptions.
It would be near impossible for a petite woman to fight off a full sized man with a bat with another bat unless she was proficient in some sort of defense class and he was just a dufus. In other words, situations come into play. Logic says in most cases, she would need something stronger to match force. In that case, she could likely shoot to disable.
Motives come into play as well. If someone is coming at you with a knife... realistically, you can't be expected to drop your 9mm, run into the kitchen, and engage in some knifeplay with your would-be killer. However, if you put one in between his eyes, you used "excessive force." If you shot him in the arm or leg with clear intent to disable, you clearly used just enough force to defend yourself.
I don't completely agree with this, but that appears to be the law as it is.
As mentioned, there was a thread on this too.
|
I think the law is actually a lot closer to what
Rathji said. If someone is threatening you with a knife and showing clear intention to kill you shooting them would not be out of the question, even if it kills them.
Not only is there the right to self-defence, the court will also take into account the heat of the moment.
Basically, what I am saying is that if someone tries to kill you, you don't have to get into some kind of star trek style duel w/ them using their weapon of choice. What is considered proportional is relative to the entirety of the circumstances. A knife is a lethal weapon and if the situation is extremely threatening you have the right to shoot them however you like.