Disparity of force

[lock n' load]

I am curious, what would constitute disparity of force? Let's say I am leaving Wal-Mart, walking to my vehicle in the parking lot and some thugs (2 or more indivduals without weapons present at the moment) approach me and want to start trouble (fighing, robbery etc). Is the option of disparity of force valid for that situation? I don't want take a chance and draw my weapon only to find out that it was not justifiable. I have read that in order for deadly force to be justified, One of five of the following conditions must be met. They are according to T.C.A 39-11-1603 (33):

1. substantial risk of death

2. protracted unconsciousness

3. extreme physical pain

4. protracted or obvious disfiguement

5. protracted loss or sustantial impairment of a function of a bodliy member, organ, or mental faculty.

This would apply only to me drawing my weapon, not firing. This seems kind of silly but I would like any feedback if I would be in the right? Thanks.

Edited October 7, 2009 by lock n' load
incorrect law for use of deadly force

[macville]

Unless they were midgets, I would consider two regular sized MALE (unless they were larger, rougher looking women) a threat that could possibly leave me unconscious or with impairment of my body. Of course, if it was a slower attack building up, I would probably just draw my gun and have it down by my side. If that doesn't ward off the attack, then it becomes obvious that they are not afraid of a firearm and that they are willing to do whatever they want to me.

Of course, every situation is different. You have to take into account the amount of people attacking, the size of them, if they have weapons, were they verbally threatening you, etc. I do know that if you are attacked, approached, etc. by someone always call it in. You don't want to have just pulled up your shirt revealing your gun, they stop, and then they call it in that they were threatened when in reality you were. First one to call is more likely to be the good guy (sadly enough.)

Matthew

[Guest Revelator]

I wouldn't try and break it up into categories so much. Not sure where you're getting that law either, as far as I know there is no 39-11-1603. I'm all about keeping it simple, and thankfully the law in Tennessee allows that (as best as possible considering it's legalese). In a nutshell, you may use deadly force when there's a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or an innocent third party. I would forget about trying to decide if there's going to be an episode of protracted unconsciousness or anything like that. Bottom line, under a reasonable person standard, if you feel like your life is in danger then you will likely be justified. Of course the catch is "reasonable person." Therein, as the Bard said, lies the rub.

As for drawing your weapon and not firing, I just think from a tactical standpoint that's tricky. If you were justified in doing so then legally you probably would not be charged with Aggravated Assault, but tactically that could be a dangerous proposition if you're not ready to pull the trigger (if you're doing it just to get them away from you).

Edited October 7, 2009 by P. Stegall

[Guest Matchguy]

This is a difficult scenario to resolve because it involves a threat by unarmed persons, and these are always a problem. First, there is a principle of self defense law generally observed throughout the United States that says that a simple assault does not justify homicide or the resort to the use of deadly force. Further, bare fear alone is never sufficient cause to resort to deadly force......the fear must be based on the other party possessing the present ability to inflict death or great bodily injury upon you or another person, and that threat must be present, apparent, and imminent.

In the scenario you specified, the men were unarmed, so in practical terms the burden of proof would fall on you to show that two or three unarmed men looking for trouble constituted such a lethal threat. I personally think that your attorney's work would be cut out for him if you dropped three unarmed men before they attacked you. As for the lethal potential of three unarmed men attacking you, it could certainly lead to death or great bodily harm, particularly if they knocked you to the ground and began kicking you. But firing before the attack began would be frowned upon....i.e.prior to the moment that they physically attacked you in masse, if you opened fire, I think your firing on them would basically be resolved according to the prosecutor you get or the jury you get, and the community the trial is held in, and that the outcome would probably go against you in most cases. In fact I think it would be a tough sell even if they did attack you....i.e.killing three unarmed people at the same time is tough to justify even when they are bigger and badder than you. The public is very reluctant to support the use of gunfire if they think it is only to avert an ass-kicking, so again you'd have to establish that your fear of death or great bodily harm was reasonable under the circumstances.

I have carried a concealed pistol since 1965, both as a peace officer and an armed citizen without peace officer powers. In my book, an ounce of evasion would be worth a ton of legal problems in the scenario you posed. In other words, I'd get the hell out of there before I'd start shooting, and would shoot only as an absolute last resort. The first axiom of police work is never to bluff with a pistol under circumstances prohibiting its use unless you have some mustard or ketchup with you to make the gun taste better when you have to eat it.......that principle also applies to carry permit holders. So let's not forget evasion as a potential best course of action where possible.

Sorry for such a tenuous, inconclusive answer to your question. There just isn't a really definitive one in this scenario.

MG

Edited October 7, 2009 by Matchguy

[molonlabetn]

If it's truly a must-fight scenario... it's doubtful you'll have time to analyze it from such complex angles. You'll do what you have prepared yourself for, which hopefully is to recognize an unavoidable, serious threat and do whatever is necessary to stop it... and that means being prepared to follow-through your reaction to its conclusion, in the event they do not stop when warned, or finally when drawn upon. But, it'll happen fast.

A serious threat, or disparity of force, would be anything you could not prevent from imposing serious harm on you, whether it's 2 or 3 big nasty dudes or a grizzly bear or a skinny crackhead with a knife looking at you as if you were prey. Only you can decide what measure of force could overcome you, if determined and intent upon doing so, in the absence of a firearm to level the playing field. But it's certainly a good question to be thinking about, preparing for later if you must articulate that fear to authorities.

All I know is, it wouldn't behoove me to shoot an unarmed person who appears smaller or weaker than myself... even though there is always the possibility of hidden weapons or prowess in a martial art or hand-to-hand combat.

[StumpyBeagle]

I have a question to throw on top of this question. If a HCP holder has health problems (disabled, heart problems, pacemaker) is this considered by the law when deadly force is used.

[Guest canynracer]

As Patrick stated - In a nutshell, you may use deadly force when there's a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or an innocent third party.

EVERYTHING is taken into account when analysing these things.

[Guest HexHead]

I am curious, what would constitute disparity of force? Let's say I am leaving Wal-Mart, walking to my vehicle in the parking lot and some thugs (2 or more indivduals without weapons present at the moment) approach me and want to start trouble (fighing, robbery etc). Is the option of disparity of force valid for that situation? I don't want take a chance and draw my weapon only to find out that it was not justifiable. I have read that in order for deadly force to be justified, One of five of the following conditions must be met. They are according to T.C.A 39-11-1603 (33):

1. substantial risk of death

2. protracted unconsciousness

3. extreme physical pain

4. protracted or obvious disfiguement

5. protracted loss or sustantial impairment of a function of a bodliy member, organ, or mental faculty.

This would apply only to me drawing my weapon, not firing. This seems kind of silly but I would like any feedback if I would be in the right? Thanks.

Where are you coming up with this criteria?

[guyandarifle]

Disparity of force can mean more than just #'s. If you're 6'5" 270 and a couple punks come up, neither of which would be more than 160lb wet, it'd be tougher to sell without them being armed with something. I'm not even arguing that makes sense (ever see dogs attack a larger animal?) but it just wouldn't look good.

For myself if I'm approached to the point I feel genuinely threatened I'm probably going to draw. I'm no runt but kicking multiple dudes asses is something you find in movies when it's in the script. Unless you're militarily trained or some MMA guy more than one guy on you is real trouble if they have any genuinely bad intentions. If I draw one of two things is going to happen; they run and I call the police and report the incident or they are crazy enough to try to charge the gun. If they're the latter kind of guys then the fact you already had the gun out might have saved your life.

Man I hope I'm never in that situation.

[E4 No More]

In short, you'd better be able to articulate to a jury in a reasonable manner why you felt justified in the use of lethal force. There are so many variables that I don't think anyone can give a clear cut answer.

[Guest 2HOW]

As Patrick stated - In a nutshell, you may use deadly force when there's a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or an innocent third party.

EVERYTHING is taken into account when analysing these things.

If they have the ability and intention, you have the green light.

[jtluttrell]

or they are crazy enough to try to charge the gun.

If an unarmed individual(s) does this, I'd consider myself "threatened". I would have to assume that their intention was to take my firearm from me and use it against me.

[lock n' load]

Thanks for the feedback on this question everyone. The code that I quoted in my original post "Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-1603(33)" was found on page 9 of the booklet I recieved when I took my HCP class this past May at Carter Shooting Supply. I tried to search for that exact code myself but couldn't find it online anywhere. Is there a place online one can research Tennessee state codes? I am not sure if the code was misprinted when the booket was made or if it is an old state code. Page 9 of my booklet also gives a partial definition to another code 39-11-602 which defines the term "deadly force". Since I am not well versed on state codes, I assumed what was printed was correct. If anyone has taken their HCP class from Carter's recently, check and see if you may have the same legal definitions as I do on page 9.

[S&WForty]

If an unarmed individual(s) does this, I'd consider myself "threatened". I would have to assume that their intention was to take my firearm from me and use it against me.

Whenever I've thought of such a situation, that is the exact reasoning I have had. We can't just let them charge us to then kill us with our own weapon. For that matter, even if a weapon is not drawn, if a gun carrier is outnumbered and beat down, there's a strong chance the thugs will find the gun. Then what? They take it and run, and use on someone else, or shoot their victim that's laying there? I can hear the liberals screaming now, "That's why guns are bad."

It's a shame the law makes such a situation a debatable subject. If thugs knew armed citizens could shoot their @$$es off without consequence, it would deter a lot more crime. It sucks when the law somewhat fosters a politically correct mindset.

[Oh Shoot]

.... Is there a place online one can research Tennessee state codes?

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/

Is only complete compilation of them I know of.

But it hasn't been updated with this years legislative action...

- OS

[TMMT]

Ask yourself this simple question.

At what point does a "simple fist fight" become great bodily harm? Do you know just how much damage you can take or exactly the capabilities of those intent on attacking you?

Put another way, when will the attack cross the threshold from punching and kicking to a serious assault on your person. And at that moment will you then be able to react with deadly force or will you be just one or two more punches away from unconsciousness or possibly brain damage?

The courts have ruled time and time again, its not the actual threat but the perceived threat to the victim. If I come up to you and point my finger at you from inside my coat pocket and tell you I'm gonna shot you and you draw and blast me... they will find no weapon but are you still justified?

The threshold for defense is that you must believe that you are in fear of your life and any reasonable man in that situation would believe just that, absent other circumstances.

Multiple attackers elevates situations in a hurry.

An old Investigator I once worked with years ago, told a man an answer to this very same question, when can I use deadly force?

His answer was, when the thought of what might happen to you is much worse than the thought of going to jail, the time has come to clear leather.

Edited October 8, 2009 by TMMT

[Fallguy]

Thanks for the feedback on this question everyone. The code that I quoted in my original post "Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-1603(33)" was found on page 9 of the booklet I recieved when I took my HCP class this past May at Carter Shooting Supply. I tried to search for that exact code myself but couldn't find it online anywhere. Is there a place online one can research Tennessee state codes? I am not sure if the code was misprinted when the booket was made or if it is an old state code. Page 9 of my booklet also gives a partial definition to another code 39-11-602 which defines the term "deadly force". Since I am not well versed on state codes, I assumed what was printed was correct. If anyone has taken their HCP class from Carter's recently, check and see if you may have the same legal definitions as I do on page 9.

OS provied the link where you can see TN Code

You can check all new laws here

The code you quoted is actually 39-11-106(a)(34) I think. It is the list of things that define "Serious bodily injury".

[lock n' load]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction on the state codes, I will give them a look. I guess my question kinda falls into somewhat of a grey area of the law. I sometimes ponder on the unusual "what if" scenarios too much with the uncertainty that, if presented with such a situation, I would hope that I would be on the right side of the law if I were forced to respond. I guess I tend to overcomplicate things. I always strive to avoid any kind of trouble at all costs. Even though I possess a HCP, I still strive to steer clear from any parts of town, people, times of day etc, that would be a potential problem.