Realistically...unarmed assailant attacks armed victim: is assailant unarmed?

A person has a gun and gets attacked. He makes a mistake. Do you think his mistake was that he did not fire his weapon when he should have, or that he fired his weapon when he didn't need to or should not have?

quote:

---

Also assuming that the assailant has superior physical advantage. For the record, if one dares.

I keep hearing this "unarmed" individual; ludicrous assumption. My pov...once the assailant attacks and that gun is up for grabs...at that point, the assailant becomes de facto ARMED. It would seem that Law would reflect this obvious dynamic; but I don't know the Law. Only a suicidal fool would fail to shoot an *unarmed* assailant in full attack mode.

---

It just took someone much smarter than me to get across what I was trying to say earlier today.....

I don't know how the law reads from state to state, but this is how I see it.

1) Assuming that neither person is a law enforcement officer, the person being followed, stalked, chased or attacked ALWAYS has the right to use deadly force, regardless of size, as long as he or she is not fleeing a crime. Conversely, the person doing the stalking and following never has the right to use deadly force in such situations (eg. George Zimmerman - GUILTY).

2) A private citizen pursuing a fleeing criminal always has the right to use deadly force regardless of either person's size (eg. Joe Horn - NOT GUILTY).

3) Women have the right to use deadly force to get men away from them but they don't have a right to use deadly force to settle scores.