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

Fact Dependant but it is possible here in AL:

A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.


If the assailant is say about 6'4” 300 lbs and the victim cannot take them on. I would presume a shooting justified.

quote:

---

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?

---

I'm unclear re you query, BF. But it would be up to the victim to assess the threat that the attacker posed; and act in a timely manner. If an aggressor attacks, from that point on there is only one choice that would be a clear cut "mistake"...and that would be not to shoot. Though a charitable option might be to fire a warning shot, if time allows.

quote:

---

once the assailant attacks and that gun is up for grabs

---

Bingo

quote:

---

Should deadly force be permitted when an individual is no longer under threat of harm?

---

No

quote:

---

Should deadly force be permitted when an individual is no longer under threat of harm?

---

My quick answer would be no, Scruff; but what if an aggressor was only temporarily retreating in order to even up the odds? A victim could not know this; or a lot of other pertinent variables.

What ever happened to that guy down in Texas that shot some folk who were robbing his neighbors house?

Re the Michael Brown scenario...the autopsy ought to pretty much nail this one down. Seems they'd get it done asap and take care of business.

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.

quote:

---

Accidental down arrow from phone.

---

Glad someone is quick on the uptake.