So how many fights have you witnessed between middle-aged people of average build who hadn’t been in a fight in decades, and were distinctly out of shape?
Hell, even when I was in my early teens and was still getting in fights, nobody ever inflicted more than temporary pain on anyone else - and that wasn’t that anyone was holding back, it was that all by itself, it just didn’t happen.
I have a hard time believing middle-aged men of average build, but out of shape and years out of practice, would have an easier time landing a punch that did permanent damage. That makes no sense at all.
Just for the sake of an example, the last bar fight that I personally witnessed, at an FOE lodge, didn’t have a combatant under 45. They did a right respectable job of damaging each other. One fellow, in fact, exited the club on a gurney due to the broken leg a 60-something year old deliberately gave him with a well timed and placed stomp. None of these men, by the way, were ninjas or commandos or action movie heroes. These were just aging blue collar workers at a normally quiet lodge whose membership consists almost entirely of men like them. So…yeah, you get an older guy who really wants to hurt you, he will. Do not forget, all aging men were once young men and not necessarily nice young men.
I’m curious why there are parameters regarding age, physical condition and practice. But in any event, I know there was a case locally last year where a guy was punched outside of a bar and hit his head on the sidewalk or curb, and died. Another guy was attacked in a restroom and hit his head on the toilet or sink. He wasn’t killed, but was pretty severely injured. It isn’t unforeseeable that someone could strike their head during a “fight” and have considerable or even permanent damage.
You’re moving the goal posts so vigorously that they are little more than a blur. Why don’t you just go ahead now and add that you meant middle-aged, out of shape guys who are blind, have multiple sclerosis, are missing a limb, and work at a desk or behind a counter?
You’re pretty far afield here. The original statement you made was this:
Essentially arguing that lethal self defense was inherently unreasonable against an unarmed person unless the person was Mike Tyson. This is absurd, to which I responded:
Your position is that an average middle aged adult cannot inflict enough damage to meet the standard of great bodily harm. As I said, absurd. Even unarmed, it does not take much for a person to summon energy to bash your head against a sharp object, or even the ground. This isn’t about fighting where two people agree toduke it out, it’s about the potential risk that a person may present. This possibility is independent of a person’s ability to resist, or the requisite skill or fitness level to accomplish this.
The point is that unarmed people can present a reasonable fear of risk of great bodily harm, and once that standard is met, a person is legally justified in using lethal force in most cases. Your position is wrong on the law, and in reality.
I wonder if the guy actually got through the door, or the homeowner shot through the door. I actually find it surprising how many folks try to kick in doors, and how many are successful. I would think it’d be tough to kick in a door - mine certainly would be. Deadbolts and a solid wood door. If someone tried to kick it in I think I’d have time to make a pot of coffee let alone retrieve sufficient defense tools.
