Originally Posted by MMAMickey
A punch to the face counts as deadly force, here.
Breaking a femur is potentially fatal.
Bullshit, you can't even reliably stop someone when going full force. Go watch that Boston Chinatown video.
You're missing the point, and attempting to exaggerate it to absurdity. You CAN control how much damage somebody receives by hitting them in a different place.
Now you're waffling.
Obviously you cannot control it exactly, and people could still receive serious harm, but the likelihood is drastically lower; to the point of arguably setting it below the 'reasonableness' requirement for 'deadly force' under US law, and would almost certainly limit the damage inflicted under UK law to ABH, as opposed to grievous bodily harm.
I clearly gave the local law caveat.
If you'd like to quote a law resource that supports your assertion, i'd appreciate it.
With a knife, your only option is to cut or stab somebody, both GBH offences in the UK, and unlikely to be proportionate to the threat with regards to a self-defence argument. Hitting somebody in an area likely to cause pain and incapacitation but not permanent or serious injury would constitute a lesser offence, and more likely to be supportive of a self-defence claim.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
I could brandish the knife.
Further, the pain of the bat won't necessarily stop someone.
That said a broken skull can kill you, as can many blunt force traumas.
That is why it is lumped in with deadly force.
You are splitting hairs between two really poor responses, and are using poor logic that does not extrapolate to US law to do so.
This has nothing to do with anything I said. My argument is with the part of your quote I posted; hence I declined to refute that the safest measure would be not to engage.
(IANAL, any attorneys who'd like to interject, please do.)
That was my point.