You’d think that when a woman uses deadly force against a violently attacking man, society would be sympathetic. Not necessarily.
I recently finished the eminently readable 2023 book The Furies: Women, Vengeance, and Justice by Elizabeth Flock.
She writes, “In her seminal 1989 book, Justifiable Homicide, women’s rights advocate Cynthia Gillespie argued that, as a result of its origins, self-defense law evolved based on masculine assumptions – that the fight is between people of ‘roughly equal size, strength and fighting ability’ and that it’s ‘never acceptable to kill an unarmed adversary.’ Both assumptions have made it difficult for women to win self-defense cases because women and men are often different sizes and strengths, and women are more likely to defend themselves with guns or knives, while men more often use hands and fists…”
She adds, “Gillespie also wrote that, of the two hundred cases she reviewed of women who killed men in self-defense, the outcomes were ‘depressingly similar’: the women were arrested, charged with murder, pled guilty to murder or manslaughter, and went to prison. (She did not review men’s cases.)”
One of the biggest elements in play here is something that has bothered me for years: I’ve met practicing attorneys who got through three years of law school and passed a bar exam without learning that the concept of “disparity of force” has long existed in our law. It means that if the ostensibly unarmed opponent has such a great physical advantage over you that if his violent attack on you is allowed to continue you are likely to be killed or severely injured, that advantage is equivalent to a deadly weapon and authorizes the innocent defender to resort to a lethal weapon to stop the assault.
And a defense attorney who has not yet been educated on disparity of force themselves cannot possibly educate a jury on the same topic.
Read my book Deadly Force, or listen to the audio version. Or, go to a well-stocked legal library and read the classic authoritative text Warren on Homicide. They will explain the legal principle of disparity of force the way it needs to be explained to the triers of the facts.
Considering how often prosecutors in my state get overturned for no duty to retreat within the home (over 100 year old ruling), ignorance of the disparity of force isn’t surprising. Admittedly, I didn’t read the more recent cases, might have been activists trying to make new law. Or maybe some circumstances on the edge.
I remember an ADA in your MAG 40 course in Harrisburg,PA in 2011 telling you that she learned more about firearm and self defense law in the MAG 40 course than she did in 3 years of law school, and OJT!
Wow, depressing indeed!
I see that another “rare” grizzly attack on a solo male hiker in “Jellystone” Park has been reported. I see no mention as to whether the grizzly was male or female. No firearm was apparently deployed in self-defense, and the absence of a gun is not spoken of as foolish, but a “bear spray” is seen as at least abortively presented. No mention either whether a proctologist was later employed to remove the spray canister from the aforementioned hiker. Presumably some of the spray at least added a certain amount of spice to the grizzly’s abortive meal. The hiker did fortunately survive the attack, but not without some serious “scratches.”
Recently a 71-year-old man here in the Ozarks of Arkansas was attacked by a juvenile black bear and died a couple of weeks later in the hospital due to the extensive injuries. The guilty bear was killed soon after the attack by Game and Fish officers and tested for rabies (came back negative). The bear weighed 70 pounds. Many folks would scoff at the thought of a 70-pound bear being dangerous but would be terrified at the thought of encountering a stray Pitbull on their property.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
– Albert Einstein –