An Interview with Massad Ayoob
by Gila Hayes
eJournal: Whether you are reading a book, listening to a lecture or standing around the range discussing recent crime reports, you will quickly run into the term “disparity of force.” It is essential to define the words we use and the context in which the definition is applicable. In the legal context, what is the meaning of “disparity of force?”
Ayoob: It’s an essential piece of the puzzle, and to understand it, you must know what the whole puzzle is supposed to look like in the end. When you open a jigsaw puzzle, and none of the pieces look like they will fit, the first thing you need to ask is, “What is this thing supposed to look like at the end?”
What this puzzle looks like at the end is what justifies the use of deadly force, which is that degree of force a reasonable person would consider capable of, or likely to, cause death or grave bodily harm. The only justifying circumstances are immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or another innocent party one has the right to protect.
Death, of course, is obvious. Grave bodily harm is generally defined as a crippling injury, a severe injury, a permanent injury. In some states that can mean a broken bone. In one state, there is case law that said a broken tooth was serious bodily harm. But generally, grave bodily harm is crippling or horribly disfiguring injury. That is the universal standard.
I have found the best way to get this across to many people is to picture a table that is set on three legs. The top of the table is that situation that justifies deadly force: immediate, otherwise unavoidable deadly danger. The three legs that hold it up – and all must be simultaneously present – are the criteria that create this circumstance. Different people use different names, but generically, most commonly are called ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.
Ability means the opponent has the power to kill or cripple.
Opportunity means they are capable of immediately employing it. There are no great obstacles between the assailant and you. The assailant can kill you very quickly with whatever they have. A guy with a knife three steps away from you certainly has opportunity. A man 100 yards away who is waving a knife and screaming that he is going to stab you is certainly threatening Homicide, and is threatening deadly force, he does have a deadly weapon. Still, within what the courts call the totality of the circumstances, he can’t immediately employ it because the opportunity is not there at that great distance, therefore, the three-legged table in our metaphor would not be fully supported.
The third element is jeopardy, sometimes incorrectly, improperly called intent. If we teach people the other guy must have the plan to cripple, then if the student has used deadly force in self defense, they are asked, “Did you know his intent?”
“Yes, he was going to kill me.”
“So, you are telling this jury you have the power to read minds?” That can impair credibility!
The proper term is “manifest intent” meaning intent manifested by words or actions that any reasonable and prudent person would construe as a threat to kill or cripple the innocent party in question.
Let’s go back to the element of ability, which some people call means. Where disparity of force is an issue, the most apparent aspect of ability, or means, is a deadly weapon, per se: a gun, a knife, a club – something of that nature.
The ostensibly unarmed attacker has the ability, if, within the totality of circumstances, his force to yours is so superior, is so likely to result in you being killed or crippled that it becomes the equivalent of a deadly weapon. The certainty of damage, therefore, warrants your resort to a per se lance – in this case your defensive firearm – to stop the attack.
The disparity of force can take any number of forms: the most obvious is force of numbers, a gang of assailants or just two. It could be, again obviously, a much larger, stronger person; interestingly not necessarily a younger person. While often you will find that with a younger attacker and an older victim, disparity of force exists, it is not the age that’s doing it; it is the common disabilities that come with age.
Let’s say we have a 130-pound anorexic junkie and the person he’s attacking is in their mid 70s and has had heart surgery. When I use this example in classes, my students say, “Oh, well, that’s not disparity of force!” The guy with the history of heart problems could be a more vulnerable victim, but in this case, the man I’ve just described is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold Schwarzenegger at 75 having recovered from his heart surgery, is going to be a very formidable opponent for the 130-pound junkie and shooting the junkie because he was afraid of being beaten in a fist fight would be a tough sell to a jury.
Disparity of force could be the handicapped attacked by the able-bodied, even if the handicap has taken place during the assault. Let’s say that you are attacked by a person of similar size and apparent abilities, but she starts the fight with a kick that breaks your kneecap. It is going to be all you can do to stay on your feet, let alone launch punches with body weight behind them, effectively block and evade, or throw a kick.
Another element of disparity of force is position of disadvantage. Maybe my student is 6’ 2’’ 220 pounds and a body builder, but they are seat belted into their car and in the road rage incident the attacker is punching them through the open window. That seat belt is going to act like an accomplice that is pinning your arms and holding you in place. You will not be able to get body weight behind a counter-punch, you certainly will not be able to kick, and you would be virtually unable to slip or evade a punch. That was the classic element in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial when the evidence showed that Zimmerman had, in fact, been down on his back, with a taller man smashing his head into the pavement.
Another element in disparity of force could be that the opponent has a known or obviously recognizable high-level skill in unarmed combat. You know he is a black belt. You know he was trained to kill with his hands in Special Forces and now he has turned bad. Maybe you have no idea who he is, but you just saw him kick a 6’ 2’’ 220-pound guy through a plate glass window while you were close enough to know that the guy you’re dealing with is not an average Joe.
It becomes an issue in so many cases! In just the past 12 months we have seen two very high-profile, nationally televised murder trials in which disparity of force was an issue. Wisconsin v Kyle Rittenhouse and Florida v Curtis Reeves which was wrongly called the popcorn shooting in the theater. In both cases, the argument was made by opposing counsel that it’s never self defense to shoot an unarmed man.
Now, these are attorneys. These are practicing attorneys. These are veteran criminal attorneys who work in the criminal justice system and have for many, many years. It is entirely possible that they actually do not understand disparity of force.
Network president Marty Hayes and I have both been expert witnesses, Marty for 30-some years and me for 40-some. We each interact with a great number of attorneys. When we are not down to business, and we are having dinner or a drink with them after the trial, we like to pick their brains.
The question both of us often ask is, “How much deadly force training did you get in law school?” The average runs no more than three hours. Several of them have said, “I don’t remember any.” About the only time we get anybody who got more than three hours in three years, it is somebody who was assigned a moot court case and the defendant happened to be claiming self defense.
Marty and I did one case in Tucson that you wrote up at https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf. One of those trials ended in a hung jury. We found out later that an attorney that was on the jury had told the other jurors, “I am a lawyer. I know all about this. There is no such thing as disparity of force. You can never shoot an unarmed person.” He said this about a man who was violently attacked by three people, all of them larger than he, and was about to lose consciousness when he opened fire and righteously defended himself. He ultimately won his freedom, but it was a long ordeal.
Basically, the jury pool – the jury pool being the general public – has been taught the same thing. They think that if you shoot an unarmed man, it can’t possibly be self defense. It is an unfair advantage; it’s got to be criminal somehow. We really need to educate the public on that!
I write a series in American Handgunner magazine called Ayoob Files which describes some such cases. In fact, there is a disparity of force element case in the current issue. (https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/ayoob-files-going-for-a-gun-the-jarrett-jones-case/) For several decades I have written the Self Defense and the Law column for Combat Handguns magazine. Somebody needs to put this stuff in Reader’s Digest so the general public – not just the people who read gun magazines – can grasp it! This is a classic example of people not knowing what they don’t know. It is woven into the warp and woof of American law in all 50 states.
You should be able to get a disparity of force instruction if your attorney is smart enough to ask the judge for it. If this is something that eludes attorneys, where do you think that leaves the average citizen?
Remember that all 19,500 Network members are not only law-abiding armed American citizens; each one is a member of the jury pool. There is an excellent chance that any Network member might be summoned for jury duty tomorrow and face a case like this. It is absolutely critical for them to know these elements, because there is a very good chance that the defense attorneys are going to be so clueless that they don’t bring it up. You can be damned sure plaintiff’s counsel in a civil case and the prosecutor in a criminal case are not going to bring it up.
eJournal: What are the chances of getting a disparity of force jury instruction?
Ayoob: You have a good chance if you have properly argued, if your attorney has quoted caselaw, if there already is a recommended jury instruction on disparity of force, within your state jury instructions.
eJournal: Is that common in most states?
Ayoob: Yes, you will have either disparity of force or some description which, without using those terms, encompasses it. You will almost certainly have some case law. If you don’t have it in your state, have your attorney check at the higher levels, at the findings of the appellate courts. If you’re in Washington state, for example, a state supreme court decision, from an East Coast state, doesn’t bind a Washington judge, but it can always be offered as persuasive argument for such an instruction.
Another persuasive element is a classic text, Warren on Homicide, that’s not widely known amongst laypersons. Lawyers who try a lot of homicide cases consider Warren on Homicide to be the Bible of homicide law. Warren on Homicide makes it abundantly clear what disparity of force can be and why it should be considered an element of the ability factor.
eJournal: At the Network, we work hard to avoid members having to go to trial, but as in the Tucson case you mentioned, the overwhelming prejudice goes against an armed person who needed to shoot an unarmed person. That case was doomed to need a trial to resolve concerns about why the armed citizen resorted to deadly force against three unarmed attackers. That somewhat pessimistic observation brings me to several questions.
First, how can armed citizens explain the reality of physical attack to prosecutors or district attorneys in hopes of derailing them from filing charges, or if it goes to trial how can one have provided clear statements starting with initial interviews with law enforcement that explain the necessity of shooting someone who was not carrying a gun?
Ayoob: Let’s assume, first, that we have an honest prosecutor doing his job, and not one of the unfortunately increasing numbers of prosecutors whom certain billionaires with agendas have funded with giant amounts of money to get them elected and to push the agendas of those particular billionaires. If a prosecutor is looking to make an example of someone for gun control, we may not be able to dissuade them, but in my opinion, the vast majority of prosecutors are honest. If your defense attorney calls the prosecutor and says, “Look, my client and I would like to come in and sit down and talk with you and your investigator. Of course, we will both record the whole thing.” That is so unusual that you’re going to get a double take, and the curiosity it creates is so strong that you will get a response of, “Yes, come on in.” If they say “No,” that tells you that they have already made up their mind and there is going to be a show trial.
It will be a surprise when you go in and you sit down and say, “Here is what we’ve got,” because so many criminal defense lawyers who spend their careers defending guilty men find one of their best strategies is “hide the ball” to save your best game for trial. Because that is the usual thing guilty men’s lawyers defending guilty men do, when a lawyer that is respected by honest prosecutors comes in and says, “Mr. Prosecutor, here’s what we have. Here’s what we’ve done. We have no ball to hide. This is going to be our defense and nothing that the state puts forward is going to change that.” Very often what we hear is, “Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We had not seen that side of it.” Often the matter is resolved there, and the case is dropped.
It’s not been too long ago that the Network had a very similar situation in Colorado. Doing exactly that saved a Network member the months and sometimes years that it takes to await trial. Our members need to understand that this is not a one-hour episode of Perry Mason. In April I had a case involving a shooting that took place in 2016. The officer was cleared by his department. He was cleared by his state’s department of law enforcement. He was cleared by the prosecutor’s investigation and was cleared by a grand jury. Then in 2019, he was indicted by what I consider to be a self-styled social justice warrior from the Department of Justice in a federal case. If convicted, he was looking at 20 years “hard,” based on the federal sentencing guidelines.
The indictment came down in 2019. The officer, of course, had to leave law enforcement. The trial did not take place until March-April of 2022. We won the case. The officer has since been reinstated but he had literally a half decade with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. It is virtually unknown to the public how many of these cases we win if, at the beginning, we can get in and let the other side realize the shooting was justifiable.
You have some idea what my caseload is. I have gone into a courtroom I think, twice this year to testify at trial and fortunately, we won both of those.
eJournal: Are you able to get dismissals, too?
Ayoob: We regularly get dismissals or plea bargain offers. Sometimes the prosecutor’s office needs a plea bargain to save face, and that is as far as they will go. We have had two in the last few months where the attorneys and me were convinced we were most likely going to win at trial. When I say most likely, virtually everybody in the business pegs it at about 10% that the most ironclad defense can fail. There is going to be some surprise witness, a believable liar on the other side, or maybe one time out of 10 a juror with an agenda sneaks onto the jury, where even the best defense might end up with a conviction.
The individual who has been under this ordeal, realizes they are paying $500 an hour to their attorney–and many cost more; there are many attorneys that charge $1000 an hour–and this is going to be hundreds of hours, they see themselves as bankrupting their family, and, in desperation, they take the plea. One of those cases was a homicide and the plea was no time served and a period of probation. This man had six children, and in his mind, he simply could not take the risk of abandoning his wife to raise the children alone with only one income.
I had been looking forward to going to trial. We had an excellent defense attorney, John Colley from Tennessee, and I was looking forward to working with him again. The client made the decision to plead, and John and I can both understand why he did. I think it is a damn shame he was ever charged to begin with. Getting back to what we were talking about, a huge amount of the time we can kill these cases without the person having to go to trial. The strategy is to get the truth across to honest prosecutors.
eJournal: When disparity of force is the key, what does the expert identify then tell the attorney, “You need to make the prosecutor aware of this!” What are the elements you identify and explain so that authorities don’t think the client cold-bloodedly murdered an unarmed man?
Ayoob: Explain to the prosecutor that you will be bringing in expert witnesses. I would suggest bringing in material witnesses, too. Most states have a boxing commission; bring in someone from the boxing commission to ask, “Mr. Commissioner, given the size and particularly the weights of these two people, this would have been a light heavyweight fighting a fly weight. Sir, would you ever allow that?”
“Absolutely not! It would be forbidden.”
“Because the fly weight would be so likely to be killed or crippled.”
“Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. No further questions.”
When you think about it, disparity of force becomes common sense, but most people have not thought about it. A smart prosecutor who has done a lot of trials knows that jurors respond to common sense. Their common sense is what they bring to the court room so you definitely play toward the common sense that the violation of fairness is “large” attacking “small,” not the small person in desperation using a gun so they can come home to their family on their feet instead of in a box.
eJournal: When we think of disparity of force, we tend to think about large against small, able-bodied against disabled, but there is one more element that we haven’t mentioned. In today’s world, I wonder if we have dropped one we used to teach…
Ayoob: Male versus female…
eJournal: Yes, a male attacking a female. Has the paradigm changed so gender is no longer a factor? After all, we have women wrestlers, we have people born male who become female, and so many other variations that I wonder if that element is obsolete.
Ayoob: Not really. I should have mentioned it earlier. Male versus female generally is a disparity of force element, but not always. It is well understood that the male, on average, is larger and stronger than the female of the species. He tends to have greater upper body strength, and tends, culturally, to be disposed more toward violent sports such as tackle football, for example, things of that nature. We are a society where little boys grow up being told, “You punch that Bluto, Jr. bully right in the mouth, kid! Don’t take no crap! Be a man! Stand up, by golly!” His sister is taught, “Now, dear, no one likes a pushy little bitch.”
That said, you could have the rare exception when the male is 5’ 4’’ and 130 pounds and the female has just retired from WWE professional wrestling, and she is 6’ 2’’ and 280 and could lift him and throw him across the street.
eJournal: People have asked, “What if I am attacked by a transgender person, or someone who presents as a woman but is actually a man? What am I legally allowed to do in that kind of a situation?” I think armed citizens are struggling to balance changes in our culture against the structure of our laws and legal traditions. Their questions are not frivolous.
Ayoob: I have trained several transgender students. They, very much like the gay community, are at risk of being bashed by homophobes and transphobes. You have got to look at what side they are on! If it was a 6’ 2’’ 220-pound male that was transitioned, they would have to say, “Look, the whole reason I transitioned is because I have always considered myself a woman. I have always hated fighting. I never learned to fight. I have been taking hormone therapy that has greatly reduced my physical strength.”
If the 130-pound male whom we hypothesized earlier is attacked by a violent, large female, their answer would be, “I was attacked by a large, violent person who outweighed me and was trying to kill me. You can take your gender preferences, your gender phobia and your gender biases elsewhere! A big person, big enough to kill me, was attacking me and I stopped them the only way I could. I did not factor in whether they were male, female, transgender or cisgender.”
eJournal: That is very useful. You remove appearance from the decision about what to do in self defense.
Ayoob: Now, there is one other thing we have not discussed that will round out this topic. We should consider the person with what some call the “silent disease.” This is a person who is fragile, but you cannot see it when you look at them. We have one student who has had to undergo severe, major neurosurgery and has a large chunk of his skull missing on the left side of his forehead.
A blow that would make your eyes sting could kill him. In classes, we even put him on the far left of the firing line, so he is away from flying brass. To look at him, with the scars on his forehead, he looks like a big old, beat-up bar fighter. He looks intimidating as hell. If I were him and someone were coming up to me with a fist cocked saying, “I will knock your block off,” I would have my gun out and if he continued toward me, I would pull the trigger.
Just this past year, we had a case for a man who had a disease that’s like hemophilia. The guy was a bleeder. A much larger, stronger, younger man was coming at him was yelling that he was going to break his face. He shot him. We went through a 776.032 hearing (Florida Statute 776 Chapter 032 about Stand Your Ground), and his attorney Art Hernandez did an excellent job and got him cleared, but he had spent a significant amount of time in jail awaiting that hearing. The pandemic, of course, has made the delays much worse.
I teach it like this: let’s say you have an evil heart. A punch to the sternum that would knock my breath out will kill you. If anybody is in a situation like that, if someone is trying to start a fight with them, I tell them to yell as loudly as they can, “Sir, I have a medical condition. If you hit me, I could die.” Tell him and the witnesses that this is not a TV fistfight where somebody punches somebody in the nose and says, “Now I have satisfied my honour and shall walk away.” This is a deadly force situation. If the man continues the attack, he has expressed an apparent willingness to cause death or grave bodily harm and we have greatly solidified the jeopardy element.
eJournal: Our Network membership demographic tends toward people of mature years. As you said, age often comes with an injury, illness, or other disabilities. That makes disparity of force a subject that we must understand. Talking to you has reminded me of a great interview Dr. Robert Margulies gave at https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/december-2015-blunt-force-trauma-lethality. When I interviewed him, he said, “You can’t afford to risk a blow to the head; you are too old.” He explained how coup and contrecoup injury is more severe for an older person. That is only one element of this big, complex subject we’ve covered today. Can you synopsize? Is there a CliffsNotes® closing about the disparity of force?
Ayoob: I think we’ve about covered it. Sadly, so much deadly force law does not lend itself to CliffsNotes® because complicated issues do not come with simple answers.
eJournal: [chuckling] Maybe that is why our journal interviews tend to run so long! I appreciate your patience and all the questions you’ve answered, so we understand deadly force law better.
Network Advisory Board member Massad Ayoob is the author of Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense which is distributed in our new member education package that’s sent to all new Network members. He has additionally authored several dozen books and hundreds of articles on firearms, self-defence and related topics. Massad has authored multiple editions of Gun Digest’s Book of Concealed Carry and Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery.
Since 1979, he has received judicial recognition as an expert witness for the courts in weapons and shooting cases and was a fully sworn and empowered, part-time police officer for over forty years at ranks from patrolman through captain. He serves as president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Ayoob founded the Lethal Force Institute in 1981 and now teaches through Massad Ayoob Group, of which he is the director. Learn more at https://massadayoobgroup.com or read his blog at https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/.
"Kama wewe ni kusoma kitabu, kusikiliza hotuba au kusimama karibu na mbalimbali kujadili ripoti za hivi karibuni uhalifu, wewe haraka kukimbia katika neno ""disparity ya nguvu"" ni muhimu kufafanua maneno sisi kutumia na muktadha katika ambayo ufafanuzi ni husika." Katika muktadha wa kisheria, ni nini maana ya <unk>disparity ya nguvu?<unk> Ayoob: Ni kipande muhimu cha puzzle, na kuelewa ni, lazima kujua nini puzzle nzima ni walidhani ya kuangalia kama katika mwisho. "Ukifungua puzzle, na hakuna kipande kinachoonekana kama kitakavyolingana, jambo la kwanza unahitaji kuuliza ni, ""Ni nini kitu hiki kinapaswa kuonekana kama mwisho?"" ""Ni nini kipande hiki cha puzzle kinaonekana kama mwisho ni kile kinachohakikisha matumizi ya nguvu ya mauti, ambayo ni kiwango cha nguvu mtu mwenye busara angechukulia kuwa na uwezo wa, au uwezekano wa, kusababisha kifo au madhara makubwa ya mwili." Hali pekee ya kustahili ni hatari ya papo hapo, au isiyoweza kuepukika ya kifo au madhara makubwa ya mwili kwa mtu mwenyewe au kwa mtu mwingine asiye na hatia ambaye ana haki ya kumlinda. Kwa kweli, kifo ni jambo la wazi. Kwa kawaida, uharibifu mkubwa wa mwili hufafanuliwa kuwa jeraha lenye kulemaza, jeraha zito, jeraha la kudumu. Katika baadhi ya majimbo hilo laweza kumaanisha mfupa uliovunjika. Katika jimbo moja, kuna sheria ya kesi ambayo ilisema kwamba jino lililovunjika lilikuwa madhara makubwa ya kimwili. Lakini kwa ujumla, madhara makubwa ya kimwili ni majeraha yenye kulemaza au yenye kuharibu sana umbo. Hiyo ndiyo kiwango cha ulimwengu wote mzima. Njia bora ya kuelezea hii ni kwa kuelezea meza iliyowekwa juu ya miguu mitatu. Juu ya meza ni hali hiyo ambayo inathibitisha nguvu ya kifo: hatari ya kifo ya papo hapo, ambayo isingepuuzwa. Miguu mitatu ambayo kushikilia juu <unk> na wote lazima kuwa wakati huo huo sasa <unk> ni vigezo kwamba kujenga hali hii. Watu tofauti-tofauti hutumia majina tofauti, lakini kwa ujumla, kwa kawaida huitwa uwezo, fursa, na hatari. Uwezo humaanisha mpinzani ana nguvu ya kuua au kupooza. Uwezekano humaanisha kwamba wanaweza kuitumia mara moja. Hakuna vizuizi vikubwa kati ya mshambuliaji na wewe. Mshambuliaji anaweza kukuua haraka sana kwa chochote wanacho. Mtu mwenye kisu hatua tatu kutoka kwako hakika ana fursa. "Mtu aliye umbali wa mita 100 akipeperusha kisu na kupiga kelele kwamba atakupiga, hakika anatoa tishio la ""kuua,"" na anatoa tishio la kutumia nguvu za mauti." Hata hivyo, ndani ya kile mahakama huita jumla ya hali, hawezi kutumia mara moja kwa sababu fursa si huko kwa umbali mkubwa, kwa hiyo, meza ya miguu mitatu katika mfano wetu haingekuwa mkono kikamilifu. Kipengele cha tatu ni hatari, wakati mwingine kwa makosa, isiyofaa inaitwa nia. "Wakati wa kuhojiwa, wanafunzi wanaulizwa ""Je, unajua nia yake?"" ""Ndiyo, alikuwa anakuja kuniua."" ""Kwa hiyo, unawaambia majaji kwamba una uwezo wa kusoma mawazo?""" "Jina la ""kichocheo"" ni ""kichocheo cha wazi"" kinachomaanisha nia iliyoonyeshwa na maneno au vitendo ambavyo mtu yeyote mwenye busara na mwenye busara angeweza kuifasiri kama tishio la kumuua au kumlemaza mtu asiye na hatia." Hebu turudi kwa kipengele cha uwezo, ambayo baadhi ya watu wito njia. Ambapo tofauti ya nguvu ni suala, kipengele dhahiri zaidi cha uwezo, au njia, ni silaha ya kifo, per se: bunduki, kisu, klabu <unk> kitu cha asili hiyo. "Mshambuliaji aliyeonekana kuwa hana silaha ana uwezo, ikiwa, ndani ya jumla ya hali, nguvu yake ni bora kuliko yako, ina uwezekano mkubwa wa kusababisha wewe kuuawa au kupooza kwamba inakuwa sawa na silaha ya mauti. """ Kwa hiyo, uhakika wa uharibifu unahakikisha kwamba unatumia mkuki - katika kisa hiki silaha yako ya kujilinda - ili kuzuia shambulio hilo. Tofauti ya nguvu inaweza kuchukua aina yoyote: dhahiri zaidi ni nguvu ya idadi, genge la washambuliaji au wawili tu. Inaweza kuwa, tena ni wazi, mtu mkubwa zaidi, mwenye nguvu zaidi; kwa kuvutia si lazima mtu mchanga zaidi. Wakati mara nyingi utapata kwamba na mshambuliaji mchanga na mhasiriwa mzee, tofauti ya nguvu ipo, si umri ambao unafanya hivyo; ni ulemavu wa kawaida ambao huja na umri. Kwa mfano, mtu mwenye uzito wa kilo 130 ambaye ni mraibu wa anorexia ana umri wa miaka 70 na amefanya upasuaji wa moyo. "Wanafunzi wangu wanasema, ""Hiyo si tofauti ya nguvu."" Mtu mwenye historia ya matatizo ya moyo anaweza kuwa mhasiriwa dhaifu zaidi, lakini katika kesi hii, mtu niliyemfafanua ni Arnold Schwarzenegger." Arnold Schwarzenegger, ambaye amepona baada ya kufanyiwa upasuaji wa moyo, amekuwa mpinzani mkubwa kwa mraibu huyo mwenye uzito wa pauni 130 na kumfyatua risasi kwa sababu aliogopa kushindwa katika pambano la ngumi. Uwezekano wa kushambuliwa kwa walemavu na wenye uwezo wa mwili, hata kama ulemavu umetokea wakati wa shambulio. Hebu tuseme kwamba unashambuliwa na mtu wa ukubwa sawa na uwezo dhahiri, lakini anaanza mapigano na kick kwamba kuvunja knee cap. Ni lazima uendelee kuwa juu ya miguu yako, bila kuacha kupiga makofi na uzito wa mwili nyuma yao, kuzuia na kuepuka, au kutupa kick. Sehemu nyingine ya kutofautiana kwa nguvu ni nafasi ya hasara. "Mwanafunzi wangu mwenye uzito wa pauni 6 na mwili wa pauni 220, amefungwa kamba ya usalama kwenye gari lake na katika tukio la hasira ya barabarani mshambuliaji anawapiga kwa ngumi kupitia dirisha la wazi.""" Mkanda wa usalama ni kama msaidizi ambaye anakufunga mikono yako na kukushikilia mahali. Hutaweza kupata uzito wa mwili nyuma ya pigo la kukabiliana, hakika huwezi kupiga, na kwa kweli huwezi kuanguka au kuepuka pigo. Katika kesi ya George Zimmerman na Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman alishambuliwa na mtu mrefu na mtu mrefu na mtu mrefu. Kipengele kingine katika utofauti wa nguvu inaweza kuwa kwamba mpinzani ana ujuzi wa kiwango cha juu unaojulikana au dhahiri unaotambuliwa katika mapigano yasiyo na silaha. Unajua yeye ni ukanda mweusi. Alijifunza kuua kwa mikono yake katika vikosi maalum na sasa amegeuka kuwa mbaya. "Huwezi kuwa na wazo ni nani, lakini umemwona akipiga risasi mtu wa kilo 6 na nusu na kilo 220 kupitia dirisha la glasi ya sahani wakati ulikuwa karibu vya kutosha kujua kwamba mtu unayeshughulika naye si Joe wa kawaida. """ Inakuwa tatizo katika visa vingi sana! Katika miezi 12 iliyopita, tumeona kesi mbili za mauaji zilizotangazwa kwa televisheni nchini kote ambapo tofauti ya nguvu ilikuwa suala. Wisconsin v Kyle Rittenhouse na Florida v Curtis Reeves ambayo ilikuwa kimakosa aitwaye popcorn risasi katika ukumbi wa michezo. Katika visa vyote viwili, hoja ilitolewa na wakili wa upande mwingine kwamba kamwe si kujilinda kumpiga risasi mtu asiye na silaha. Sasa, hawa ni wanasheria. Hawa ni wanasheria wanaofanya kazi. Hizi ni sheria za zamani za kisheria ambazo zimetumika katika mfumo wa haki za jinai kwa miaka mingi. Inawezekana kabisa kwamba kwa kweli hawaelewi tofauti ya nguvu. """Mwanzoni, mimi na Marty Hayes tulikuwa waandishi wa habari wa zamani, lakini sasa tunajua kwamba Marty alikuwa na umri wa miaka 30 na mimi miaka 40." Kila mmoja wetu huwasiliana na wanasheria wengi. Wakati sisi si chini ya biashara, na sisi ni kuwa na chakula cha jioni au kinywaji pamoja nao baada ya kesi, sisi kama kuchukua ubongo wao. Swali ambalo sisi wawili mara nyingi kuuliza ni, "Ulipata mafunzo gani ya nguvu za mauti katika shule ya sheria?" Wastani haufanyi zaidi ya saa tatu. "Wengine wamesema, ""Sikumbuki."""" Wakati pekee tunaopata mtu ambaye amepata zaidi ya saa tatu katika miaka mitatu, ni mtu ambaye alipewa kesi ya mahakama ya simulizi na mshtakiwa alidai kujitetea." "Mimi na Marty tulifanya kesi moja huko Tucson ambayo uliiandika kwenye https: www.armedcitizensnetwork.org ""picha"" na ""hadithi"" Hickey_Booklet." Mojawapo ya kesi hizo ilimalizika kwa kukosa uamuzi. Tuligundua baadaye kwamba mwanasheria aliyekuwa katika baraza la mahakama alikuwa amewaambia majaji wengine, "Mimi ni mwanasheria. Najua yote kuhusu hili. Hakuna kitu kama tofauti ya nguvu. "Huwezi kumshambulia mtu asiye na silaha."" - Mwanamume mmoja aliyeshambuliwa na watu watatu, wote wakubwa kuliko yeye, na alikuwa karibu kupoteza fahamu alipofungua risasi na kujilinda." Mwishowe alipata uhuru wake, lakini ilikuwa jaribu refu. Kimsingi, jury pool - jury pool kuwa umma kwa ujumla - imekuwa kufundishwa kitu kimoja. Wao kufikiri kwamba kama wewe risasi mtu asiye na silaha, haiwezi kuwa uwezekano wa kujilinda. Ni faida isiyo ya haki; ni got kuwa jinai kwa njia fulani. Kwa kweli tunahitaji kuwaelimisha watu kuhusu jambo hilo! "Mwanzoni mwa mwaka huu, gazeti la American Handgunner lilichapisha makala ya ""Ayoub Files"" ambayo ilionyesha jinsi watu walivyoathiriwa na mauaji hayo." Kwa kweli, kuna tofauti ya kesi ya kipengele cha nguvu katika suala la sasa. "Mwanzoni mwa miaka ya 1960 na 1970 alishiriki katika ""Kujitetea na Sheria"" (Self Defense and the Law) katika jarida la Combat Handguns." Mtu anahitaji kuweka mambo haya katika Reader's Digest hivyo umma kwa ujumla <unk> si tu watu ambao kusoma magazeti bunduki <unk> inaweza kuelewa! Hii ni mfano wa kawaida wa watu wasiojua kile wasichokijua. Sheria hiyo imefungwa katika sheria za Marekani katika majimbo yote 50. Unaweza kupata tofauti ya maagizo ya nguvu ikiwa wakili wako ni smart kutosha kuuliza hakimu kwa ajili yake. Kama hii ni kitu ambacho wanasheria hawawezi kukipata, unafikiri hiyo inaweka wapi raia wa kawaida? "Kumbuka kwamba wanachama wote wa 19,500 wa Mtandao sio tu raia wa Marekani wanaoshikilia sheria, kila mmoja ni mwanachama wa ""jury pool.""" Kuna uwezekano mkubwa kwamba mwanachama yeyote wa Mtandao anaweza kuitwa kwa kazi ya jury kesho na kukabiliwa na kesi kama hii. Ni muhimu kabisa kwao kujua mambo haya, kwa sababu kuna nafasi nzuri sana kwamba mawakili wa utetezi watakuwa hawana wazo kwamba hawataleta juu yake. Unaweza kuwa na uhakika wa dhamana ya mwombaji katika kesi ya kiraia na mwendesha mashtaka katika kesi ya jinai hawataleta juu yake. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, kuna uwezekano gani wa kupata ""mfano wa nguvu"" wa mashtaka ya mahakama?" "Ayoub: ""Una nafasi nzuri ikiwa umesisitiza vizuri, ikiwa mwanasheria wako ametaja sheria ya kesi, ikiwa tayari kuna maagizo ya jury yaliyopendekezwa juu ya tofauti ya nguvu, ndani ya maagizo yako ya juri ya jimbo.""" Je, ni kawaida katika majimbo mengi? "Ayu'b (ra) alisema: ""Hakika utapata tofauti ya nguvu au maelezo ambayo bila kutumia maneno hayo yanajumuisha.""" Ni hakika kwamba utakuwa na sheria fulani za kisheria. Kama huna katika hali yako, kuwa na mwanasheria wako kuangalia katika ngazi ya juu, katika matokeo ya mahakama za rufaa. Kwa mfano, ikiwa uko katika jimbo la Washington, uamuzi wa mahakama kuu ya jimbo, kutoka jimbo la Pwani ya Mashariki, haufungi hakimu wa Washington, lakini daima unaweza kutolewa kama hoja ya kushawishi kwa maagizo kama hayo. Kipengele kingine cha kushawishi ni maandishi ya kawaida, Warren juu ya Mauaji, ambayo haijulikani sana miongoni mwa watu wa kawaida. Wanasheria ambao hujaribu kesi nyingi za mauaji huona Warren juu ya Mauaji kuwa Biblia ya sheria ya mauaji. Warren juu ya mauaji hufanya wazi sana nini tofauti ya nguvu inaweza kuwa na kwa nini inapaswa kuchukuliwa kipengele cha sababu ya uwezo. """Tunafanya kazi kwa bidii ili kuepuka washiriki kwenda mahakamani, lakini kama katika kesi ya Tucson uliyotaja, ubaguzi mkubwa unakwenda dhidi ya mtu mwenye silaha ambaye alihitaji kumpiga risasi mtu asiye na silaha." Kesi hiyo ilihitaji kesi ili kutatua wasiwasi kuhusu kwa nini raia huyo mwenye silaha alitumia nguvu za mauaji dhidi ya washambuliaji watatu wasio na silaha. Maoni hayo yenye kutarajia mabaya yananileta kwenye maswali kadhaa. "Kwanza, ""Wananchi wenye silaha wanawezaje kueleza ukweli wa mashambulizi ya kimwili kwa waendesha mashtaka au waendesha mashtaka wa wilaya kwa matumaini ya kuwazuia wasilete mashtaka, au ikiwa itaenda mahakamani, mtu anawezaje kutoa taarifa wazi kuanzia na mahojiano ya awali na maafisa wa sheria ambayo yanaelezea umuhimu wa kumpiga risasi mtu ambaye hakuwa na bunduki?""" "Ayoub: ""Hebu tufikirie, kwanza, kwamba tuna mwendesha mashtaka mnyoofu anayefanya kazi yake, na sio mmoja wa idadi inayokua kwa bahati mbaya ya waendesha mashtaka ambao mabilionea fulani na ajenda zao wamewasaidia kwa kiasi kikubwa cha pesa ili kuwachagua na kusukuma ajenda za mabilionea hao." """Ikiwa mwendesha mashtaka anatafuta kumfanya mtu awe mfano kwa udhibiti wa bunduki, huenda tusingeweza kuwazuia, lakini kwa maoni yangu, wengi wa waendesha mashtaka ni wanyoofu." "Mwanasheria wa ulinzi wa mtu anapoomba kwa mwanasheria wa mashtaka, ""Mteja wangu na mimi tungependa kuja na kukaa na kuzungumza na wewe na mtafiti wako.""" "Hiyo ni ya kawaida sana kwamba utapata kuchukua mara mbili, na udadisi unaouunda ni mkubwa sana kwamba utapata jibu la, ""Ndiyo, njoo ndani."" Ikiwa wanasema, ""Hapana,"" hiyo inakuambia kwamba tayari wamefanya uamuzi wao na kutakuwa na kesi ya kuonyesha." "Hii itakuwa mshangao wakati wewe kwenda ndani na wewe kukaa chini na kusema, ""Hii ni nini tuna got,"" kwa sababu wengi wa sheria ya uhalifu wanasheria ambao kutumia kazi yao kutetea watu hatia kupata moja ya mikakati yao bora ni ""kuficha mpira"" kuokoa mchezo wako bora kwa ajili ya kesi." "Kwa sababu hiyo ni jambo la kawaida wanasheria wa watu wenye hatia wanaowatetea watu wenye hatia kufanya, wakati mwanasheria anayeheshimiwa na waendesha mashtaka wa uaminifu anapoingia na kusema, ""Bwana.""" Mwendesha mashtaka, hapa ni nini tuna. Hapa ni nini tumefanya. Hatuna mpira wa kujificha. "Hii itakuwa ni ulinzi wetu na hakuna kitu ambacho serikali inatoa kinachoweza kubadilisha hilo."" Mara nyingi kile tunachosikia ni, ""Asante kwa kuleta hilo kwa tahadhari yetu.""" Hatukuona upande huo wa jambo hilo. <unk> Mara nyingi jambo hilo hutatuliwa huko, na kesi hiyo huachwa. Haikuwa muda mrefu uliopita kwamba Mtandao alikuwa na hali sawa sana katika Colorado. Kufanya hivyo hasa kulimwokoa mshiriki wa Mtandao miezi na nyakati nyingine miaka ambayo inachukua kusubiri kesi. "Wanachama wetu wanahitaji kuelewa kwamba hii si kipindi cha saa moja cha ""Perry Mason.""" Katika kesi ya April, kesi ya mauaji ya mwaka 2016 ilifanyika. Ofisa huyo aliondolewa hatia na idara yake. Aliondolewa mashtaka na idara ya serikali ya kutekeleza sheria. Aliondolewa hatia na uchunguzi wa mwendesha mashtaka na aliondolewa hatia na baraza kubwa la mahakama. "Mwaka 2019 alishtakiwa na ""mshindi wa haki za kijamii"" kutoka kwa Idara ya Sheria katika kesi ya shirikisho." Ikiwa atapatikana na hatia, angepaswa kukabiliwa na miaka 20 ya kifungo, kulingana na miongozo ya hukumu ya shirikisho. Mashtaka hayo yalifikishwa mwaka 2019. Bila shaka, ofisa huyo alilazimika kuacha kazi ya kutekeleza sheria. Kesi hiyo ilifanyika mwezi Machi hadi Aprili mwaka huu. Tulishinda kesi hiyo. "Maafisa hao wawili walikamatwa na kuuawa, lakini waliendelea kuwa na ""Upanga wa Damocles"" juu ya vichwa vyao." """Hakuna mtu anayejua ni kesi ngapi ambazo tunashinda ikiwa, mwanzoni, tunaweza kuingia na kuruhusu upande mwingine atambue kuwa risasi zilikuwa halali." Una wazo fulani nini kazi yangu ni. """Nimeingia mahakamani mara mbili mwaka huu kutoa ushahidi na kwa bahati nzuri tulishinda mara zote mbili." "Kama ""mwanamke"" unaweza kuamua kuondoa kazi yako kwa sababu ya kukosa kazi?" Ayoob: Mara kwa mara tunapata mapumziko au mapendekezo ya makubaliano ya kisheria. Nyakati nyingine ofisi ya mwendesha mashtaka huhitaji makubaliano ya kukubali mashtaka ili kuokoa uso, na hiyo ndiyo mbali zaidi watakaokwenda. """Tumekuwa na kesi mbili katika miezi michache iliyopita ambapo wanasheria na mimi tulikuwa na hakika kwamba tungeweza kushinda kesi." "Kama mimi kusema ""inawezekana sana,"" karibu kila mtu katika biashara pegs ni juu ya 10% kwamba ulinzi zaidi chuma inaweza kushindwa." "Kunaweza kuwa na shahidi wa kushangaza, mwongo anayeaminika upande mwingine, au labda mara moja kati ya kumi, jaji mwenye mpango anajificha kwenye baraza la mahakama, ambapo hata utetezi bora unaweza kuishia na hatia. """ Mtu ambaye amekuwa chini ya jaribio hili, anatambua kwamba wanalipa $ 500 kwa saa kwa wakili wao - na wengi wanagharimu zaidi; kuna wanasheria wengi ambao wanatoza $ 1000 kwa saa - na hii itakuwa mamia ya masaa, wanajiona kuwa wanaangamiza familia yao, na, kwa kukata tamaa, wanakubali. Moja ya kesi hizo ilikuwa ya mauaji na rufaa ilikuwa hakuna muda kutumika na kipindi cha majaribio. Alikuwa na watoto sita na hakuweza kumwacha mkewe peke yake na kuwazalia watoto. Nilikuwa nikitazamia kwa hamu kuhukumiwa. """Tuna mwanasheria wa ulinzi mzuri sana, John Colley kutoka Tennessee, na nilikuwa na hamu ya kufanya kazi naye tena." Mteja alichukua uamuzi wa kukubali, na mimi na John tunaweza kuelewa kwa nini alifanya hivyo. Nadhani ni aibu sana kwamba yeye aliwahi kushtakiwa kuanza na. Kwa kurudi kwenye kile tulichokuwa tukizungumzia, wakati mwingi tunaweza kuua kesi hizi bila mtu huyo kuhudhuria kesi. Mkakati ni kupata ukweli kwa waendesha mashtaka wanyoofu. "Kama tofauti ya nguvu ni ufunguo, nini mtaalamu kutambua kisha kumwambia mwanasheria, ""Unahitaji kufanya mwendesha mashtaka kujua hili!"" Nini ni vipengele wewe kutambua na kueleza hivyo mamlaka si kufikiri mteja cold-bloodedly kuuawa mtu asiye na silaha?" "Mwanasheria huyo aliwaambia waendesha mashtaka kwamba ""watakaokuwa wakitoa ushahidi wa kiufundi.""" Ningependekeza kuleta mashahidi wa msingi, pia. Majimbo mengi yana tume ya ndondi; kuleta mtu kutoka tume ya ndondi kuuliza, <unk>Mr. "Kwa kuzingatia ukubwa na uzito wa watu hao wawili, hii ingekuwa ""mzito mwanga"" kupigana na ""mzito wa kuruka.""" Mheshimiwa, je, unaweza kamwe kuruhusu kwamba? <unk> <unk>Hapana kabisa! "Hii ni kwa sababu ""mzigo wa kuruka"" unaweza kuua au kuharibu." Hakuna maswali zaidi. <unk> Wakati wewe kufikiri juu yake, utofauti wa nguvu inakuwa akili ya kawaida, lakini watu wengi hawajafikiri kuhusu hilo. Mwendesha mashtaka mwenye akili ambaye amefanya majaribio mengi anajua kwamba majaji huitikia akili ya kawaida. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya ""haki ya kawaida"" ambayo inahusu ""kushambulia kwa kiasi kikubwa, sio mtu mdogo katika kukata tamaa kwa kutumia bunduki ili waweze kurudi nyumbani kwa familia yao kwa miguu yao badala ya katika sanduku.""" "Wakati tunapozungumzia ""mabadiliko ya nguvu,"" sisi huwa tunafikiria juu ya ""kubwa dhidi ya ndogo,"" ""mzito dhidi ya walemavu,"" lakini kuna kitu kingine ambacho hatujazungumzia." Katika ulimwengu wa leo, najiuliza kama tumeshindwa moja tuliyotumia kufundisha... Ayoob: Male dhidi ya mwanamke... eJournal: Ndiyo, mwanaume kushambulia mwanamke. Je, maoni yamebadilika hivi kwamba jinsia haishiriki tena? Baada ya yote, tuna wapiganaji wa wanawake, tuna watu waliozaliwa wa kiume ambao wanakuwa wanawake, na tofauti nyingine nyingi ambazo najiuliza ikiwa kipengele hicho kimepitwa na wakati. Ayoob: Si kweli. Lazima ningesema hivyo mapema. Wanaume dhidi ya wanawake kwa ujumla ni utofauti wa nguvu ya kipengele, lakini si daima. Inajulikana vizuri kwamba kwa wastani, kiume ni mkubwa na mwenye nguvu kuliko mwanamke wa spishi hiyo. Yeye huwa na nguvu kubwa ya mwili wa juu, na huwa, kiutamaduni, kuwa na mwelekeo zaidi kuelekea michezo ya vurugu kama vile mpira wa miguu, kwa mfano, mambo ya asili hiyo. Sisi ni jamii ambapo wavulana wadogo kukua kuwa aliiambia, <unk>You punch kwamba Bluto, Jr. bully haki katika kinywa, mtoto! Usiwe na wasiwasi! Uwe mwanamume! "Mwanamke huyo alimwambia dada yake, ""Hakuna mtu anayempenda msichana mdogo mwenye nguvu, unaweza kuwa na ubaguzi wa kawaida wakati mwanaume ni 5 4 na pauni 130 na mwanamke amestaafu tu kutoka kwa WWE, na yeye ni 6 2 na 280 na anaweza kumwinua na kumtupa barabarani." "Watu wameuliza, ""Ikiwa nitashambuliwa na mtu wa jinsia tofauti, au mtu anayejitokeza kama mwanamke lakini kwa kweli ni mwanamume?""" Ninaweza kufanya nini kisheria katika hali kama hiyo? <unk> Nadhani wananchi wenye silaha wanajitahidi kusawazisha mabadiliko katika utamaduni wetu dhidi ya muundo wa sheria zetu na mila za kisheria. Maswali yao si ya kijuujuu tu. "Ayoub: ""Nimekuwa nikifanya kazi na wanafunzi wa transgender." Wao, kama jamii ya mashoga, wako katika hatari ya kushambuliwa na watu wanaopenda mashoga na watu wanaopenda watu wanaopenda mashoga. Lazima uone ni upande gani wao wako! "Ikiwa alikuwa mwanamume wa 6 ""2 "" 220 paundi ambaye alikuwa amebadilishwa, wangelazimika kusema, ""Angalia, sababu nzima niliyobadilisha ni kwa sababu siku zote nimejiona kuwa mwanamke.""" Sikuzote nimechukia kupigana. Sijawahi kujifunza kupigana. "Mwanamume mwenye uzito wa pauni 130 ambaye tulidhaniwa hapo awali alishambuliwa na mwanamke mwenye nguvu, mkubwa, jibu lao lingekuwa, ""Nilishambuliwa na mtu mkubwa, mwenye nguvu ambaye alinipita na alikuwa akijaribu kuniua.""" Unaweza kuchukua upendeleo wako wa kijinsia, hofu yako ya kijinsia na upendeleo wako wa kijinsia mahali pengine! Mtu mkubwa, mkubwa wa kutosha kuniua, alikuwa ananishambulia na niliwazuia kwa njia pekee niliyoweza. """Hatuwezi kuamua ikiwa ni wa kiume, wa kike, transgender au cisgender, lakini tunajua kwamba kuna tofauti." Kuondoa sura ya kujitegemea katika uamuzi wa kujilinda. "Ayoub: ""Kuna kitu kingine ambacho hatujazungumzia, ambacho kitatusaidia sana katika mada hii." "Watu wengi wanaamini kuwa kuna ""ugonjwa wa kimya"" ambao ni ugonjwa ambao unaweza kuonekana kwa macho yako." Mmoja wa wanafunzi hao amepigwa upasuaji mkubwa wa ubongo na sehemu kubwa ya fuvu la kichwa yake imepotea. Pigo ambalo lingefanya macho yako yachome lingeweza kumuua. Katika madarasa, hata tunamweka upande wa kushoto kabisa wa mstari wa risasi, hivyo yeye ni mbali na kuruka shaba. Kumtazama, kwa makovu kwenye paji la uso wake, anaonekana kama mpiganaji mkubwa wa zamani, aliyepigwa. Yeye inaonekana kuogopesha kama kuzimu. Kama ningekuwa yeye na mtu alikuwa akija kwangu na ngumi iliyofungwa akisema, 'Nitaupiga block yako,' Ningekuwa na bunduki yangu nje na kama aliendelea kuelekea kwangu, ningevuta trigger. Mwaka huu uliopita, tulikuwa na kesi ya mtu ambaye alikuwa na ugonjwa ambao ni kama hemophilia. Mtu huyo alikuwa mtoa damu. Mwanamume mkubwa zaidi, mwenye nguvu zaidi, na mchanga zaidi alikuwa akimkaribia na kupiga kelele kwamba angevunja uso wake. Alimpiga risasi. "Kulingana na sheria ya Florida, sura ya 732 ya sheria ya Florida, ""Stay Your Ground,"" mwanasheria wa Hernandez, Art Hernandez, alisema: ""Hakuna mtu aliyewahi kuuawa kwa sababu ya makosa ya kisheria." Kwa kweli, janga hilo limefanya ucheleweshaji huo uwe mbaya zaidi. Mimi hufundisha hivi: hebu tuseme una moyo mwovu. Pigo kwenye kiuno cha mwili ambalo lingenifanya nisikose pumzi litakuua. "Ikiwa mtu yeyote yuko katika hali kama hiyo, ikiwa mtu anajaribu kuanza mapigano nao, ninawaambia wapige kelele kwa sauti kubwa kama wanavyoweza, ""Bwana, nina hali ya matibabu.""" "Ukipiga, naweza kufa.""Mwambie yeye na mashahidi kwamba hii si pambano la TV ambapo mtu anapiga mtu pete kwenye pua na kusema, ""Sasa nimetosheleza heshima yangu na nitakwenda.""" "Ikiwa mtu anaendelea kushambulia, ameonyesha nia ya kusababisha kifo au madhara makubwa ya mwili na tumeimarisha sana kipengele cha hatari.""" eJournal: Uanachama wetu wa Mtandao wa idadi ya watu huelekea watu wa miaka ya kukomaa. Kama ulivyosema, umri mara nyingi huambatana na jeraha, ugonjwa, au ulemavu mwingine. Hiyo inafanya utofauti wa nguvu kuwa somo ambalo lazima tuelewe. "Kutumia picha hii, Robert Margulies, Mtaalamu wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa wa Ugonjwa.""" Nilipomhoji, alisema, "Huwezi kuhatarisha pigo kichwani; wewe ni mzee sana". Alieleza jinsi jeraha la pigo na jeruhi la pigo linavyo kuwa kali zaidi kwa mtu mzee. Hiyo ni sehemu moja tu ya somo hili kubwa, tata ambalo tumelizungumzia leo. Je, unaweza kutoa muhtasari? Je, kuna CliffsNotes® kufunga kuhusu utofauti wa nguvu? Ayoob: Nadhani sisi kuhusu kufunikwa yake. Kwa kusikitisha, sheria nyingi za nguvu za mauti hazifai kwa CliffsNotes® kwa sababu masuala magumu hayakuja na majibu rahisi. eJournal: [cheka] Labda hiyo ndiyo sababu mahojiano yetu ya jarida huwa na mwendo wa muda mrefu sana! Ninathamini subira yako na maswali yote umejibu, hivyo tunaelewa sheria ya nguvu ya kifo bora. Mwanachama wa Bodi ya Ushauri ya Mtandao Massad Ayoob ni mwandishi wa Deadly Force: Kuelewa Haki Yako ya Kujilinda ambayo inasambazwa katika kifurushi chetu cha elimu ya mwanachama mpya ambacho hutumwa kwa wanachama wote wapya wa Mtandao. Aidha ameandika vitabu kadhaa na mamia ya makala juu ya silaha za moto, kujilinda na mada zinazohusiana. Massad ameandika matoleo mengi ya Gun Digest's Book of Concealed Carry na Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery. Tangu mwaka 1979 amekuwa akijulikana kama shahidi wa mahakama katika kesi za silaha na risasi na alikuwa afisa wa polisi wa muda wa muda kwa zaidi ya miaka arobaini katika safu kutoka kwa mlinzi hadi nahodha. Yeye hutumika kama rais wa Second Amendment Foundation. Ayoub alianzisha Taasisi ya Lethal Force mnamo 1981 na sasa anafundisha kupitia Kikundi cha Massad Ayoub, ambacho ni mkurugenzi. Jifunze zaidi kwenye tovuti ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki ya Mashabiki.