Would that be “force must match force” like with Martin/Zimmerman?
I understand, on a certain level, what you are saying. It is possible to kill someone with only bare hands. Basically, what the old guy did was stop the argument.
I would love to sit on this jury.
The rule of proportional force takes account of situations like Zimmerman and the 90 year old lady. Lethal threat can be whatever might present a particular victim with a legitimate expectation of serious bodily harm or death. But an older man getting fiesty with a younger man, but no realistic prospect of serious harm, will not be seen as sufficient agression to justify the younger man pulling a gun. These are old rules. Proportional force goes way back into the common law. If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.
Gun advocates and owners (and I am both) must use restraint and discretion. It’s the difference between the foolish martial artist who is anxious to beat someone up just because he can, versus the wise martial artist who wouldn’t harm a fly unless there were no other options.
Seek peace with everyone. Only use lethal force as the last possible resort. But if you do have to shoot that home invader, the first thing you should say when the police arrive is, “I was in fear for my life,” assuming of course you really were. Make a point of it. Your lawyer will thank you.