Quantify this.
Does every individual know that they are "evenly matched"?
Not unless they have been examined, such as in a boxing match or scholastic wrestling match
Is physical stature a factor?
See above - "reach" is an advantage when all other criteria are considered even. On the other hand,
a smaller, shoter person can often get "inside" and "under" a larger, taller opponent.
How about fighting proficiency?
Of course this plays a significant part.
There is a legal concept that says that an assailant takes their victim "as is, as found" - in my particular
case any assailant would not be likely to know all of my infirmities and disabilities, but any injury they inflict would be looked at by the law as if they did. In other words, a punch that might merely bruise
you could be fatal to me and if that happened the assailant would be looked on as having known that
fact regardless if they did or did not actually know it.
This also demonstrates the difference in how reasonable apprehension of "threat of imminent death
or serious bodily injury" is reached. I would have a reasonable apprehension under circumstances
where you might laugh off the assailant's behavior as totally non-threatening. This is why there are
no cut-and-dried rules about this. It all is dependent on the specific circumstances of each incident
independent of all other incidents.
It seems to me that many who engage in brawls "pull" their punches as they lack the sheer compulsion or will necessary to kill. Yet, once you are on the brink of "imminent" death or "serious bodily harm", this is the worst time to make that run for your firearm as the precipice is inches away.
I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Pulling punches, lacking will to fight "all out" (you call
it "kill"), and being on the brink of, as opposed to actually facing imminent threat of death or serious
bodily injury are subjects that may or may not be connected. I fail to see how you are connecting
them.
The law says you must wait until you are in fact on that brink. It surely is "the worst time" to have to wait until then, but that's what the law says. Make your move before then and you lose what protection the law provides.
Do you still stand by the ideology that you may not reach for, or draw your firearm until you believe you are about to be killed or maimed?
It's not an ideology. It's what the law says. If you want to employ deadly force before the conditions
allowed by the law are met you are free to do so and take your chances on how the law will treat you.
In the case under discussion the cops decided not to apply the law as it is written - that's called
discretion and may or may not hold up when the prosecutor reviews the facts (if indeed they review
it at all).
Also, you are only one punch away from potentially not being able to respond. Only one mistake, even that first punch, and the whole "drawing my firearm to defend myself" decision may be taken from you.
And you are one step away from potentially being struck by a falling meterorite or a window washer
who fell from his work platform.
When it is not possible to avoid going to stupid places with stupid people who do stupid things the
option of retreating is always available. Just because the law (SYG) says we do not
have to does
not mean it might not be the better/safer choice of action. And if some lout wants to get all
physical over being bumped into/bumping into me, my attempts to withdraw will give me more
legal "cover" for my actions should they press their assault. "I told him I did not want to fight, and
tried to walk away, Your Honor, but he just kept coming at me throwing fists. There was nothing
I could do at that point but defend myself. Given my disabilities and infirmities I reasonably beleived
that I would be either killed or seriously injured if he continued his attack. I had no other choice but
to shoot him in order to stop his attack." That beats the heck out of "He threw the first punch and
the law said I did not have to retreat so I shot the sucker."
stay safe.
