Just read this from a news links webpage I read every day called keepandbeararms.com

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/...in_swo.php

"A robbery gone wrong ended when the victim upped the ante on the would-be robber by pulling a sword."

RTHT

In my home state even.What really worries me isn't the incident or the article but some of the comments.

I am sure that the people calling for sword and bat to be outlawed in the comments area are just satirising the gun control crowd. After all the victims actions for self defence where moral and legal without regard to the tool he chose.

I'm no lawyer and we certainly don't know enough about the incident to judge if the reaction was appropriate...
However proportionnality is definitely in French law and I believe in a number of other countries it exists as well. Even if the baseball bat is considered lethal force (which I doubt, at least not at the same level as an edged sword) it does not justify everything. There is no notion of putting the opponent out of the fight as quickly as possible. You just respond with the force needed to defend yourself, not the maximum you can apply.

The article does state that only the "batter" is being charged and the article implies that nothing is being done to the "swordsman". Assuming this information is correct, it would appear that Phoenix law enforcement either does consider the slicing and dicing a proportional response, or proportional response does not apply in local regulations.

Obviously the handling of a situation like this will not be constant everywhere.

I'm from Arizona, and the way our law handles stuff like this is that in theory you should only respond when attacked with a proportional amount of force, unless you are afraid for your life or the lives of loved ones, in which case you can go ahead and use as much force as you think you need. If someone is in your home attacking you with a weapon of any kind the police really aren't going to complain if you kill them, though you might get sued by their family.

I would only comment on the proportionality of force (I'm not going to get into the legality here) but I would say that a bat is easily a deadly weapon, thus any amount of force in response is proportional.

I would think that anyone who has ever seen the victim of a bludgeoning homicide would agree. Bats can be incredibly nasty. The fact that the clubbist got out alive (and the fact that they were returning from a check cashing store) at all makes me suspect that the sword involved was probably a wall hanger.

They report it like having swords laying around the house is weird for some reason....

Either the sword was a wall hanger or the "victim" was not skilled in using a swords or he spared the "robber". Well, the sword might also have been a training blunt. A blunt sword can incapacitate an aggressor with a single blow. Proven by my personal experience. Oh, and cause severe bleeding too. I was once hit by a stone in my forehead and despite the wound was small half of my face was covered with blood in mere seconds.

About hitting with a flat of a blade. Almost useless. Well, unless you have a very narrow and stiff blade (a.k.a. prybar). More or less wide blade would act like a parachute slowing down the blow and on impact the blade would bend and damper the (already pretty weak) blow. Painful, but not enough to stop a determined aggressor unless one hits some vital spot which is very unlikely. Though probably this aggressor was not determined to continue his assault after he saw a sword. Too bad for him he was too slow to understand that it was the right time to flee. Because as soon as the aggressor flees the victim is no longer in danger and thus has no right to inflict any damage to the aggressor (at least in my country, what does the law say in where the incident took place?).

P.S. I think that it is better to be sued than to be dead. I guess all special forces are being taught "shoot'em until they fall". Same here: hit'em until they fall or flee. A baseball bat can kill, and in skilled hands baseball bat is a formidable opponent to a wall hanger. A sword has a cutting edge, but it is very difficult to deflect or stop a baseball bat with a sword. So I think that the "victim" had right to use as much force to defend himself as he wanted. Too bad he did not have a gun. There are already a lot of talks about banning guns, so one incident would not change anything, but people talking about banning swords may be troublesome. Oh, and if he had a gun he might have been able to stop the aggressor without firing a single round. And the aggressor would most likely be very glad to sit there and wait for the police to arrive.