Armed self-defense episodes aren’t always one person with a gun fighting off an attacker or aggressor with a gun. In fact, an attacker can maim or kill an innocent victim with any number of “weapons” ranging from fists or feet, to baseball bats or ice picks, to bricks or cars.

Or, in the case of one recent episode, a knife. Such was the weapon of choice in an attack in Bullhead City, Nevada, about an hour and a half south of Las Vegas, when a woman inadvertently “took a knife to a gun fight.”

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, but most of us have realized that’s not always the easiest thing to do. Such apparently was the case with some neighbors on Seafair Drive in Bullhead City who had a long-running dispute with one another.

According to a report at 8newsnow.com, on August 8 just before 8 p.m., 49-year-old Lucindy Gale Parkison had gone to a nearby home to confront the residents on what police are calling “ongoing issues.” In what would turn out to be an unfortunate decision for her, she took a knife along on her “visit.”

According to the Bullhead City Police Department, Parkison advanced toward residents in the front yard and made threats before pushing a female who lived there against a wall and holding the knife to her throat. “The victim had a defensive cut on her hand from Parkison’s knife when she reportedly held it to the victim’s throat,” police said.

A male resident grabbed his gun and ordered Parkison to leave the property, prompting Parkison to release the woman and charge him with the knife. He then shot her multiple times, killing her on the spot.

According to police, the man with the gun and the other residents cooperated fully with investigators. No charges have been file, and based on the results of the investigation none are expected.

While many might think a man with a gun shooting a woman with a knife is an unfair “disparity of force,” this is a good example of how dangerous—and deadly—any attacker with an edged weapon can be. And it’s also an excellent example of how the best armed person involved in a violent attack often comes out on top in the encounter.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

52 COMMENTS

  1. ugggghhhh there is no disparity of force there. knives are brutally effective weapons if the range is right.

    • When the progs have tranny “women” boxers beating the heck out of actual women hasn’t
      “disparity of force” theory been abandoned?

      • neiowa,

        I have recently stated this very real problem to family members.

        For the uninitiated regarding typical laws on self-defense:
        If an attacker has no visible external weapons, victims’ only legal self-defense option is hand-to-hand fighting, unless the attacker has an obvious and significant advantage of speed and/or strength at which time the victim can use weapons for self-defense.

        Why is that problematic in our world of men recently masquerading as women? Consider a man masquerading–more appropriately disguised–as a woman without any visible external weapons who attacks a woman. Since the attacker appears to be a woman attacking another woman and there is no obvious advantage of speed/strength, self-defense law typically requires that female victim to defend herself with only her hands and feet. However, the adult male attacker who is disguised as a woman virtually always has a significant advantage of speed/strength which would justify the female victim using a weapon for self-defense. Alas, because the female victim has no way of knowing if her attacker really is a man rather than a woman, she cannot use any weapons to defend herself–at her extreme peril.

        This is a real-world negative consequence of allowing (and sadly in many cases even encouraging) men to masquerade as women.

        I can only wonder how many times our society will enable men–masquerading as women–to pummel, rape, cripple, and kill women before society finally stops it.

        Disclaimer: I am NOT an at_torn_ey and the above is my opinion, NOT legal advice. Seek competent legal council in your jurisdiction.

        • One can exhaustively research and rationalize through all sorts of nuanced hairsplitting as to what level of “fairness” a perpetrator of unprovoked violence deserves –

          OR, one can realize that such sophistry only empowers and emboldens the perpetrators of unprovoked violence, and is therefore inherently unjust; that real fairness consists in clear laws that unequivocally oppose / punish unprovoked violence and support whatever it takes to defend innocence.

          • Umm,

            You are preaching to the choir.

            Personally, I believe the self-defense law standard (before a victim can “legally” use weapons for self-defense) is extremely dangerous.

            Consider two men, one an attacker and one a victim, who are similar in age and size. According to typical self-defense law, at a glance they appear to be reasonably evenly matched and the attacker has no externally visible weapons so the victim’s only legal self-defense option is hand-to-hand fighting. And yet it is entirely possible that the attacker could literally be twice as strong and nearly twice as fast (in terms of throwing punches and kicks) as the victim even though they are similar in size and age. Furthermore, the attacker could be highly adept at fist-fighting and the victim could completely lack fist-fighting skills. All of the previous dooms the victim with near certainty to a severe beating, permanent disability, or death.

            Furthermore in my above scenario, even if the attacker and victim truly are very close to evenly matched for hand-to-hand fighting, the attacker can lay-out the victim if he happens to land a single good punch, which is entirely possible. (After all, we expect that the victim can land a single good punch to stop the attacker. Thus we tacitly admit that a single good punch can lay someone out.)
            And what if the victim somehow manages to fend off the attacker’s initial blows–at which point the attacker suddenly brings a concealed knife or handgun to bear that was not previously visible?

            Given all that I have shared, I believe everyone, who is reasonably physically fit and aggressively threatens a victim, poses a non-trivial danger of grievous bodily harm or death to the victim no matter how evenly matched they initially appear to be. And that should justify the victim bringing a weapon to bear.

            Of course the naysayers will claim that a punk who was only going to rough-up someone should not face potential death for such a low-level assault. My response is very simple: if punks don’t want to face potential death, don’t go around roughing-up people.

            • I agree completely with your closing paragraph, but I don’t think it requires any rationalization or justification in terms of uncertainty about being “evenly matched” because it isn’t a duel, and “evenly matched” is utterly irrelevant.

              The innocent person not only deserves not to die or be maimed or concussed; he deserves not to be broken, bruised, scratched, or harmed in any way, not because he might have unseen disabilities or limitations, but purely because he is innocent, with no further justification required.

              It might be too much of a stretch to say that he has no responsibility to accept any violation of his rights for any reason; if I had the choice between coming to harm or firing a shotgun at an attacker in a crowd of innocent kids, I’d take the hit to save the innocent kids.

              If, on the other hand, there is no factor in the balance other than the well-being of the perpetrator of unprovoked violence (a negative value), there should be no legal limitation whatsoever.

              • Umm,

                All of your points are compelling.

                I have some thoughts on what may be the upside of the current standard. However, I am unable to distill those thoughts into brief comments here.

              • uncommon,
                Thanks! I’d love to hear your thoughts, but I certainly understand the neverending struggle between completeness and concision. Also, not only did my previous comment spend a bunch of time in moderati0n he11, but I am now receiving zero notifications again.

            • Downunder “one-punch” surprise attacks have resulted in deaths when the victim hit their head on a hard surface in their fall.

              Even a fist attack can be lethal.

              Best to avoid stupid people at stupid times in stupid places.

              • Southern Cross,

                I am well aware of how a single punch can indirectly or even directly cause the victim’s death. Unfortunately, our criminal justice system views that outcome as a relative rarity. Thus many prosecutors will deem a fear of the (alleged) rarity of single fatal punches is not a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death.

            • Uh- anyone remember the late Travon Martin and his intended victim, George Zimmerman? You know- the poor, unarmed black kid v the (found out too late for Travon) armed “white hispanic”?

        • In light of my comments above, it is crystal clear that a reasonably fit aggressive attacker without an externally visible weapon is very capable of severely beating, permanently crippling, or even killing the victim. And yet self-defense law typically only allows the victim to initially employ hand-to-hand fighting in self-defense, because it is uncertain whether or not the attacker truly is capable of causing great bodily harm or death.

          Now I will illustrate the GIANT problem with that standard. Consider someone driving their car down the road who sees a large cardboard box up ahead in the middle of their lane. This is next to a cardboard box factory and empty cardboard boxes from that factory frequently end up in this road. The driver knows this and therefore knows that the cardboard box is almost certainly empty–and thus hitting the cardboard box will not damage the car in the slightest. Plus, the driver likes the idea of smashing an empty cardboard box. Should the driver plow into the cardboard box that is probably empty? What if the box has a 50 pound concrete block inside it? What if the box has a live abandoned dog in it? What if the box has an unconscious person in it?

          A wise person would not drive into the cardboard box even though it is probably empty because the outcome will be really bad if the box is not empty. So, if the outcome could be really bad when a victim only uses hand-to-hand fighting to fend off an aggressive attacker, why do we forbid the victim from using weapons for self-defense? Why do we give the benefit of the doubt to the aggressive attacker who chose to aggressively attack someone? Why don’t we give the benefit of the doubt to the victim who did NOT choose to be a victim of an aggressive attack?

        • No states with adequate self defense laws have disparity of force language. READ YOUR STATE’S STATUTES.

          And vote accordingly.

          • XZX,

            The disparity of force doctrine (for lack of a better word) is born out of the self-defense legal requirement that the victim has to have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death before the victim can escalate to deadly force.

            Therein lies the rub: our criminal justice system has settled on a standard that a defender who is somewhat equally matched to his/her attacker has an allegedly very good chance of fending off his/her attacker via hand-to-hand fighting, and thus great bodily harm or death is improbable rather than imminent. Therefore any fear of imminent great bodily harm or death is unreasonable.

            And that is how a prosecutor would try to get a conviction on a defender who used a weapon against an “unarmed” attacker–the prosecutor would tell the jury that the defender was NOT in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death and thus fear of such was/is unreasonable.

            • Wait a minute…it is all how the report is written. If you have a victim who has a reasonable concern that he/she is about to be injured and can articulate same, that victim does not have to resort to fisticuffs for defense.

              • 3L120,

                In many jurisdictions and instances, prosecutors and juries may decide that the victim’s concern of injury was unreasonable and the victim was therefore limited (legally speaking) to fisticuffs.

                It sucks and I don’t agree with it. Nevertheless, what matters is what the prosecutor and jury thinks, regardless of who writes the police report and how he/she writes it.

          • The basic legal doctrine is that any defensive force used by you must be only enough to overcome the force being used against you. This case presents a dilemma, however. A multi shot capable gun seems to be a much greater force than would be necessary to defend against a knife attack. In this case it sounds like the defender was carrying a gun rather than a bigger knife. The defender wouldn’t have time to get a knife under the circumstances here so the gun was a reasonable defense. The only legal question here is how many shots would be considered reasonable to overcome the knife attack.

            • Diksum,

              You are on the right track.

              Note that an attacker with a knife can easily impart a fatal wound with a single slash/stab. Thus an attacker with a knife is employing deadly force under the law. Since the attacker is employing deadly force, the defender can also employ deadly force in self-defense. Whether the defender’s responsive deadly force is in the form of a baseball bat, knife, ax, sword, or firearm (all of which constitute deadly force) is immaterial under the law.

              Regardless of which weapon a defender uses for righteous self-defense, the defender can only apply that deadly force until the attacker is no longer an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. For example, if an attacker has a knife and the defender renders the attacker paralyzed from the neck down and is thus no longer able to slash/stab, the defender can no longer continue to stab, bludgeon, shoot, or whatever the defender was doing in self-defense.

              So, to your question at the end of your comment, the answer is that the defender is legally justified to shoot the attacker as many times as is necessary to end the attack. Whether that required one gunshot or 100 gunshots, whether that resulted in no wounds, minor wounds, serious wounds, life threatening wounds, or the attacker’s death doesn’t matter under the law, so long as the defender stopped applying deadly force once the attacker ceased to be an imminent threat.

              • Your comment doesn’t answer the question. If two shots disable the attacker, firing six shots that killed the attacker might be considered excessive force by a DA.

              • Diksum,

                I did answer your question. Read my middle and last paragraphs again.

                Here are the key words in the middle of my middle paragraph responding to you above, “… the defender can only apply that deadly force until the attacker is no longer an imminent threat …”

                Note that I restated that same standard again at the end of my last paragraph above, “… the defender stopped applying deadly force once the attacker ceased to be an imminent threat.”

    • Andrew, I’ve seen lots of gun and knife wounds, including two men disemboweled. Knife wounds can be very gruesome. I’d rather be shot with a handgun than suffer a severe knife wound.

    • Lots of folks are on here trying to analyze when it’s “legal” to shoot (I.e., use deadly force.)

      I believe they’re asking the wrong question. The question they need to answer is, when *must* I shoot? When that time comes, a) it will most likely be legal, and b) it won’t matter if it is or not. If you don’t shoot you may be killed or critically injured, so you had to shoot.

  3. Left wing delusion upset, ‘Wizard of Oz’ protocol implemented to protect delusion > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/08/12/charlamagne-banning-ar-15s-is-much-more-important-that-walzs-stolen-valor/comment-page-1/#comment-7723

    That’s what left wing delusional people do when faced with facts that upset their delusion (in this case the fact of dishonesty and fraud by Walz) …. they ignore it and try to turn it back to something else with the ‘Wizard of Oz’ concept of ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’.

    • Did the dude know about the Tuiller(sp?)Drill? Because that sounds like perfect “execution”. No pun intended🙄

      • The Tueller Drill is one of the most important training lessons that can be learned by anyone who carries for their or their loved ones protection and it isn’t just for knives. it can include any object capable of injuring or killing and even an attacker who is obviously larger, stronger and acting in a violent manner. A violent attacker can be reasonable expected to cover 21 feet in 2 or less giving you little time to decide to draw your weapon and use it.
        https://youtu.be/jwHYRBNc9r8

        • Watching a 50+ instructor with a spare tire land a touch with a rubber knife again and again before anyone is able to clear a plastic gun from a holster and bring it to bear, even when expecting the attack, is very instructive.

  4. I blame global warming. Have you BEEN to Bullhead City in August? Easily 120f. Cooked brains I say!

  5. Lets ask the men, women and children who’ve been attacked by maniacs with edged weapons over the last few years in various parts of the Anglosphere…oh, wait, you can’t – they’re either dead or prohibited from speaking about their attackers due to hate speech laws. We truly do live in clown world these days.

    • Well, it’s safe to say that her problems have been referred to the ultimate, final judge. I suppose that He will resolve any remaining issues.

  7. An attacker, male or female, with a knife can do a lot of injury or death with that knife. If they charge you, like this stupid crazy woman did with her knife, you can pretty much bet they are not coming in close for a hug. So yep, shoot them.

    There are ~1,800 such attackers daily across the United States. Very rarely do you hear of them in the media.

    Knife attacks are not as sensational as mass-shootings but mass knifing happens frequently and you rarely hear of them in the media unless there is some ‘political’ or ‘sensationalism’ angle to play up.

    For example, “Five Taunton police officers injured by suspect with knife, officials say” > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/five-taunton-police-officers-injured-by-suspect-with-knife-officials-say/ar-AA1hjuKh?OCID=ansmsnnews11 > and I point to this one because I happen to know for a fact the Boston Globe was not going to run this story until they got pressured by police department politics.

    As an example of ‘sensational’ angle > “2 people dead, 6 wounded in stabbing attacks on Las Vegas Strip, police say” > https://www.nbcnews.com/news/one-person-died-multiple-victims-found-report-stabbing-las-vegas-strip-rcna51098 …. and I bring this one up because on that same day there were ~50 other victims of knife attacks in the Las Vegas area by perpetrators that were ‘trans female’ (males identifying as females) prostitutes but not a peep about them in the news (and none of the perpetrators were ever caught and they are still cold cases and don’t appear in stats despite 18 of the victims dying).

    and more recently > “Rockford mass stabbing: four killed and seven wounded, suspect in custody” > https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/27/attacker-stabs-multiple-people-in-rockford-police/

    and another mass knifing more recently > “Four girls, ages 9 to 17, were stabbed inside a Massachusetts AMC movie theater” > https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/braintree-massachusetts-amc-stabbing/

    And this > Jewish man stabbed in antisemitic attack in NYC > https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/new-york-city-stabbing-suspect-allegedly-yelled-free-palestine-before-attack/vi-AA1oFbHY …. while on the same day of this attack there were 43 random knife slashing attacks (‘slash-n-run’) and 18 stabbings by criminal perpetrators across New York city, all within an two hours of this jewish man being stabbed, and none made the news.

    The point is that perpetrators with knives and using those knives to criminally attack people are common, ~1,800 victims daily across the United States. It literally outnumbers criminal gun violence’ 1,000 : 0.5 – and ya rarely hear about it in the media.

    • Actually sung twice in the original uncut version of the movie. Once by the Munchkins after the house fell on the witch. The second time by the Winkie soldiers after the witch was “liquidated” on the castle. Almost all versions of the film are missing the second time it was sung. When the film was originally being shown on TV beginning in the ‘50’s, the second chorus was cut to allow TV stations to insert a commercial without extending the run time of the broadcast. Even the 50th anniversary DVD didn’t include it.

    • was a democrat…. of course being ‘unalive’ will not stop her from voting in the upcoming election

  12. There was recent video on Hodge Twins about a man who was assaulted by a woman and he hit her back. The police after reviewing the footage still contacted him because she filed against him with a neighboring precinct. IDK, it seems sometimes women are out to cause problems and are counting on society to back them because of their gender

    • After all the shit I see up in NY I go with equal rights come with equal lefts. Attitude goes away as I leave the commie zone but cannot be bothered to give a moment of thought to the issues of women not related to me in most of this state as 1 they caused it and 2 they probably deserved it and 3 they took away most of the resources (read fucks) I have to give about it through taxes and dumb shit.

  13. What? You mean all those mass stabbings of worthless unarmed men and helpless women and children in gun free zones worldwide don’t have to happen???

    • Let’s get a bit of perspective on this.
      In the UK [and the UK is around the EUROPEAN AVERAGE] on a YEARLY average and with a POPULTAION of around 65,million there are around ,give or take, EIGHT HUNDRED ILLEGAL DEATHS per annum. This includes GUN CRIME, KNIFE CRIME, MANSLAUGHTER, INFANTICIDE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE [where the victim is well known to the PERPETRATOR] and ACTS of TERRORISM.
      Given the population of the USA this equates to around 4000 Illegal Deaths in the USA per annum but there are 25,000 Deaths by Gun Crime alone and nearly as many by other acts of violence and KNIFE CRIME if not more.
      That’s why in the UK a single SHOOTING or KNIFE CRIME incident makes the Daily Media and becomes a matter of PARLIAMENTARY Discussion

  15. Tome the DISPARITY of FORCE was SHOOTING This woman MULTIPLE TIMES when ONE or perhaps TWO well, placed shots, would have sufficed after all the SHOOTER was pretty much within arms distance; Sound to me like a PANIC REACTION which is never a good thing for a MAN with a GUN. But then it would seem that some Americans panic at the slightest pretense.
    However given the circumstances I would probably have done the same thing but hopefully WOULD have restrained myself to those two shots

Comments are closed.