Less-Lethal Devices

[jgcoastie]

Ok, so I see threads every day asking about the best gun, caliber, ammunition type, carry method, holster, etc. to use for CCW/SD/HD... However very rarely do I see any questions asked of less-lethal devices...

How important is a less-lethal option to you as part of your daily carry arsenal? How often do you train with them? What formal training have you received for these devices?

Please give specifics as to what less-lethal device you carry (if any) and why you do/don't use them. I'll save my opinions for a little later, I'm interested to see how and why people do/don't carry less-lethal devices.

[troy_mclure]

you do not have an option for "i have trained extensively with them, and do not consider them useful".

i did a lot of less than lethal training in the army, everything from asp, to 40mm bean bag.

its non reliable in putting somebody down.

even tazers(been tazed, and tazed people) are iffy if there are more than 1 person, or they are heavily clothed.

i would not trust my life on a less than lethal devise.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I know we all have our opinion, but various police research outlets and the DOJ have reported success rates in typical usages. They are rather high for OC and tasers.

Some will focus on the vivid incident of the one guy as mad meth biker ignored OC or a popped the taser hooks. OH, MY!

But a rational view will be to look at success ratios. Note, people have ignored being shot also and done harm to their opponents.

One might google the issue for the professional literature before we go off on the 'one guy who' and look at their success rate in reasonable situation usages.

[pax]

I have trained with OC, Taser, and Kubotan/Persuader (which translates nicely to using a mini flashlight or pen with the same techniques). Each has its strengths and its drawbacks. None of them replace the firearm.

However, when entering a jurisdiction where firearms are prohibited, it is comforting to know there are other options. Humans are tool users by nature, and our bodies are not optimally designed for defense without tools. So it's comforting to know there are non-firearm defense tools that can be used in many jurisdictions where firearms are prohibited.

pax

[Chipsgt]

I never leave the house without at least a knife in my pocket.
Typically, I carry a Frost Cutlery "Flying Falcon" with a 4" Serated blade.
It's a cheap knife, but would do nicely in a fight.

If I am walking in the woods, I love to take along the Sjambok, which will ruin a lot of peoples day, in addition to the knife.

Then, should you get past both of those, I am fairly confident in my H2H skills, and know how to pretty effectively neutralize most people.

[pax]

Chipsgt ~

A knife, of course, is a lethal weapon, not a less-lethal weapon.

pax

[Chipsgt]

Thats true, though I guess in my mind its a lot easier to stop the attack non-lethaly with a knife than with a firearm.

Really, at the end of the day though, nearly any weapon can be lethal. Even a rock.

[Buzzcook]

Really, at the end of the day though, nearly any weapon can be lethal. Even a rock.
Well there is a great deal of debate as to whether the rock or the stick was the first lethal weapon. I lean toward rock because they're more handy on the plains of Africa than a stick.

I have several pepper spray canisters that take up space in a junk drawer. They're next to a couple of small stun guns that I bought just because.

One of the pepper sprays came with a free demo/lesson that was more of a sales pitch than training. Just attended a lecture on the proper use of stun guns. Actually it was more informative than the pepper spray guy.

[pax]

Thats true, though I guess in my mind its a lot easier to stop the attack non-lethaly with a knife than with a firearm.

If you use a knife on someone, you have used lethal force (legally speaking). If you shoot someone, you have used lethal force (legally speaking). If you use either a knife or a firearm on someone and are not justified in using a lethal level of force, you'll be in a world of legal hurt even if you later tell the authorities that you were not intending to use lethal force -- because using either of these weapons is using lethal force regardless of the intent of the user.

You're absolutely correct that nearly any weapon can be lethal. That's why most people in the field have moved away from saying non-lethal or less-than-lethal and now simply refer to that same level of force as less-lethal. That is, it's less likely to be lethal, but you still might kill someone unintentionally if you use it.

In any case, it is impossible to use a knife defensively without causing a serious and probably permanent injury, even if death is avoided. Since common law, and most statutory laws, define lethal force as the degree of force reasonably likely to cause death OR serious crippling injury, using a knife is legally considered use of lethal force even if the person it's used on does not die.

pax

[Chipsgt]

Fair enough then! :)

Thanks for taking the time to explain!
Btw, this is what I love about this site! People are willing to take the time to explain things to n00bs like me.

[Come and take it.]

Is a Rat shot cartridge less than lethal?

[ZeSpectre]

Less-lethal...as opposed to more-lethal?
My experience has been that something is either lethal or not.

Maybe we need a new term like "RFCL" (reduced force continuum level)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Less likely to be lethal?

Use the Force Continuum, Luke!

Hard to find a short term to encapsulate the idea that we want the device to be more likely to incapacitate than kill you.

[greghalliday]

The way I shoot, my pistols should be reclassified.

[Lee Lapin]

Is a Rat shot cartridge less than lethal?

By itself, perhaps. But it takes a gun to fire it, and a gun IS a lethal weapon, ALWAYS.

lpl

[Dwight55]

Yes, . . . if a person is involved in law enforcement, . . . less than lethal devices should be a part of his weapon loadout.

I don't think that applies to non LEO's as it is not our responsibility to be nice, . . . caring, . . . and gentle with the bg's.

A bg will not get my attention until I am of the opinion he/she is: a) capable of grievous physical injury to me or someone under my watch, b) willing to do the same, and c) has communicated a desire or threat to do that.

At darn near 65, having survived open heart surgery, 3 tours in Nam, and 50 some years on the street, . . . I'm not fisticuffing, tasing, pepper spraying, or whacking the bg with a night stick.

I have a 1911, . . . and I'm going to defend myself. Nuff said.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Mello2u]

I have training with pepper spray (OC) and PR24. I was taught about the force continuum. If I remember correctly, the standard that a sworn L.E.O. is judged by and the standard by which a non-L.E.O. citizen is judged by are different. In most jurisdictions there are two standards: the reasonable officer standard and the reasonable person standard.

The primary difference in the two is that the LEO standard allows the officer to use one level of force higher than that of his adversary, whereas the citizen may only meet force with an equal force level.

So as a citizen I see no need for the extra complexity of "less than lethal" force. I'm either "getting out of there" or fighting using lethal force.

[Maromero]

I cc a snub .38 That's my less than lethal option.:D

On a more serious note, less than lethal options have their niche in LE and the civilian population that simply can't deal with a firearm. My ex-wife for example and like her many others that feel the need to protect themselves but can't handle the thought or can't execute a lethal option.

Many will say that a civilian using a nonlethal option is just a half arse effort based on plain ignorance but there is definitely a place for them.

I agree with Dwight and Mello2u. "I have a 1911, . . . and I'm going to defend myself. Nuff said."

The way I shoot, my pistols should be reclassified.

I'm being honorably inducted into the "Conservation Hall of Shame". Damn ducks always know to pass by my blind seeking safe passage.

[Steve_in_SEMich]

I answered the poll "little/no training, always carry". I interpreted the question/poll open-minded ;)- not all "encounters" are bad guy/good guy. When I walk the dogs, I usually carry an collapsible baton (sub-division, not woods) for discouraging other dogs from approaching or the occasional vehicle that is inside my comfort zone. I would consider those tools in those situations non-lethal. Certainly less-lethal than my Sig P220. Always have a pocketknife or three, usually a neck-knife, and as some have pointed out, my Silverado could qualify as a back-up 38,000,000 grain projectile. I'm sure I could benefit from formalized training with all of the above, but for the most part, swinging a stick comes natural to most of us. Thanks for conducting the poll!

[taz1]

i was fishing the waleye run on the mawmee river once and some jerk was trying to take off with my tackel box.:eek:

did you know a 6 foot medium action shanamo rod will leave 1/2 inch welts?
3/4 oz. jig leaves pretty big lumps too.:p

lots of people around. 3-4 tried grabing him but he just kept fighting till i started comming back at him with my killer rod. he bailed like a rocket.

kinda inconvient to carry all the time but very effective on crackheads.:D

[mikejonestkd]

we have a few cans of UDAP bear spray that we always have on us when we are in the woods. We have a bit of training with it and have seen its effects first hand and can testify that it really works!!!

[Carne Frio]

I always carry bear spray when walking my dog. I also
carry a concealed handgun in .357 mag or larger. Bears
are rare in my neighborhood, but aggressive dogs and an
occasional inquisitive moose are more common. Bear
spray really works on attacking dogs; I haven't had to
shoot one yet.:D

[jgcoastie]

Okay, my reason for conducting this poll is simple: Not all situations justify the use of lethal force.

It looks like well over half of those who participated either rarely or never carry a less-lethal device. This is your choice and I am in no way trying to force you to carry a can of pepper spray, an expandable baton, or taser. I would like to bring up a few scenarios and things to ponder...

1. You must frequent a location that does not allow concealed handguns. It could be a school, store, bank, workplace, sports stadium, etc. I know that many of you will say "I refuse to go places that don't allow CC and that's that." Well that's fine, but not always feasible for all people, so keep those comments to yourself please. Having a concealed, less-lethal weapon could be a life-saver in such a location.

2. You are walking your dog in your neighborhood (You have your concealed handgun, but also a can of pepper spray.) and another dog attacks your dog. In many jurisdictions this would not justify the employment of lethal force, not to mention that shooting the attacking dog could result in you injuring/killing your own dog and possibly a bystander due to the likelihood of ricochets off of concrete/asphalt. You don't want to risk being attacked by the dog yourself by gettin in there and separating the two. That can of pepper spray could easily dispatch the attacking canine, allowing you and your pet to vacate the area and call animal control. Yes, you will likely spray your dog in the process, but the stuff washes off a lot easier than a gunshot wound.

3. You, for whatever reason, forget to bring your situational awareness that day. A bum approaches you in a parking lot/gas station/etc. and will not leave you alone. He places hands on you in a slightly aggressive manner. You don't want to risk drawing your weapon given the closeness of the encounter, the possibility of him disarming you, and you also doubt whether or not lethal force is needed to end the threat. You draw your expandable baton instead and strike the meaty portion of his thighs a few times to get him off of you. Then you call 911. You have risked minimal criminal/civil legal liability as you did not threaten/use deadly force. You write your statement, spend an hour or two answering questions with your lawyer present and go home to your wife and children with minimal/no physical injury. And, added benefit: you do not have to deal with any of the legal/financial/emotional repercussions associated with the aftermath of using deadly force.

Now I know there will be those chest-thumpers who will say "Oh, well none of that stuff will happen to me because I wouldn't put myself in those situations, etc etc etc...." Good for you, but just because you won't put yourself in one of these situations does not mean you won't wind up in a situation similar or even completely different than the few I listed. You can't be in control of everything, Murphy's Law is always in effect. I think it would be a wise decision to have a defensive option other than lethal force.

If you only give someone a hammer, pretty soon every problem they encounter will look like a nail. I know you have more than a hammer sitting by your workbench in the garage, you have many tools to complete different tasks. Likewise, you should (IMHO) have more tools in your defensive toolbox than lethal force alone. Namely because not every situation requires a lethal hammer to get the job done (end the threat)...

Regards,
JG