Non-lethal carry? - Page 4

Lurper · April 30, 2007, 08:16 PM

Axion, the thread is not about the law, so this is my last explanation. This may be a bit more clear:
Since the law does not state that your attacker must be armed before you use deadly physical force, it is not required to meet the test. If you believe that a reasonble person would believe that they were going to suffer serious injury and that the only way to stop that injury was to use (or threaten to) deadly physical force, that meets the test. I don't see how anyone could not think that someone beating you and taking your weapon, after removing your opportunity to retreat, ignoring the warnings that you are armed and in fear for your life, is not a threat of serious injury or death.

Look at it from the opposite side:
Your argument is basically that you cannot shoot someone who is not armed because they do not constitute a threat of serious injury or death. So following the logic of your argument, I must let someone knock me out (whether it takes one punch or a dozen) and take my weapon because they are not armed. Considering that tens of thousands of people suffer serious injury or death each year from beatings, do you think that really passes the reasonable man test?

We have to speak in generalizations because the standard is different for those of us who are fit and well built as opposed to the 5'2" woman who is 98 lbs wringing wet. That is why it is pointless to argue specifics. Under the law you can clearly defend yourself against an unarmed attacker. It is crystal clear and is tested thousands of times each year across the country.

Now to meat of the thread:
Carrying LTL puts you in a compromising position because if you have it and don't use it, you are increasing the likliehood of criminal and civil charges. If you have it and use it, even OC is relatively ineffective in that it doesn't instantly incapacitate the attacker, does not work well on people who are mentally unstable or on drugs. Quite often, it makes them angrier. Also, it more than likely has put you in a compromised tactical position.

Find an attorney who specializes in firearms cases or read what the "experts" write. You'll find that the consensus is that it is not a real good idea to carry LTL while you are packing a pistol.

rantingredneck · April 30, 2007, 10:38 PM

Lurper, You've said repeatedly that this thread is not about the law. You've also asked for our rationale for carrying LTL (OC in my case). What if our reasoning for carry has to do with the law? Are we to remain mute on the legalities of the situation? When discussing the legal implications you then say let's not talk about what will happen in court. Well as I said before that is where the law is applied. I think any thread asking for rationale then saying lets not talk about the law or the courtroom is kinda silly personally. I hazard a guess that what may happen in court drives much of what we think about when we think about and train for the possibility of having to use what we carry whether it be lethal or less than lethal.

Those of us who have CC permits have (in most cases) had to sit through class instruction on the laws governing use of force. Part of that discussion (in my case at least) revolved around what may happen in court after a shooting. Interestingly enough, the instructor of my class advocated carrying OC as well as a gun. I had carried OC sporadically over the years anyway so I considered his advice and decided to follow it.

I guess the overall point of this post is don't ask for reasoning and not expect the law to come into play. Then don't expect a discussion of law without discussing what may or may not happen in court. One will follow the other as night follows day.

Axion · April 30, 2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Look at it from the opposite side:
Your argument is basically that you cannot shoot someone who is not armed because they do not constitute a threat of serious injury or death.

No that is not my point. My point is that unless there are extenuating factors I do not believe that an average jury is going to feel that you were justified for shooting someone who was going to beat you up. And that is the way it's most likely to be framed by the prosecutor. And since I watched a discovery channel show about life in the kind of prisons they send killers to yesterday I'd very much like to never be convicted of murder, or even involuntary manslaughter. So for me this, and any other topic about when to you or note use a gun is very much about the law.

To sum up. If some one is coming to kick your ass and you have reason to really believe that they could kill or seriously injure you then shoot to defend yourself and hope you can convince a jury about that.

But there will be times when some guy just wants to kick your ass but no one would believe that he could really kill or seriously injure you. In those cases you're much better of with leaving the gun concealed and turning to some other form of defense IMO.

5whiskey · April 30, 2007, 11:27 PM

One more plus for the LTL. If you get hit with 10% oil based OC, you can still fight, but you can't see well enough if hit in the eyes to be effective at it. Bar none. I don't care what anyone says they think they saw, I've seen an entire company of Marines sprayed with the stuff and not one of them could see well enough to fight anywhere near 50%. I won't say that it stopped everyone or even most, we were training to take a LTL strike and keep fighting, but everyone was swinging wildly and couldn't land anything without their "attacker" making verbal commands to aid in targeting via sound. I'm not going to get into the "yeah but hitting them in the eyes is easier said than done" argument. You have a steady stream to track on target, kinda like a belt fed weapon with no recoil. I think it's a viable form of self defense IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. I furthermore don't care what a jury thinks. If I carry LTL and see that situation warrents lethal, then I don't give a crap what 12 men not in my shoes think. They should think better of me for carrying an alternative in case the need to use THE ALTERNATIVE TO SAVE A LIFE should arise. If I'm convicted on those grounds alone then I will go to sleep at night in my jail cell, and sleep damn well, knowing that my concience is clean.

Last but certainly not least, I think it's up to the individual. If it doesn't work for Lurper, or whoever else, then by all means don't carry it. I wouldn't try too hard to convince others they shouldn't because I think there are definatly viable uses for LTL out there. I did say earlier that in most of those cases presenting your pistol and giving a verbal warning will also likely do the job, but I'm sure that out there somewhere there is a case where LTL would apply well.

One more time... if you do carry it incorperate it in your training.

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 12:13 AM

Look, you guys all make good points. However you are twisting what I said. You are saying that if someone says they are going to kick your ass I say you can shoot them. That is not what I said. Again what I said is if someone beats you to the point that a reasonable person would believe serious injury or death, the law allows you to use deadly physical force. That is a fact.

The reason it doesn't make sense to argue about what is going to happen in court is because the standard is different for each individual in each situation. For example: If local thug Mike Tyson smashes the window out of my car trying to get to me because he thinks I cut him off, I would certainly be justified in shooting him. On the other hand if a 5'2" man at the supermarket gets pissed because I took his cart and shoves me out of the way, the answer is obvious. If however the same man threatens me, keeps me from leaving or pursues me and assaults me to the point that I am in danger of losing conciousness, I am justified to use deadly physical force.
If the judge rules that my prior knowledge of Tyson's temper and his history of violence is inadmissable, that also changes things. What you should or should not do is not the issue. Again you can argue it all you want, but the fact is that the law allows you to shoot an unarmed assailant. If it did not, the law would state that the assailant must be armed. For the purposes of this discussion that is as much detail as we need to go into. If not, the topic gets lost.

Again, in most cases if the situation calls for you to employ LTL, then it also calls for lethal force. To be more blunt about it: if you are in a situation where you have to employ LTL, you are either in a situation you can still get out of by retreating or you have incorrectly assesed the situation (that is obviously opinion not related to the law).

If you carry OC out of a question of conscience, that's fine. That is also an answer to the question. Arguing what what will happen in court does not answer the question if the answer goes beyond saying something like I don't want to take the chance that I will be charged with murder.

Jeez does it really need to be this difficult?

Trip20 · May 1, 2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurper

The reason it doesn't make sense to argue about what is going to happen in court is because the standard is different for each individual in each situation.

Does it only make sense when you do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurper in post #9

Additionally, if you are carrying OC (for example) and the situation spirals too quickly for you to use it, you are opening up a can of worms criminally and civily. I can hear the attorney now:
"Mr. Smith, had a can of mace that he could have used to stop my client from raping that young woman, but instead he chose to shoot my client 4 times. Why? Because Mr. Smith dreamed of the day he could use his gun on someone. Mr. Smith carried a handgun for no other reason than to look for an opportunity to take a life. He could have used the mace to stop my client, but that wasn't good enough. Now my client is confined to a wheelchair and Mr. Smith should pay."

Playboypenguin · May 1, 2007, 10:57 AM

In case you guys have not noticed, even though this thread has had lots of great points and good information on it, the OP wants to try and keep it only to statements, opinions and interpetations that support his own personal opinion and misinterpetation of the law.

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Does it only make sense when you do it?

No, I used a poor choice of wording. I should have said that there is no point in debating the intricate details when shooting an unarmed assailant because there are too many variables and it must be taken on a case by case basis. Otherwise, it just becomes another "what if" debate. That is not what I was interested in finding out.

That was also before we slid down the slippery slope and the posts degenertated into personal attacks and internet lawyers with no training trying to re-write the law.

The facts are this:
The law allows lethal force whether your assailant is armed or not (that is abundantly clear. To argue otherwise is absurd and shows that there is an ulterior motive).

Use of LTL has liabilities tactical, legal and civil.

Given the Facts, what is your rationale for carrying LTL?

5whiskey · May 1, 2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Use of LTL has liabilities tactical, legal and civil.

Tactical liabilities I can see if someone gets hung up on the fact of having LTL. Many times you have a split second to identify the threat, decide what action you will take (flee. Can't flee, LTL. LTL not applicable he's no S#%t trying to kill me, draw the pistol. Fire the pistol). I will carry LTL, but I am trying to train with it to the point that my primary instinct is to still reach for my pistol. If there is time to think about LTL then there is usually time to flee, but there is an exception to every rule. As I have said earlier I want to do everything I can to preserve human life, even that of the bad guy. I was raised to believe that's the right thing as a Christian. However, I'm not going to use OC on someone who pulls a pistol on me. It's always a totality of circumstance on deciding what to do in each situation, that's why proper mindset and training is important. The point of my post is that the purpose of training with any technique is to limit tactical liabilities. Add the fact that I know OC works and I will count it as part of my arsenal.

Legal liabilities I disagree with. You will never convince me that a jury will frown upon you for using deadly force and having LTL in a shoot where they would commend you for the same actions if you didn't have LTL. I can see if someone walks toward you and asks for a light and you automaticaly spray him. That's comparable with pulling a pistol and shooting someone who threatens to kick your ass. Use of appropriate force.

Civil liabilities. How is carrying a less lethal option in addition to a lethal option a civil liability? I would come closer to argue the exact opposite, though I don't condemn or blame anyone for not carrying LTL. We have civil liailities to everything in our power to preserve human life. If we have the ability to incapacitate someone, even if they are a danger to life or limb, without killing them then I believe you should. That's the purpose of the clause, in almost every state, to attempt to flee an attack. I'm not trying to tell anyone they should go Jackie Chan on someone who is advancing on them with a knife or who is attempting to draw a gun. If you have LTL you still should revert to deadly force probably 99.9% of the time because you don't know for a fact that you can stop without killing without further endangering your own life. There is always an exception to the rule.

The number 1 self defense technique is preventative mantainance. Avoid certain dangerous sitiuations and pay attention to your surroundings (or stay in code yellow or whatever you call it). If you practice, especially the latter, there is often times a window before anything escalates to deadly force that LTL could apply. The State of North Carolina states that someone with CCW license can use their firearm (or anything else) to protect another innoccent person from loss of life, limb, or sexual assault. That's one of the few things this state got right in their CCW laws (no firearms anywhere that admission is charged, how dumb is that?)

Okay. Off the soapbox. Lurper I usually see you post some good points, not saying you haven't thrown out one or two here, but I don't agree with you on this one. Especially when you tell everyone that carrying a LTL option is a civic liability??? There is no way possible that adding a tool to potentially save ones life while still preserving another (albeit bad guy) is a civic liability. I'd call it more of a civic responsibility.

5whiskey · May 1, 2007, 12:51 PM

I also forgot the meat and potatos of why I believe in LTL for everyone else anyway. You don't have to bend over backwards to save the life of someone who is trying to take yours. That's the argument for why I carry LTL, but I don't expect everyone to live by the same code as me.

Why would I recommend LTL? I made this statement above. In NC we're kinda restricted on where we can carry legally. You can't possess a weapon anywhere where admission is charged (movies, concerts, ect.) plus quiet a few other stipulations. Keep LTL on you so you are used to keeping it on you. Unfortunatly you can't take your CC everywhere, so in this case LTL fills the niche.

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Tactical liabilities I can see if someone gets hung up on the fact of having LTL. Many times you have a split second to identify the threat, decide what action you will take (flee. Can't flee, LTL. LTL not applicable he's no S#%t trying to kill me, draw the pistol. Fire the pistol). I will carry LTL, but I am trying to train with it to the point that my primary instinct is to still reach for my pistol. If there is time to think about LTL then there is usually time to flee, but there is an exception to every rule. As I have said earlier I want to do everything I can to preserve human life, even that of the bad guy. I was raised to believe that's the right thing as a Christian. However, I'm not going to use OC on someone who pulls a pistol on me. It's always a totality of circumstance on deciding what to do in each situation, that's why proper mindset and training is important. The point of my post is that the purpose of training with any technique is to limit tactical liabilities. Add the fact that I know OC works and I will count it as part of my arsenal.

I agree. Except I don't have the strong moral convictions about taking someone's life who is trying to take mine. My worry tactically is that taking the time to 1. decide to use LTL or not, 2. deploy it 3. assess its effectiveness would compromise my tactical position to the point that I would be dead. Also, as you pointed out, I believe that if the situation calls for LTL, there is time to flee. Your point about training is also excellent.

Legal liabilities:
If you spray someone with OC (or taser them) inappropriately, you face criminal charges just like you would with a firearm. If they die, it could be even worse. So, in that sense you face legal liability. My point is that you cannot assume that just because you use LTL, you won't be arrested/charged.

If I wrote "Civic" liability, it was a typo. Civil liability is what I meant. This is an area that there is a lot of potential for problems and where again it makes no sense to "what if" the situation. Suffice to say that if you have LTL, but resort to lethal force without resorting to LTL you are in a less advantages position. The logic being that if you carry LTL then you have to subscribe to the idea of a "spectrum of force" which as a civilian, most are not qualified to assess. Nor IMO should they be. Again, I believe the mindset needs to be that the situation either calls for lethal force or not. If it doesn't, run, scream like a little girl, do whatever it takes to escape. If you have no escape, then you should resort to lethal force.

As far a civic responsibility goes Wheeler, I believe that as CW carriers have a higher responsibility. We are not heroes waiting to happen, and our judgement needs to be much more clear than those who do not carry because the consequences of our actions change lives forever. Which is why I feel the way I do about LTL. If the situation does not call for lethal force, don't get involved. Call 911 and be a good witness. If the attack is brought to you, then it becomes a matter of life and death, which justifies lethal force. FWIW, I am by no means advocating that you stand back and watch someone slit another person's throat etc., I am advocating that you should not get involved until you have no other choice but to in order to save someone's life.

Duxman · May 1, 2007, 01:33 PM

Lurper,

One question about LTL options:

Is martial arts training taken into consideration when civil liabilities are assesed? Example:

BG pulls a knife on you at 5 feet, and threatens you. You pull your gun and shoot BG. No criminal charges are filed.

Civil charges are filed by BG's parents. They find out you were a black belt and say that you could have fought him HTH instead of ending his life.

Do they have a fair (50%) chance of greater than winning or no?

rantingredneck · May 1, 2007, 01:38 PM

Several makers of OC spray are now selling packages that contain the actual OC canister to carry and another "training" unit that is loaded with a non-OC substance so that you can practice deploying and spraying without having to use actual OC. Beyond that I have practiced with OC and have made my wife do the same (so far she has chosen not to go the CCW route though I am still working on that). I set up a B27 sillouette in the back yard and made her practice spraying the OC. I did the same. We do this about once a year or so. As I mentioned earlier I also voluntarily was sprayed to experience first hand the effects. I have to say there is no way I could see or breathe well enough to fight effectively. I'll NEVER do that again.

Tactically I always carry (and practice) with OC from the weak side. That way while weak hand is going for OC, strong hand is reaching for CCW (provided I'm not in one of those no-carry zones that Wheeler has already covered).

So far I haven't mentioned that I also carry a folding knife (legal in NC) as long as it's not considered a "dirk or dagger" (generally interpreted as fixed blade). The folding knife is a CRKT Crawford Falcon and is the last resort. That is assuming that pepperspray either missed or didn't work and we've closed to contact distance. At that point a knife is more useful than a gun if you know how to use it (and I do).

To the issue of pepper spray not working in some cases (i.e. Rodney King), those are statistical outliers much like the cases we've all read about, and seen video of in some cases, of an individual who was shot repeatedly in the chest with anything and everything up to .357 mag or .45ACP and failed to stop.

I guess I go back to my earlier statement that it's just one more option and one more tool in the tool box. I also will wholeheartedly agree with Wheeler's analysis of the civil liability issue. I believe from a legal standpoint, at least in NC, you'd be better off in front of a jury showing that you cared enough about human life to carry LTL, even if you end up justifiably using deadly force.

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 03:54 PM

Dux
Anything and everything is fair game in civil court. One of the things I that could happen to me in civil court for example is the plaintiff's family or lawyer claiming that someone as skilled as I am could have shot the gun out of the decedants hand or shot to wound, not kill. As absurd as that notion is, in civil court, it will probably be brought up.
In your example, it may be brought up but the likliehood of a finding in favor of the plaintiff is unlikely unless you are in an extremely liberal jurisdiction. But, remember: anyone can sue you for any reason. Oh, one thing just occured to me. Some states (now including AZ) no longer allow civil suits to be brought against someone who was justified in using physical or deadly physical force. So, if you live in one of those states and weren't charged criminally, you won't face a civil suit.

RR
I think the other problem with carrying LTL is that by carrying it, you imply that you understand the "spectrum of force" concept and if you understand the concept, you need to follow the different steps of escalation of force (especially against an unarmed assailant). If you fail to follow different levels of force before resorting to your firearm, you may run into trouble convincing people that you had no other choice but to use your firearm. It would also be harder to convince someone that you were in fear for you life if you hadn't tried OC first and found it ineffective. So rather than it giving you more options, I believe it actually limits your options.

rantingredneck · May 1, 2007, 07:43 PM

Lurper,

That really only applies if the individual isn't armed though.

Scenario 1: BG presents with gun, knife, ballbat, crowbar, etc. I jump the force continuum to lethal. No ifs ands or buts. I feel comfortable that I could justify that in court even if I was carrying OC.

Scenario 2: BG presents empty handed. I spray him. He stops. Everyone goes home alive. Win/win in my book.

Scenario 3: BG presents empty handed. I spray him. He continues as I'm retreating and warning (I wouldn't be standing still and spraying, I'm moving). He stays empty handed I probably spray him again if I feel safe doing so. If not, or if he arms himself, and I can't get away, refer to Scenario 1.

If he's unarmed and I jump straight to deadly force when carrying OC then yes it could go against me in court, but the question is why would I do that?

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 09:17 PM

Not to get too far into "what if", but if someone jumps you, knocks you down, you fear you will lose consciousness so you shoot him. Also, some might argue that a knife at X distance would require a LTL response. Again though, it would have to be the right set of circumstances in the right (or wrong) jurisdiction.

MacGille · May 1, 2007, 10:27 PM

Lurper, I can see that your mind is made up. You think that LTL should not be carried because it opens one to repercussions that a gun doesn't. I personally, think you are wrong. There are many types of LTL including a right cross or a groin kick. I am an LTL force. so is anybody who can defend himself. You talk about getting your butt whipped as if this is a deadly attack. It isn't in most cases. Bullies use the fear their actions engenders to intimidate and awe the victim. I am still alive even though I have had my butt whipped. I am also alive even though I have been shot at and hit. My assailant is not.

The fact is that if you carry concealed the possibility of using your weapon is always in your mind. This is a drastic action and WILL have a great effect on your life. However, if the possibility of using LTL is available you may be able to survive and not be jailed etc. The prudent man will avail himself of all tools and techniques too ensusre his safety and comfort. Nuff said!

Lurper · May 1, 2007, 11:01 PM

I never said my mind wasn't made up.

Quote:

You talk about getting your butt whipped as if this is a deadly attack. It isn't in most cases.

How do you know that? It can be a deadly attack with just one punch. I am not willing to take that chance, nor am I required to. If someone has blocked my escape and ignored my warnings that I am armed, obviously they intend to do more than just whip my ass.

Quote:

However, if the possibility of using LTL is available you may be able to survive and not be jailed etc.

The key word in that sentence is MAY, I am not willing to take that chance.
The point that seems to elude some is that I will avoid the confrotation at all costs. Once that option is removed, a physical assault is a deadly confrontation (outside of the obvious exceptions). How do you know the person who is attacking you is not Ken Shamrock or that he is just going to punch you once to prove a point and stop. How do you know that one punch won't seriously injure you? How do you know that if you lose consciousness, he won't take your weapon and kill you?

5whiskey · May 2, 2007, 12:23 AM

Hey bro, if you don't want to carry it then don't.

I still know that LTL doesn't present any liabilities. Even tactical if you train with it and are reasonably adept. If you don't believe in it, and it's clear you don't, yes it's your God given right to try and convince us of why you don't and why we shouldn't. It is not, however, a liability.

Lurper · May 2, 2007, 12:37 AM

I'm not really trying to convince you Wheeler, just want to know people's rationale.
But, as has been pointed out before many attorneys who specialize in firearms cases and many of the defensive firearms writers advise against it, warning that it can be a liability.

April 30, 2007, 10:38 PM	#77
rantingredneck Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,728	Not about the law? Lurper, You've said repeatedly that this thread is not about the law. You've also asked for our rationale for carrying LTL (OC in my case). What if our reasoning for carry has to do with the law? Are we to remain mute on the legalities of the situation? When discussing the legal implications you then say let's not talk about what will happen in court. Well as I said before that is where the law is applied. I think any thread asking for rationale then saying lets not talk about the law or the courtroom is kinda silly personally. I hazard a guess that what may happen in court drives much of what we think about when we think about and train for the possibility of having to use what we carry whether it be lethal or less than lethal. Those of us who have CC permits have (in most cases) had to sit through class instruction on the laws governing use of force. Part of that discussion (in my case at least) revolved around what may happen in court after a shooting. Interestingly enough, the instructor of my class advocated carrying OC as well as a gun. I had carried OC sporadically over the years anyway so I considered his advice and decided to follow it. I guess the overall point of this post is don't ask for reasoning and not expect the law to come into play. Then don't expect a discussion of law without discussing what may or may not happen in court. One will follow the other as night follows day.

May 1, 2007, 01:38 PM	#88
rantingredneck Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,728	To the training issue. Several makers of OC spray are now selling packages that contain the actual OC canister to carry and another "training" unit that is loaded with a non-OC substance so that you can practice deploying and spraying without having to use actual OC. Beyond that I have practiced with OC and have made my wife do the same (so far she has chosen not to go the CCW route though I am still working on that). I set up a B27 sillouette in the back yard and made her practice spraying the OC. I did the same. We do this about once a year or so. As I mentioned earlier I also voluntarily was sprayed to experience first hand the effects. I have to say there is no way I could see or breathe well enough to fight effectively. I'll NEVER do that again. Tactically I always carry (and practice) with OC from the weak side. That way while weak hand is going for OC, strong hand is reaching for CCW (provided I'm not in one of those no-carry zones that Wheeler has already covered). So far I haven't mentioned that I also carry a folding knife (legal in NC) as long as it's not considered a "dirk or dagger" (generally interpreted as fixed blade). The folding knife is a CRKT Crawford Falcon and is the last resort. That is assuming that pepperspray either missed or didn't work and we've closed to contact distance. At that point a knife is more useful than a gun if you know how to use it (and I do). To the issue of pepper spray not working in some cases (i.e. Rodney King), those are statistical outliers much like the cases we've all read about, and seen video of in some cases, of an individual who was shot repeatedly in the chest with anything and everything up to .357 mag or .45ACP and failed to stop. I guess I go back to my earlier statement that it's just one more option and one more tool in the tool box. I also will wholeheartedly agree with Wheeler's analysis of the civil liability issue. I believe from a legal standpoint, at least in NC, you'd be better off in front of a jury showing that you cared enough about human life to carry LTL, even if you end up justifiably using deadly force.

April 30, 2007, 08:16 PM	#76
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Axion, the thread is not about the law, so this is my last explanation. This may be a bit more clear: Since the law does not state that your attacker must be armed before you use deadly physical force, it is not required to meet the test. If you believe that a reasonble person would believe that they were going to suffer serious injury and that the only way to stop that injury was to use (or threaten to) deadly physical force, that meets the test. I don't see how anyone could not think that someone beating you and taking your weapon, after removing your opportunity to retreat, ignoring the warnings that you are armed and in fear for your life, is not a threat of serious injury or death. Look at it from the opposite side: Your argument is basically that you cannot shoot someone who is not armed because they do not constitute a threat of serious injury or death. So following the logic of your argument, I must let someone knock me out (whether it takes one punch or a dozen) and take my weapon because they are not armed. Considering that tens of thousands of people suffer serious injury or death each year from beatings, do you think that really passes the reasonable man test? We have to speak in generalizations because the standard is different for those of us who are fit and well built as opposed to the 5'2" woman who is 98 lbs wringing wet. That is why it is pointless to argue specifics. Under the law you can clearly defend yourself against an unarmed attacker. It is crystal clear and is tested thousands of times each year across the country. Now to meat of the thread: Carrying LTL puts you in a compromising position because if you have it and don't use it, you are increasing the likliehood of criminal and civil charges. If you have it and use it, even OC is relatively ineffective in that it doesn't instantly incapacitate the attacker, does not work well on people who are mentally unstable or on drugs. Quite often, it makes them angrier. Also, it more than likely has put you in a compromised tactical position. Find an attorney who specializes in firearms cases or read what the "experts" write. You'll find that the consensus is that it is not a real good idea to carry LTL while you are packing a pistol.

April 30, 2007, 11:27 PM	#79
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,652	One more plus for the LTL. If you get hit with 10% oil based OC, you can still fight, but you can't see well enough if hit in the eyes to be effective at it. Bar none. I don't care what anyone says they think they saw, I've seen an entire company of Marines sprayed with the stuff and not one of them could see well enough to fight anywhere near 50%. I won't say that it stopped everyone or even most, we were training to take a LTL strike and keep fighting, but everyone was swinging wildly and couldn't land anything without their "attacker" making verbal commands to aid in targeting via sound. I'm not going to get into the "yeah but hitting them in the eyes is easier said than done" argument. You have a steady stream to track on target, kinda like a belt fed weapon with no recoil. I think it's a viable form of self defense IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. I furthermore don't care what a jury thinks. If I carry LTL and see that situation warrents lethal, then I don't give a crap what 12 men not in my shoes think. They should think better of me for carrying an alternative in case the need to use THE ALTERNATIVE TO SAVE A LIFE should arise. If I'm convicted on those grounds alone then I will go to sleep at night in my jail cell, and sleep damn well, knowing that my concience is clean. Last but certainly not least, I think it's up to the individual. If it doesn't work for Lurper, or whoever else, then by all means don't carry it. I wouldn't try too hard to convince others they shouldn't because I think there are definatly viable uses for LTL out there. I did say earlier that in most of those cases presenting your pistol and giving a verbal warning will also likely do the job, but I'm sure that out there somewhere there is a case where LTL would apply well. One more time... if you do carry it incorperate it in your training.

May 1, 2007, 12:13 AM	#80
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Look, you guys all make good points. However you are twisting what I said. You are saying that if someone says they are going to kick your ass I say you can shoot them. That is not what I said. Again what I said is if someone beats you to the point that a reasonable person would believe serious injury or death, the law allows you to use deadly physical force. That is a fact. The reason it doesn't make sense to argue about what is going to happen in court is because the standard is different for each individual in each situation. For example: If local thug Mike Tyson smashes the window out of my car trying to get to me because he thinks I cut him off, I would certainly be justified in shooting him. On the other hand if a 5'2" man at the supermarket gets pissed because I took his cart and shoves me out of the way, the answer is obvious. If however the same man threatens me, keeps me from leaving or pursues me and assaults me to the point that I am in danger of losing conciousness, I am justified to use deadly physical force. If the judge rules that my prior knowledge of Tyson's temper and his history of violence is inadmissable, that also changes things. What you should or should not do is not the issue. Again you can argue it all you want, but the fact is that the law allows you to shoot an unarmed assailant. If it did not, the law would state that the assailant must be armed. For the purposes of this discussion that is as much detail as we need to go into. If not, the topic gets lost. Again, in most cases if the situation calls for you to employ LTL, then it also calls for lethal force. To be more blunt about it: if you are in a situation where you have to employ LTL, you are either in a situation you can still get out of by retreating or you have incorrectly assesed the situation (that is obviously opinion not related to the law). If you carry OC out of a question of conscience, that's fine. That is also an answer to the question. Arguing what what will happen in court does not answer the question if the answer goes beyond saying something like I don't want to take the chance that I will be charged with murder. Jeez does it really need to be this difficult?

May 1, 2007, 10:57 AM	#82
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	In case you guys have not noticed, even though this thread has had lots of great points and good information on it, the OP wants to try and keep it only to statements, opinions and interpetations that support his own personal opinion and misinterpetation of the law.

May 1, 2007, 12:51 PM	#85
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,652	I also forgot the meat and potatos of why I believe in LTL for everyone else anyway. You don't have to bend over backwards to save the life of someone who is trying to take yours. That's the argument for why I carry LTL, but I don't expect everyone to live by the same code as me. Why would I recommend LTL? I made this statement above. In NC we're kinda restricted on where we can carry legally. You can't possess a weapon anywhere where admission is charged (movies, concerts, ect.) plus quiet a few other stipulations. Keep LTL on you so you are used to keeping it on you. Unfortunatly you can't take your CC everywhere, so in this case LTL fills the niche.

May 1, 2007, 01:33 PM	#87
Duxman Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2005 Location: VA Posts: 1,294	Lurper, One question about LTL options: Is martial arts training taken into consideration when civil liabilities are assesed? Example: BG pulls a knife on you at 5 feet, and threatens you. You pull your gun and shoot BG. No criminal charges are filed. Civil charges are filed by BG's parents. They find out you were a black belt and say that you could have fought him HTH instead of ending his life. Do they have a fair (50%) chance of greater than winning or no?

May 1, 2007, 03:54 PM	#89
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Dux Anything and everything is fair game in civil court. One of the things I that could happen to me in civil court for example is the plaintiff's family or lawyer claiming that someone as skilled as I am could have shot the gun out of the decedants hand or shot to wound, not kill. As absurd as that notion is, in civil court, it will probably be brought up. In your example, it may be brought up but the likliehood of a finding in favor of the plaintiff is unlikely unless you are in an extremely liberal jurisdiction. But, remember: anyone can sue you for any reason. Oh, one thing just occured to me. Some states (now including AZ) no longer allow civil suits to be brought against someone who was justified in using physical or deadly physical force. So, if you live in one of those states and weren't charged criminally, you won't face a civil suit. RR I think the other problem with carrying LTL is that by carrying it, you imply that you understand the "spectrum of force" concept and if you understand the concept, you need to follow the different steps of escalation of force (especially against an unarmed assailant). If you fail to follow different levels of force before resorting to your firearm, you may run into trouble convincing people that you had no other choice but to use your firearm. It would also be harder to convince someone that you were in fear for you life if you hadn't tried OC first and found it ineffective. So rather than it giving you more options, I believe it actually limits your options.

May 1, 2007, 07:43 PM	#90
rantingredneck Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,728	Lurper, That really only applies if the individual isn't armed though. Scenario 1: BG presents with gun, knife, ballbat, crowbar, etc. I jump the force continuum to lethal. No ifs ands or buts. I feel comfortable that I could justify that in court even if I was carrying OC. Scenario 2: BG presents empty handed. I spray him. He stops. Everyone goes home alive. Win/win in my book. Scenario 3: BG presents empty handed. I spray him. He continues as I'm retreating and warning (I wouldn't be standing still and spraying, I'm moving). He stays empty handed I probably spray him again if I feel safe doing so. If not, or if he arms himself, and I can't get away, refer to Scenario 1. If he's unarmed and I jump straight to deadly force when carrying OC then yes it could go against me in court, but the question is why would I do that?

May 1, 2007, 09:17 PM	#91
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Not to get too far into "what if", but if someone jumps you, knocks you down, you fear you will lose consciousness so you shoot him. Also, some might argue that a knife at X distance would require a LTL response. Again though, it would have to be the right set of circumstances in the right (or wrong) jurisdiction.

May 1, 2007, 10:27 PM	#92
MacGille Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2006 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 976	Lurper, I can see that your mind is made up. You think that LTL should not be carried because it opens one to repercussions that a gun doesn't. I personally, think you are wrong. There are many types of LTL including a right cross or a groin kick. I am an LTL force. so is anybody who can defend himself. You talk about getting your butt whipped as if this is a deadly attack. It isn't in most cases. Bullies use the fear their actions engenders to intimidate and awe the victim. I am still alive even though I have had my butt whipped. I am also alive even though I have been shot at and hit. My assailant is not. The fact is that if you carry concealed the possibility of using your weapon is always in your mind. This is a drastic action and WILL have a great effect on your life. However, if the possibility of using LTL is available you may be able to survive and not be jailed etc. The prudent man will avail himself of all tools and techniques too ensusre his safety and comfort. Nuff said!

May 2, 2007, 12:23 AM	#94
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,652	Hey bro, if you don't want to carry it then don't. I still know that LTL doesn't present any liabilities. Even tactical if you train with it and are reasonably adept. If you don't believe in it, and it's clear you don't, yes it's your God given right to try and convince us of why you don't and why we shouldn't. It is not, however, a liability.

May 2, 2007, 12:37 AM	#95
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	I'm not really trying to convince you Wheeler, just want to know people's rationale. But, as has been pointed out before many attorneys who specialize in firearms cases and many of the defensive firearms writers advise against it, warning that it can be a liability.