Yes there are some outcomes with both OC and TASER (one companies tradename) that did result in death.
Just speaking broadly, OC would have less of a chance of being mistaken as a deadly weapon due to shape. Its a can with a push button on top generally. Also, some TASERS (trade name again) can resemble a firearm, and thus a person could rightly not know if they are facing a lethal, or less then lethal threat until after the fact. Also keep in mind with TASERS (trade name once again) last for 5 sec for a law enforcement version, and 30 sec for a public version. There are more investigations/lawsuits due to the law enforcement version (deep pockets/more likely to be used) so take it for what its worth. The question at hand is whether use of OC or a TASER will meet the definition brought about in the laws quoted by Spats.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spats
such force is necessary to
protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person
|
Key question as being what is "unlawful physical force by another person"?
Side note, after having gone through OC and TASER classes, experiencing both, I would prefer OC (TASER cramped my back up for 2 weeks, OC is over after a couple of hours with water and soap). Yes it can incapacitate a person, or render that person at a less then ideal position to defend him/herself. Personnally speaking, I could only testify to my experience having gone through both. Without that experience, it could weaken a persons testimony, or perhaps strengthen it, due to "fear of the unknown"