Non-lethal carry?

[Lurper]

Rather than hijack a thread, I will post this as a seperate question:

On this and other forums, there are many advocates of carrying less than lethal weapons (or knives even) as a civilian. My personal and professional opinion is that it is unecessary and a bad decision. I will support that in a later post. The question is:
What is the rationale behind carrying or not carrying non or less than lethal weapons as a civilian (not LE or military)?

I suppose I should qualify that by saying in addition to carrying your concealed firearm.

[junkpile]

What is the rationale behind carrying or not carrying non or less than lethal weapons as a civilian (not LE or military)?

If you have non-lethal weapons, you have a gradient of force available to you. I think this is expandable to general thinking about national strategy, the military, and warfare. Different forces are meant for different reasons. We do not always simply use nuclear weapons on our enemies. We have an army, and artillery, special forces, grunts, rangers, etc.

In that sense, at different points in time, you have different weapons for different circumstances. I think many people on this board have thought out every action they will take up until they shoot, but not what happens after. To be quite honest, I'm not concerned about the "guilt" people who feel guilt clame I would feel. I am concerned about the legal reprecussions if I choose to shoot someone.

Sometimes pulling out a firearm just isn't legally tenable. The situation won't call for that, either in the eyes of the DA (some of which don't believe you should ever defend yourself, apparently) and/or in the eyes of the 12 people who will be judging you. But something like Pepper Spray, which merely incapacitates a defendant, may be appropriate.

I think non lethal weapons for civilians are good for the same reason non lethal weapons for police are useful. Taking out a weapon is like going nuclear, and this would be a mistake for every misunderstanding we have with people. Pepper spray allows a gradient of force response that is appropriate (read: that you can get away with in the eyes of the law).

[Trip20]

Lurper,

Concealed-Carry is illegal in some states. For those who choose to obey the law, they are forced to carry other means of protection/deterrent.

In other states where concealed-carry is legal, it still makes sense to have other tools at your disposal.

It makes sense to carry more than one tool because the task of self-protection may be different each time. You’re not always protecting yourself from an armed, masked terrorist where employing a firearm is the most prudent choice.

One day you might be confronted with a drunk who wants to fistfight, where a dose of spray can buy you enough time to scram with out having the situation escalate into something a hell of a lot more complicated.

Yet on another day, you may be confronted with an armed assailant where a firearm is necessary.

Different circumstances can call for different tools.

I’m all ears. What’s your reason for advocating only carrying one tool?

PS -- After reading your post again, it's possible you're speaking of situations where people advocate carrying ONLY non-lethal protection. That kind of changes things, but I'm going on the assumption that you're discussing those who advocate carrying lethal, AND non-lethal tools.

[junkpile]

After reading your post again, it's possible you're speaking of situations where people advocate carrying ONLY non-lethal protection.

Agreed, I operated under that assumption too.

I might say that a reason one might advocate only one tool is that it matters in a court case. If you used a gun because you felt you had to, but had pepper spray, the court can say you acted unreasonably, because they believed you could have used pepper spray. If you only had the gun, then you had no choice but it. A DA can't second-guess you, as you only had one tool. Just a thought.

[Lurper]

No, I meant in addition to carrying a handgun while licensed to carry legally.

[Samurai]

Knives are just good things to have. You can carry them places where you can't ordinarilly carry a gun. Plus, in the right hands, they can be WAAAYYY more devastating to a charging attack than a gun.

Just another tool in your toolbox...

[Duxman]

Very interested in your opinion on this Lurper.

I have a friend in the law business that tells me the same thing.

Caveat: Cutter blade (not a knife) is quite useful in non-combat situations. Opening boxes etc. Can be part of one's job in certain situations.

[Playboypenguin]

As some have already stated, having a gradient of force available to you is a good idea.

I always have a knife on me but that is more for utility than it is for self defense.

I think pepper-spray is a great idea. I am thinking of getting on of the ones made by Kimber that fit easily into a pocket and contain two cartidges.

If I am downtown and two guys threaten to kick my ass and have the drop on me where I cannot easily run I would be much more likely to succede in getting away if I could blind them first. If I resorted to shooting them, and they were unarmed, I would most cirtainly be spending a good deal of time in prisonl. However, using the pepper spray would be justified in such a circumstance and could save me a beating. My goal would not be to kill them or win the fight. My goal would be to end the fight by getting away.

[Lurper]

Plus, in the right hands, they can be WAAAYYY more devastating to a charging attack than a gun.

Don't wanna go down that road, but that is WAAYYY overstatement Sam. You might be able to argue that a knife in the right hands could be as devastating, but there are WAAAYYY too many variables and that is not the topic of this thread.

Carrying less than lethal weapons is bad for a couple of reasons. First, from the broad perspective, if a situation doesn't require lethal force, you should not be involved. You are not a hero waiting to happen. Second, use of non-deadly force has as severe consequence as deadly force. Too many people assume that OC or whatever is going to end the attack. If it doesn't, chances are that you are now in much worse position than before you emplyed it (i.e. the attacker has closed the distance). By using it (LTL), you endager yourself and others. You are a civilian, not a cop. The potential for you or others to get injured increases when you employ less than lethal measures.

If I am downtown and two guys threaten to kick my ass and have the drop on me where I cannot easily run I would be much more likely to succede in getting away if I could blind them first. If I resorted to shooting them, and they were unarmed, I would most cirtainly be spending a good deal of time in prisonl. However, using the pepper spray would be justified in such a circumstance and could save me a beating. My goal would not be to kill them or win the fight. My goal would be to end the fight by getting away.

In most states (certainly in AZ), the law does not require you to take an asswhipping just because the attacker is unarmed. Someone assaulting you while you are armed does call for lethal force in most cases (there is lots of case law to support it). You do not know how skilled your attacker is and you are not required to let him beat you to submission before you resort to lethal force. You should however warn your assailant(s) that you are armed before it comes to blows. If there are witnesses, make sure you say it loud enough for them to hear. You don't know that the first punch won't knock you out. Then, what will your attacker do with your weapon? Warning someone who is about to assault you that you are armed and then drawing the weapon to stop said assault does not constitute Brandishing in most states. However, if you draw your weapon, you most certainly should call the police.

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."

There really is no support (IMO) for using a knife instead of a gun. They are generally less effective, require a higher level of skill, require you to close the distance with the attacker, and could open up another can of worms.

In the vast majority of situations, there is either justification for lethal force or not. The law does not require you to have different grades of response. You need to look at it as cut and dried. If it requires lethal force, respond accordingly. If not, then don't get involved. As a general rule, if you can retreat or escape then do so. But, carrying less than lethal weapons is asking for trouble or worse.

[gdeal]

How about carrying a knife because you live in the California Republic? And CCW is very hard to get. Running away is good unless you have a bad hip. Right you don't want your attacker using your own weapon on you but I think as a last resort you know you are going to die anyway, a knife might be ok.

[Playboypenguin]

In most states (certainly in AZ), the law does not require you to take an asswhipping just because the attacker is unarmed. Someone assaulting you while you are armed does call for lethal force in most case

Unfortunately if you use deadly force upon someone the burden of proof then falls upon you to prove your life was in danger. It would be really hard to convince a jury that an unarmed person was going to kill you. There are tons of laws that deal with meeting force with "apppropriate" counter force. Shooting someoine for threatening to punch you is not considered appropriate retaliation.There are tons of people sitting in prison for making that mistake.

I am not saying you are like this but anyone that is so quick to shoot someone over a fist fight should probably not be armed. I am afraid I would agree with a jury that decided some guy that ended someone elses life rather than take a punch might not need to be on the streets. If you are going to use deadly force you better be damn sure your life is actually in danger or you might spend the rest of it behind bars. With pepper spray the worst you would get was slapped on the wrist with a low level assualt charge.

[junkpile]

In the vast majority of situations, there is either justification for lethal force or not. The law does not require you to have different grades of response. You need to look at it as cut and dried. If it requires lethal force, respond accordingly. If not, then don't get involved. As a general rule, if you can retreat or escape then do so. But, carrying less than lethal weapons is asking for trouble or worse.

While I think you're correct about the law, I remain uncertain about the rest. If you just had to go by the letter of the law, then fine, I agree, no gradient, always go nuclear. But I think if you're in a situation like this one, then you have an immediate solution. Pull a gun in a grey area, and you can be nailed for assault by the wrong jury. Pepper spray them, and you're vastly (I posit) more likely to get off.

Also, for the recognition of grey areas in the law's eyes. That is, even if you think those two guys were going to get the drop on you, maybe they were just fooling around. Or even less, a juror thinks that. If you could perfectly and accurately reproduce/prove both the feelings and the events that lead up to your decision, fine. Otherwise, I think the gradient is only to your advantage.

Edit-Sorry, not meaning to repeat, Penguin got the drop on me.

[Lurper]

Unfortunately if you use deadly force upon someone the burden of proof then falls upon you to prove your life was in danger.

I can't say for other states, but for AZ it does not. The burden is on the state to prove that the shooting was not justified (one of the good things to come out of the Fish case). Again, in most states you are not required to let your assailant hit you before you respond with lethal force. In your example, with multiple assailants, it is clearly justified.

It would be really hard to convince a jury that an unarmed person was going to kill you.

There are hundreds of cases every year that are justified. The law does not nor should it require you to take a punch. You can't say that punch won't incapacitate you or kill you. I would argue that if you feel you should take a punch, you shouldn't be armed.

Shooting someoine for threatening to punch you is not considered appropriate retaliation.

Ah, and here is the meat of the argument. If someone says "I am going to whip your ass" and you pull out your gun and shoot them, that is one thing. If however you reply "Look, I don't want any trouble. I need to tell you that I am armed and should you come toward me I would interpret that as a threat to my life and be forced to respond appropriately. Please just leave me alone", and he persists, that is a totally different story. Again, the law does not require you to take a punch. In some states, it may require you to retreat which is always wise. If however, after your warning, they jump you clearly that justifies lethal force.


If someone says "I'm gonna whip your ass" and you have an avenue of escape then laugh at them and take it. I have gone over thousands of scenarios and can find no reason for LTL. Where most people run into problems is involving themselves in situations that they should have stayed out of, not walking away or pulling their gun too soon. It really is cut and dried, as situation either calls for lethal force or does not. If it does not then walk away.

The bottom line is that you live to fight another day. Even when a shooting is almost clearly justified, you run the risk of being raked over the legal coals, but you are still alive. That is better than the alternative.

Pull a gun in a grey area, and you can be nailed for assault by the wrong jury. Pepper spray them, and you're vastly (I posit) more likely to get off.

You can also be charged with assault for spraying someone. You hit the nail on the head: don't pull your gun in a grey area. The proper response in that example (IMO) is to sit back and watch, dial 911 and wait. If no gun is produced, then go on about your business. The law does not require you to get involved in stopping a crime - you are not a cop. In most cases, the best thing to do is call 911 and be a good witness.

The other problem with LTL is that it may cause you to hesitate when you should act. You may be trying to decide which weapon to employ and it could cost you your life.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Lurper

First, from the broad perspective, if a situation doesn't require lethal force, you should not be involved.

Upon using any defensive tool it's far past the point of you having a choice to be involved. If you can leave, yes you should do so immediately. Confrontation 101.

So for the sake of argument, lets assume it's time to deploy a tool of some sort. You put forth that at this time, a firearm should be the only available option. Others (myself included) point out that you should have multiple tools for various situations.

Originally Posted by Lurper

Second, use of non-deadly force has as severe consequence as deadly force.

Huh? Is this for real? I’m not even going to ask you to clarify this or provide examples because this in no way whatsoever shows how one should never carry non-lethal options.

Originally Posted by Lurper

Too many people assume that OC or whatever is going to end the attack. If it doesn't, chances are that you are now in much worse position than before you emplyed it (i.e. the attacker has closed the distance).

Such a broad generalizations of how things *might* happen do not show us how non-lethal weapons are never a good option. You're arguments are full of absolutes that do not illustrate in unequivocal terms why carrying non-lethal tools is a "bad decision."

Lurper, if it does not make sense in a given scenario to deploy a non-lethal item, then of course one should not use non-lethal item. One should not use a spatula to change a tire, yet does this disprove the usefulness of a spatula when one wishes to make a cake?

Providing a scenario where non-lethal force is a substandard response does not disprove when/where non-lethal weapons are useful. And anyway, sure, I think we can all agree there are plenty of scenarios where non-lethal weapons aren't going to do you much good.

The point is that there are situations where these items will help you. When/where to use non-lethal items is a subjective discussion because some of us are more physically and mentally able than others.

Originally Posted by Lurper

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:…

C’mon, Lurper. Can’t you fantasize about your lawyers retort too? This is so silly and I've got a feeling that through all of those "thousands" of scenarios you've been through in your head where a firearm is justifiable... that you truly do feel everything is a nail. And I'm not going to argue with someone who's spent so much time convincing themselves that his pistol is the Easy Button.

[Desert01]

Lurper,

I posted related to this in another thread. Has a private citizen my rational is:

1. Legal, while I am no lawer introduction of "less-lethal" options introduces additional Liability. Some of the key points made during my Specialty Impact Munitions Instructor training addressed this. This being a open forum, I will leave them out.

2. My CCW rigs are not security holsters, like most, therefor I do not want to close within grappling distance. With a Knife or baton you have to close to be effective. This also leaves me with something in my gun hand when my threat produces deadly force. Also if we get within gun grab distance you have to protect your gun, which makes it harder to fight.

3. Less-lethal options add an additional training set to maintain. I have never practiced transitioning from pepper spray to my pistol. Transition is best covered by your partner. A partner that you have trained with and is prepared to cover you. Being a civilian you probably don't have him with you today.

4. What are the tactics has a civilian? When can I use what tool? In general you are best avoiding the situation/calling 911 or several other options. Do I pull pepper spray and shower a asmatic idiot tring to show off? Additional tools means additional time deciding what to employ. Time you may not have. Conversely, if you have plenty of time you may have been able defuse the situation in another fashon.

I see Knives as lethal force, period. They are designed to be effective through producing penetrating or slashing injuries. Effective use to stop a threat will cripple or kill your attacker. If you are not prepared for the most personal of ways to fight don't pull out a knife. You may find the threat is ready.

That is my analysis from the civilian perspective. If you have thought through your tactical employment and determined your rules of engagement prior to going on the streets then do so. However, just as when employing lethal force you need to be prepared to defend your actions in the court of law.

Also note that I use the term Less-Lethal. Bean bag rounds, pepper spray, ect have all killed people. Less is more accurate then Non.

[Lurper]

I think my precise point was that if you are carrying a pistol, carrying non-lethal weapons is not a good choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurper
Second, use of non-deadly force has as severe consequence as deadly force.

Huh? Is this for real? I’m not even going to ask you to clarify this or provide examples because this in no way whatsoever shows how one should never carry non-lethal options.

Ask Taser international about non-lethal weapons and civil suits. If you don't acknowledge that:
1. OC and other non-lethal options have a history of being less than effective
2. you face criminal and civil action for using it in the same way you do a firearm
then you are ignoring reality.

You will note that I didn't say one should NEVER carry LTL. What I said was there is no rationale for carrying it while carrying a firearm.

FWIW, the scenarios I have gone through are based on real life shootings, etc..

Others (myself included) point out that you should have multiple tools for various situations.

You say that, yet fail to support it. Either a situation calls for lethal force or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you walk away. Using PP's example, if the two guys assault you, that is justification for using lethal force. Too many people want to believe or make others believe that you have to take a punch, hit with a board or whatever before using lethal force. That just is not true.

Also, you fail to acknowledge that there is a good chance that LTL will not end the confrontation nor that in many cases the presence of a firearm ends the conflict.


So far, no one has shown an example where LTL was a better option. In fairness, I can show many where the firearm was not a good option (but neither was LTL).

[Lurper]

Sound rationale to me Desert.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Lurper

You say that, yet fail to support it. Either a situation calls for lethal force or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you walk away.

In your mind self-defense is black-and-white, all-or-nothing. You’ve categorized every physical threat as a deadly threat, and because of this, every self-defense encounter will provide you self-justification to use deadly force.

How do you propose I "support" otherwise to a person who's convinced himself of something so bizarre?

I don’t agree, and it’s obviously futile to explain why your approach is zealous. You do not believe in a continuum of any sort.

To you, force is a simple light switch. On full blast, or off.

To me, it’s a dimmer switch. I use as much as I feel I need to get the job done.

[junkpile]

Either a situation calls for lethal force or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you walk away.

I think this a naive conclusion. Recognizing that you cannot always prove all the facts surrounding your altercation. I think pepper spray both objectively, and in the eyes of possible third parties judging you, may allow you latitude in action.

I recognize you don't think in this manner, but just as not every situation calls for a lethal reaction or no reaction at all, some people do. The people that want a gradient of force are the people you're asking about. While your worldview doesn't allow for it, all you need is to acknowledge that there are people with that worldview to allow for it to be comprehensible to you, no?

[Lurper]

Trip
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that even though I don't agree. Don't take it personally, but your dismissal of my arguement is a cop-out. It is not a zealous argument. It is based on fact and the law (in AZ), supported by legal precedent. It is also based on personal experience, opinions of others in the field including LEO's, attorneys, writers, etc..

The fact of the matter is that when someone assaults you physically while you are carrying a firearm, it is legal justification for the use of deadly force. Given that, why would you choose to use anything but? More importantly, why advocate it without acknowledging its shortcomings?

[Lurper]

I recognize you don't think in this manner, but just as not every situation calls for a lethal reaction or no reaction at all, some people do. The people that want a gradient of force are the people you're asking about. While your worldview doesn't allow for it, all you need is to acknowledge that there are people with that worldview to allow for it to be comprehensible to you, no?

I understand that there are people who don't think in that manner. What I want to understand is why. Since I can't understand why, I have no chance of comprehension. Give me an example. In my 25+ years of doing this, I have yet to come across one. I know that there are statistical outlyers, but I have yet to find one.

I think what I find troubling is the mindset that says you should engage in hand-to-hand combat while carrying a pistol. The law does not require you to. Nor is it a wise course of action. You should flee, if you cannot then you are in a situation that justifies lethal force unless your assailant is an eight year old Girl Scout with a box of cookies. I can understand being opposed to it for moral reasons perhaps. But as a tactic or a mindset, it is a recipe for disaster.

[junkpile]

I don't know about that. I think the reasons are similar for LE/Military as for a civilian. A taser, for example, allows you wider latitude in dealing with a potential threat in a grey area. Incapacitate rather than kill, and make your actions more defensible in a court where you cannot prove all the circumstances involved. A person telling me a self-defense story and is the only one who lives to tell the tale is suspcious to many. (You only have the killer's word (killer not meant in a negative context)). Someone who used a taser has my sympathy for assault, because it's clearly a defensive weapon. (Perhaps that's the difference? A firearm is a defensive/offensive weapon, where many percieve LTL as purely defensive? Or will have more sympathy for it when in a jury box?)

[Lurper]

Okay, here is one of my favorite examples:
A man is walking through Encanto Park one night. He is legally carrying his pistol. As he is walking, he sees a man tying a woman to a tree. The woman is sort of screaming. Seeing a rape in progress, he draws his gun, rushes to the scene and hollers stop raping her (or words to that effect). He holds the man until police arrive. The hero was arrested for brandishment and assault. The man and woman were playing out a sexual fantasy.

What if the "rapist" confronted our "hero" and was killed? Was there justification for lethal force? Probably not. What if the "rapist" started beating the "hero's" ass? Then, there is undoubtedly justification. Although a much stickier situation. What if the "hero" used LTL? Same thing, he would be arrested as he was and he may have taken a beating or worse.

The main point is that the "hero" should not have gotten involved. The situation didn't warrant it. He should have called 911 and been a good witness. However, at the point that the "rapist" brings the fight to him, things change. If he has no retreat (not required in AZ) and no other choice but to shoot or get beaten, he is justified to shoot.

In the same way that I would have been justified in shooting the guy who tried to kick down my door even though he was unarmed (see my post from a couple of months ago). I see no reason for LTL because it is just as likely to make the situation worse.

[Desert01]

Lurper,

The example you use is extreme has is the conclusion. Less-lethal force is a slippery slope, as is lethal. This is a good discussion to have just needs to come down a little.

Less Lethal force being employed in the gray area is part of the issue. If you injury or kill someone with less lethal force you have to be prepared to go to court. An issue frequently encountered in Law Enforcement is lack of clear rules of engagement(ROE). This results in use of less lethal force in questionalbe cases. Lack of training and effective ROE become the loop holes for the lawyers to use.

In your case I would agree with calling 911. But would have not rushed in gun drawn since in your description no weapon was present. Enter and establish control. Use force if required.

What happened in your "Case". I could deal with the arrest, but if I was convicted for such BS I would not be happy.

[ATW525]

I don't trust my life to a can of seasoning.

Chemicals sprays are indescriminate and it's easy to accidently incapacitate yourself trying to employ them in a high stress situation. Committing to a less lethal option puts you behind the reaction curve if the situation escalates to gun or knife fight. The more options you give yourself besides lethal force, the more doors the other side will have to question your actions when you do use lethal force. "Yes he had a gun, but he was only 15... why didn't you use the can of pepper spray you were carrying instead?"

So, I'll leave the less lethal options to trained police officers who often have backup incase something goes wrong, and to bounty hunters named Dog.