Strobe light on home defense gun?

[bcarver]

I was in a dark room when a person entered with a strobe.
I never saw him.
This was a strobe flashlight not a weapon light.
he exited and re-entered ith a flashlight. He was much more visable.

[Maximus856]

Give me a time, place, and lots of money and I'll bring you one of these.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)

[Double Naught Spy]

It isn't the lack lethality that makes the strobe problemmatic. It is the lack of efficacy as a defensive measure against an immediate and lethal threat, i.e. the sort of threat that calls for the use of deadly force.

If I end up shooting someone, but decided I would try tickling him first just to see if that diffuses the situation, I think there would be some questions about the nature of the threat and my judgement in assessing it. Both of those would be important parts of a public authority decided I had not murdered someone.

So you are saying that because there is a lethal threat that a non-lethal means of diffusing the threat cannot be used because it would call into question the nature of the threat and your judgment in assessing it? Let's see, I have seen tazers, batons, distractions, pepper spray, and water hoses used to attempt to diffuse lethal threats, some of which failed and lethal force still had to be used. So I see you concerns as misplaced. Nowhere is it written that the threat of lethal force or lethal force must first be met with lethal force before other methods are used if the use of lethal force is to be considered valid. I can certainly see the argument being made that you didn't first use lethal force which indicates that your eventual use wasn't rash or an improper knee-jerk reaction...that you had attempted alternate means first.

[Jedburgh]

There was a movement a while back (2-3) years when a tactical flashlight had a strobe feature.

The bottom line is that the strobe flashlight is ridiculous as a "weapon". It strobes everyone and everything. It disorients the shooter as well as the shoot-ee.

There is, in fact, very good techniques for low-light engagements in which a flash is used with "strobe effect". That is the shooter will pulse the light on and off as they move. It allows you to illuminate your target briefly, move, engage without stopping and shining a light. If someone wants to fight you and you shine a light on them, chances are they'll shoot at the light.

This strobe technique is commonly confused with using a strobe light. The technique is good and is extremely effective. The strobe light is only effective if you want to dance (or maybe build a haunted house).

DOL

[zukiphile]

So you are saying that because there is a lethal threat that a non-lethal means of diffusing the threat cannot be used because it would call into question the nature of the threat and your judgment in assessing it?

No.

Originally Posted by me

It isn't the lack lethality that makes the strobe problemmatic. It is the lack of efficacy as a defensive measure against an immediate and lethal threat, i.e. the sort of threat that calls for the use of deadly force.

Emphasis added.

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry zukiphile, but you will have to direct me to the law that says a response to a lethal threat must have efficacy as a defensive measure to be valid in the eyes of the law or that any measure without perceived efficacy will result in being considered invalid and henc cast dispersians on the one employing said method(s).

Do you have any cases to back up your claim? Do you have any laws to back up your claim?

Not everyone facing lethal force employs methods that necessarily defeat the lethal threat. I anyone using such methods to have suffered consequences as a result.

[zukiphile]

Let me try to be clear, but not patronising.

The basic structure of a home defense shooting involves a homeowner identifying in his home an individual who poses an immediate threat if grave bodily injury. The homeowner identifies the gravity and immediacy of the threat, and acts to stop it. This can involve shooting the threat, not because we enjoy killing people, but because that is an effective defensive action when met with an immediate and grave threat.

Now, introduce a strobe light, which is not an effective defense to a grave and immediate threat. If the homeowner finds someone in his house, but deploys a strobe light, which is not an effective defense to a grave and immediate threat, it might undermine either his later testimony that he was faced with a grave and immediate threat or his judgment more generally.

None of this means, as you appear to have concluded, that a strobe light is "[in]valid in the eyes of the law", whatever that means.

Not everyone facing lethal force employs methods that necessarily defeat the lethal threat.

True. Just the survivors do.

[ProjectCamaro]

Anyone remember "Tactical Balls"? Aside from the goofy name, those seem like a marginally better idea.

Tactical Balls?

[Jedburgh]

In Georgia and Tennessee (the two places I've possessed a concealed / carry permit), having an intruder in the home satisfies every criteria needed to employ deadly force. The tactics involved wouldn't matter. The intruder doesn't need to do anything scary.

Each state is obviously different and I'd encourage you to research the criteria for your home state.

DOL

[jhenry]

We have the castle doctrine here. Once an illegal intruder is in my home it dosen't matter if I use a single shot .22 or a Kuhkri with currare smeared on the blade.