Are Non-Lethal Means More Suitable For Most Situations? - Page 2

Old Grump · April 23, 2011, 01:56 PM

Attitude counts for more than you can imagine. An armed man can usually talk his way out of trouble without letting the problem person know he is armed and it is attitude and calm quite confidence coupled with use of brain matter that generally makes the difference.

As always it depends on the situation. Some clown coming into the diner you are eating lunch at starts shooting up the place there is no reasoning with him. Some half drunk hot head at a fender bender may be on a tight hair trigger but you might be able to talk him down. Guns are always a last resort.

The threshold gets lower depending on the prospective victim. A 5' tall 90 pound woman meeting some low life in her living room at dark thirty in the morning can assume correctly that she is in danger and unless her name is Cynthia Rothrock she had better have something more lethal in her hands than a thesaurus and a can of hair spray.

nazshooter · May 2, 2011, 12:55 PM

Jollyroger: My reasoning is pretty much in line with yours. Some of the scariest scenarios I can think of are the ones that fall into the grey areas such as an attack by multiple UNarmed thugs. The legal consequences of relying on a "disparity of force" defense are probably worse than losing a fight when alone but with a wife or kids to defend....

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Hook686 · May 2, 2011, 07:42 PM

I think it depends upon ones abilities. I am a disabled old man. The agility, quickness and manipulation options really are not there. I figure I get one slim chance to get lucky if my life is in serious jeopardy.

lawnboy · May 3, 2011, 04:21 PM

This can be debated in a forum like this. And it should be. We're essentially practicing the thinking that we'll employ if confronted by a real world situation. This can't be bad.

But when someone grabs me from behind and tries to wrestle me to the ground in a dark parking lot at night I'll still execute a break away move, draw my weapon and give him 2 center mass unless he is actually running away. I won't wait to see if he is armed with a gun, knife or a field expedient weapon (or not armed at all). I'll not spend a fraction of a second thinking whether to use my fists, knife or gun. I'll use the gun.

That is the plan at least. My state doesn't require me to try to get away. I'm allowed to stand my ground. I've trained and practiced in tactical and static situations. I have a lawyer. I've "war gamed" scenarios.

What more can be done until the situation arises? If it ever does.

BeeJay · May 3, 2011, 04:52 PM

Citizen: "Judge it went like this:

I pulled out my OC spray and the bad guy laughed at me. So I sprayed him in the eye.

It just slowed him down so I tazered him. He fell down and screamed but then got up and scowled at me.

At that point, he took a step forward so I backed up. But then he went and made a comment about my Mother - so I shot him."

Judge: 'Case dismissed'.

Justice06RR · May 3, 2011, 08:31 PM

The problem with non-lethal methods like Pepper spray, baton, or tasers is their limited range and capacity/ability. With a Taser (not the one that shoots out) you need to be in direct contact with an assailant, which in most cases you really should be trying to get away from them. Pepper pray also has a limited range and can easily miss, or not work well if not aimed correctly. Baton, same thing.

They have their uses sure, but only if you can correctly use them in a high-stress situation. If my life or a loved one is on the line, a firearm is the best tool.

stephen426 · May 3, 2011, 09:25 PM

When a lethal weapon is presented, then the answer is pretty clear cut. You obviously respond to lethal force with lethal force. I think the original poster is making the case for not "jumping the gun" (pun intended) for every altercation.

I think less lethal/non-lethal weapons are most useful for the grey areas. For example, a thug is threatening to assault you but has not produced a weapon. Maybe a suspicious looking person approaches you despite you telling them to back off. One should always avoid a fight, especially if armed. You have no way of knowing your aggressor's level of skill and whether or not he has backup nearby. Most people would be hard pressed to draw in either situation posted above, much less shoot someone. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe someone would be charged with assault for using a non-lethal/less-lethal weapon in a threatening situation.

I bought my wife a Taser because I feel she might hesitate before shooting someone in a threatening situation. The Taser is classified as non-lethal so I told her not to hesitate if threatened. There is very little likelihood that the Taser would cause death or permenant injury and very little chance of injuring a bystander. There is also very little risk of my wife being charged with a crime for using a Taser against someone since she is about 100 lbs. and 5'4". Unless her assailant is a fairy, there will be a disparity in force. I also got her pepper spray and have nagged her on numerous occasions to carry it in her hand when she is dark parking lots or other risky areas. Better to spray someone with pepper spray rather than lead if they have not clearly demonstrated they intend to attack you.

April 23, 2011, 01:56 PM	#26
Old Grump Member in memoriam Join Date: April 9, 2009 Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in Posts: 3,144	Attitude counts for more than you can imagine. An armed man can usually talk his way out of trouble without letting the problem person know he is armed and it is attitude and calm quite confidence coupled with use of brain matter that generally makes the difference. As always it depends on the situation. Some clown coming into the diner you are eating lunch at starts shooting up the place there is no reasoning with him. Some half drunk hot head at a fender bender may be on a tight hair trigger but you might be able to talk him down. Guns are always a last resort. The threshold gets lower depending on the prospective victim. A 5' tall 90 pound woman meeting some low life in her living room at dark thirty in the morning can assume correctly that she is in danger and unless her name is Cynthia Rothrock she had better have something more lethal in her hands than a thesaurus and a can of hair spray. __________________ Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster--

May 2, 2011, 07:42 PM	#28
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	I think it depends upon ones abilities. I am a disabled old man. The agility, quickness and manipulation options really are not there. I figure I get one slim chance to get lucky if my life is in serious jeopardy. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

May 3, 2011, 04:21 PM	#29
lawnboy Senior Member Join Date: April 5, 2011 Location: here Posts: 551	This can be debated in a forum like this. And it should be. We're essentially practicing the thinking that we'll employ if confronted by a real world situation. This can't be bad. But when someone grabs me from behind and tries to wrestle me to the ground in a dark parking lot at night I'll still execute a break away move, draw my weapon and give him 2 center mass unless he is actually running away. I won't wait to see if he is armed with a gun, knife or a field expedient weapon (or not armed at all). I'll not spend a fraction of a second thinking whether to use my fists, knife or gun. I'll use the gun. That is the plan at least. My state doesn't require me to try to get away. I'm allowed to stand my ground. I've trained and practiced in tactical and static situations. I have a lawyer. I've "war gamed" scenarios. What more can be done until the situation arises? If it ever does. __________________ "Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields

May 3, 2011, 09:25 PM	#32
stephen426 Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Posts: 3,840	When a lethal weapon is presented, then the answer is pretty clear cut. You obviously respond to lethal force with lethal force. I think the original poster is making the case for not "jumping the gun" (pun intended) for every altercation. I think less lethal/non-lethal weapons are most useful for the grey areas. For example, a thug is threatening to assault you but has not produced a weapon. Maybe a suspicious looking person approaches you despite you telling them to back off. One should always avoid a fight, especially if armed. You have no way of knowing your aggressor's level of skill and whether or not he has backup nearby. Most people would be hard pressed to draw in either situation posted above, much less shoot someone. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe someone would be charged with assault for using a non-lethal/less-lethal weapon in a threatening situation. I bought my wife a Taser because I feel she might hesitate before shooting someone in a threatening situation. The Taser is classified as non-lethal so I told her not to hesitate if threatened. There is very little likelihood that the Taser would cause death or permenant injury and very little chance of injuring a bystander. There is also very little risk of my wife being charged with a crime for using a Taser against someone since she is about 100 lbs. and 5'4". Unless her assailant is a fairy, there will be a disparity in force. I also got her pepper spray and have nagged her on numerous occasions to carry it in her hand when she is dark parking lots or other risky areas. Better to spray someone with pepper spray rather than lead if they have not clearly demonstrated they intend to attack you. __________________ The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!

May 2, 2011, 12:55 PM	#27
nazshooter Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2008 Posts: 151	Jollyroger: My reasoning is pretty much in line with yours. Some of the scariest scenarios I can think of are the ones that fall into the grey areas such as an attack by multiple UNarmed thugs. The legal consequences of relying on a "disparity of force" defense are probably worse than losing a fight when alone but with a wife or kids to defend.... Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

May 3, 2011, 04:52 PM	#30
BeeJay Junior Member Join Date: May 3, 2011 Posts: 5	Citizen: "Judge it went like this: I pulled out my OC spray and the bad guy laughed at me. So I sprayed him in the eye. It just slowed him down so I tazered him. He fell down and screamed but then got up and scowled at me. At that point, he took a step forward so I backed up. But then he went and made a comment about my Mother - so I shot him." Judge: 'Case dismissed'.

May 3, 2011, 08:31 PM	#31
Justice06RR Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2010 Location: Central FL Posts: 1,360	The problem with non-lethal methods like Pepper spray, baton, or tasers is their limited range and capacity/ability. With a Taser (not the one that shoots out) you need to be in direct contact with an assailant, which in most cases you really should be trying to get away from them. Pepper pray also has a limited range and can easily miss, or not work well if not aimed correctly. Baton, same thing. They have their uses sure, but only if you can correctly use them in a high-stress situation. If my life or a loved one is on the line, a firearm is the best tool.