Force less than deadly force

[Lohman446]

Wow!! Reality check NEEDED.

In todays society, IN AMERICA, people assault other people with physical violence ALL THE TIME.

Dont make the mistake of putting your morals onto others actions. People stab other people over a can of soda. Beat others senseless over a dirty look. Do some research into interpersonal violence

Possibly. Understand I also live in a fairly small community. In my daily life I am unlikely to engage anyone who is in an extreme stress or confrontational setting. I do not live in a geographic location that has a high "culture of honor" (its the term in psychology where one is expected to physically correct a perceived slight - think the stereotypical western where "you looked at me funny").

So am I underestimating the threat of semi-random violence? I may very well be. However I also think that a good many people also overestimate that threat.

[K_Mac]

Lohman, I live in a rural community that doesn't fit the stereotypical high stress, dangerous geographic location you alluded to. I still carry a gun, pepper spray and pay attention to what is going on around me. I don't live in fear or see a zombie behind every bush, but I do know that I am responsible for protecting myself and those in my charge. I also know that we live in a violent world where people are beaten and killed for a couple of bucks or a minor traffic incident, and there are predators everywhere you go.

I respect your willingness to examine what your response to violence will be. There are no easy or one size fits all answers I'm afraid. Too many of us like to think that carrying a gun is the answer to all these questions. It just isn't that simple.

[OldMarksman]

Absent the real threat of severe imminent harm I am really not that willing to take offensive action against another person.

Well , let's overlook the use of the word "offensive", substitute "defensive", and think it out.

According to legalmatch.com,

Generally speaking, serious bodily harm is defined as any injury that seriously interferes with the person’s health or comfort, and that is long-lasting rather than short-lived.

Some examples of serious bodily harm may include:

--Paralysis
--Loss of limb, loss of functioning in a limb, and broken bones
--Head, neck, or spine injuries
--Serious cuts or burns
--Scarring or serious disfigurement


See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar....DEQxHdCH.dpuf

(Emphasis added)

That would justify the use of deadly force if immediately necessary, and if the other prerequisites of self defense are met.

Personally, my threshold for defensing myself with non-deadly physical force is much lower than an imminent threat of that level of harm.

I don't know why any reasonable person would willingly take such a risk.

I would not intend to punch or kick, but pepper spray, or should it suffice, a shove or two or safely delivered swing with my waking stick could be expected, if necessary, long before a threat of paralysis, loss of limb, loss of functioning in a limb, broken bones, head, neck, or spine injuries serious cuts or burns was imminent.

[JohnKSa]

The problem with accepting a couple punches is you have absolutly NO IDEA what effect those would have. Maybe his first punch knocks you out. In falling to the ground your (once) concealed pistol is now exposed. You are not able to retain that gun and who knows what happens next.

This is precisely the sort of uncertainty that I can't bring myself to accept. Not only could the first punch knock me out (which is a serious injury in the form of a concussion and possible permanent injury to the brain), it could even kill me--or paralyze me, as you state.

In other words, the person, for all that I can tell, is attempting to do something to me that could result in serious injury in spite of all my attempts to "make nice" and get away. I can't let him hit me, there's too much at stake--potentially EVERYTHING.

So on the one hand you're carefully (and correctly) pointing out the deadly seriousness of preventing a person from hitting you by noting that it could cause serious injury or death. On the other hand, you're saying that the attempt by this person to attack you and cause an injury which you just said could be serious or even fatal doesn't justify responding with deadly force.

Seems like only one of these things can be true at a time.

Either getting hit isn't that serious and therefore deadly force isn't justified or it can cause serious injury or death in which case deadly force, by definition, would be justified if the defender can't get away or physically stop the person from attacking.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

Seems like only one of these things can be true at a time.

Either getting hit isn't that serious and therefore deadly force isn't justified or it can cause serious injury or death in which case deadly force, by definition, would be justified if the defender can't get away or physically stop the person from attacking.

Problem is that it's very seldom black and white.

And that's where the whole "reasonable action" and judgement by a jury of your peers comes into play.

Trapped in a corner of a room by an arthritic, 80 pound, 90 year old flailing at you who can barely move their arms or legs and is threatening to beat you to death because they don't like the color of their Jello or don't want to wear their pants? Happens to my daughter almost every day (nursing home supervisor), and she hasn't had to resort to deadly force yet. Laugh at them, gently hold their arms and restrain them and move them aside, no deadly force justified.

Trapped in a corner by a 300 pound known serial killer famous for beating his victims to death with his bare hands who is moving in for his first punch? Should be a no-brainer about what you do there.

It's all those situations in the middle of the two extremes that cause all the problems in what decision you make.

[garryc]

In Ohio you can use force up to the level the person you are defending would be justified in using if they could. But that person better not have caused the incident or escalated it, other wise you are down for the criminal charge if you step in.


Simply, if your buddy starts a fight or escalates it stand by and watch him take his whippin'.

[Lohman446]

The situation presented where you are approaching your car at a gas station actually presents some interesting fodder of this discussion. The aggressor is between you and your vehicle and you cannot simply turn and run because your children are in the car. While I get most of us don't just leave our children in the car I'm letting it be as part of the scenario. I don't believe that turning your back to a threat and blindly fleeing is a good move anyways so as presented unlimited retreat is not an option.

An aggressor is approaching with a threat "you cut me off. I'm going to kick your butt" There is no massive disparity of force - your aggressor is neither an NFL linebacker or a frail octogenarian. You have no knowledge of a violent criminal history. You visually check and your aggressor has empty hands (no weapon).

Unknown to you your aggressor is going to hit you. You do not have enough room to retreat and maintain visual contact with your vehicle. You do not have enough room to maneuver to enter your vehicle and lock the doors. Your hope is that you can use whatever "verbal judo" you can to escape the situation.

The problem I am finding for myself in this situation is a genuine unwillingness to throw the first punch. This extends to a genuine unwillingness to use pepper spray prior to the first punch (assuming I had it and its use was tactically sound). So as this aggressor approaches I am hoping that showing him my hands, holding them in as non-aggressive as a way as possible while raising them and apologizing, is going to convince him to not throw the first punch.

The issue is by the time I realize this is not going to work that first punch is going to be in the process of being thrown. In an ideal world I can deflect this and not suffer any damage. In a slightly less than ideal world I'm hit but my attacker being some combination of not greatly competent and not totally committed does not strike me hard enough to do serious damage.

Now at this point we can likely all agree some non-lethal options are on the table. Using the "force escalator" described earlier this probably includes the use of pepper spray, restraint, and / or returning strikes.

I should note in the spirit of this discussion that I argued originally, incorrectly it appears, that such an attack was so far out of social norms that the attack itself could be used as evidence the attacker intended severe harm.

The thing is this attack is going to come as such a surprise to me (even after this discussion) that I am likely to take a step or two back, raise my hands again, and repeat an attempt to deescalate (again assuming the attacker has empty hands).

The issue I have currently is that I really have an "all or nothing" mindset. I don't want to be in a physical fight with anyone. What limited experience I have in martial arts tells me I am capable of horribly misjudging the capability of an opponent. I also find most "drills" to be so scripted in regards to the methods your attacker will use as to be suspect in value.

So now I have to make some decisions on how to deal with this. Do I work on honing my hand to hand skills in a way that makes me more likely to deal with this or do I consider different options such as pepper spray, a "stun" gun, or similar ideas?

I have a series of issues adding another level of force tool into my inventory and I do mean tool in the strict meaning of the word - adding another item such as pepper spray or a similar item.

1) I already have as much on my belt / pockets as I want - my firearm, a flashlight, and a pocket knife in addition to the normal cell phone, wallet, and money clip (I keep a "disposable" amount of cash in a front pocket).

2) I am concerned about reaching for something during the attack. My primary concern in this is watching for empty hands. If my attacker suddenly reaches for a pocket I assume at that point he is escalating the level of force. I am concerned my attacker may have a similar reaction.

3) Tactically I am not certain deploying pepper spray at contact distance is a great idea - I would have to create at least some space and time to be able to draw and use it. That being said I am unfamiliar with pepper spray and may have to try a couple options just to see how it works.

4) As a question: how controlled is the disbursement of most of these pepper sprays? Both of my children have asthma related to lung infections early in life (RSV). If this is not super targeted it presents another issue that is unique to my situation.

While I realize that there is this hole that is now identified and I need to correct I am still working my way through how to correct it and what is going to work best for me - its something I have given more thought in a short time than I should but I still have not resolved.

[kilimanjaro]

The sprays are constrained, and considering you are probably within two paces of the attacker, you're not going to be affecting bystanders very much, if at all.

As an aside, the loss of a parent is a far greater trauma for a child than an asthma attack.

[Lohman446]

The sprays are constrained, and considering you are probably within two paces of the attacker, you're not going to be affecting bystanders very much, if at all.

As an aside, the loss of a parent is a far greater trauma for a child than an asthma attack.

Part of the curve here for me is the idea that I never considered pepper spray so I have had little concern for how it worked or how it would impact an area etc. I have also given little concern until very recently to how one would deploy it or its effectiveness (I will accept at face value it is going to be rather effective against most people).

Now I am working through, in my mind, potential problems associated with it and alternatives to it. Its weighing the annoyance (and value) of adding another tool vs the value (and annoyance) of learning and practicing an alternative to that tool.

[Sharkbite]

To the questionof Pepper spray types of dispersion, there are 4 basic dispersion patterns
Spray
Fog
Stream
Foam

Remember the most effect is obtained by particles of the ground Pepper (it really is made out of pepper plants) getting into your attackers eyes and respiratory system. Closing the eyes and making breathing difficult are the main debilitating factors. Pain/extream discomfort is a byproduct and cannot be counted on with ED persons or even someone that is just friggin MAD

SO, a dispursion pattern that allows those little bits of pepper to get into those areas is preferred

As in all thing in life its a trade off. Fogs work the best, big cone area so aiming is less crucial but are very wind sensitive. Foams are the LEAST wind sensitive but have the least ability to get the active ingredient into the Resp system or into the eyes without a perfect shot

My personal choice is a Stream. Good range. Not as wind sensitive as a fog. Good dispersion. Think about the stream that come out of a Wasp spray can, just not as far reaching.

[Sharkbite]

So on the one hand you're carefully (and correctly) pointing out the deadly seriousness of preventing a person from hitting you by noting that it could cause serious injury or death. On the other hand, you're saying that the attempt by this person to attack you and cause an injury which you just said could be serious or even fatal doesn't justify responding with deadly force.

Thats EXACTLY what im saying

I doubt there is a court in this country that would uphold shooting someone that was about to commence an empty hand assault WITHOUT some other disparity of force factor.

We have to acknowledge, in this country at least, that a fist fight is NOT considered a deadly force encounter.... DISSPITE what we may think (or know). The fact that it COULD/MIGHT be fatal or seriously injurious, does not rise to the level that justifies us using deadly force to prevent that assault.

If some avg size guy takes a swing at another avg size guy (no other medical factors) and guy #2 whipps out his pistol and shoots guy # 1...the shooter is in a heap of trouble.

THAT is why im such an advocate of always carrying some other force option.

Also remember that a Self defense shooting is going to be handled with an affirmative defense strategy. In other words...." Yep, i shot him, but i had a REALLY good reason (need) to shoot him". A fist fight does not reach that level of need.

[45_auto]

Sharkbite pointed out the biggest disadvantage of pepper spray. The attacker gets to decide whether he is going to continue or not. If he is in pepper spray range and is determined to hurt you, it's going to be a contact situation and you're going to end up with as much on you as he has on himself.

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

Pain/extream discomfort is a byproduct and cannot be counted on with ED persons or even someone that is just friggin MAD

Every major law enforcement agency that I know of requires their officers to go through pepper spray training before they are allowed to carry it. You are sprayed in the eyes (law enforcement strength pepper spray) then required to go through several stations and demonstrate that you can still function. When I did it, first station was hand strikes, second station was foot strikes, then third station was baton strikes. While executing the baton strikes another training officer in full padding would come up behind you and try to take your pistol away from you, forcing you to demonstrate weapon retention techniques.

Out of the 20 people in the class I was in, everyone successfully completed the course. I would say that 5 were severely affected (I was the worst, couldn't force my eyes open to see well enough to drive for several hours after the class, but I could force them open for split seconds at a time to see well enough to attack), 10 were moderately affected, and 3 or 4 experienced some discomfort. One guy was not affected at all, might as well have thrown water in his face.

Lots of youtube videos of "pepper spray training" and "pepper spray failure" out there.

[JohnKSa]

Trapped in a corner of a room by an arthritic, 80 pound, 90 year old flailing at you who ...

The use of the term "trapped" in that context is pretty inaccurate. The scenario I described is when the defender is truly unable to escape.

If some avg size guy takes a swing at another avg size guy (no other medical factors) and guy #2 whipps out his pistol and shoots guy # 1...the shooter is in a heap of trouble.

I agree completely. But that's not the scenario I described at all.

... shooting someone that was about to commence an empty hand assault...

Nor is this.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

The use of the term "trapped" in that context is pretty inaccurate. The scenario I described is when the defender is truly unable to escape.

Feel free to adjust the age/weight parameters I used to meet your requirements for "unable to escape".

If you think that the 90 year old 80 pounder isn't a serious threat, how about an 80 year old 100 pounder? 70 year old 150 pounds maybe? 60 year old 200 pounds?

At what disparity would you suggest that my 5 foot 90 pound daughter resort to deadly force?

[shafter]

At what disparity would you suggest that my 5 foot 90 pound daughter resort to deadly force?

There's no way that any of us can articulate that here and now because there are so many factors that come into play. I'm confident in saying that it would be much easier for a small female to justify using pepper spray on a large aggressive assailant who's threatening her than it would be to simply pull out a gun.

Give your assailant a good blast to the eyes and then take off. He won't be able to follow very easily if he can't see. I highly doubt he'd even be interested in following anymore. You just have to be careful that you don't incapacitate yourself with it.

[stagpanther]

I love all the "what ifs" ; ) like--what if I pull pepper spray and the potential assailant believes I pulled a deadly weapon and then they pull a gun in response--who's fault is that?

[Lohman446]

I love all the "what ifs" ; ) like--what if I pull pepper spray and the potential assailant believes I pulled a deadly weapon and then they pull a gun in response--who's fault is that?

Is that a "I love" because you don't think it is a realistic possibility or because you simply don't care? I would much prefer to consider my actions and the implications of them in the preparation stage rather than being totally surprised by issues we could have considered as a collective. There is little doubt that your actions will be judged with the value of hindsight. Taking the time for consideration ahead of time seldom seems like a waste of time to me. It may to others but they are free to not participate in discussion of such consideration as well.

[kilimanjaro]

If you believe stalking and menacing another person to the extent they deploy pepper spray would allow you to defend yourself with a firearm, you have another think coming. Being a 'potential assailant' doesn't arise if you're merely standing there minding your own business.

[Lohman446]

If you believe stalking and menacing another person to the extent they deploy pepper spray would allow you to defend yourself with a firearm, you have another think coming. Being a 'potential assailant' doesn't arise if you're merely standing there minding your own business.

This is my concern.

Some pissed off "want to save face" individual is yelling about whatever I did in traffic at the gas station. He really just wants to prove how big and bad he is. I'm willing to live with this. Does reaching for my belt (and the theoretical) present a threat to him that could be easily construed as attempting to deploy a deadly weapon?

My understanding of the law is that if someone physically attacks me and I raise the level of force beyond a reasonable response they may react to that level of force. While they may still be held accountable for the original attack if someone starts a fist fight and I decide to end it with a gun (and fail) and they respond with deadly force they can argue justification.

That being said the legal justification is likely a moot point. Say you (or whoever) are in a verbal altercation with someone and he reaches for his belt. What assumption are you making? I know I am making the assumption a deadly weapon is about to be introduced and that the level of force has just escalated.

[briandg]

A guy stumbles into you at the mall, he's had a really scrappy day, you snap at him to watch where he's going.

So he shoves you and yells at you, promises to kick you ass to the end of the planet, stands in your face and yells at you, and you are actually wondering if you might be hurt if it escalates.

Seriously, what is your response?it doesn't seem from the post that you're a turn your back and walk away guy. Do you have mace or a stun gun, or are you the kind of guy who draws a gun because some guy yelled at you, called you names, and made a probably idle threat?

It's kind of a bad idea to decide what your response will be before a situation arises that DOESN'T call for deadly force.

[Lohman446]

It's kind of a bad idea to decide what your response will be before a situation arises that DOESN'T call for deadly force.

Why is it a bad idea? With a caveat simply stated "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" - (To a Mouse - Robert Burns) I am forced to ask why it would be a bad idea. I get that you cannot know the situation exactly and factors may change. You also cannot know exactly how you are going to react. Still if we can consider it coolly and logically work out the best course of action (and the repercussions of that action) we can at least have considered and discussed options.

Remember this conversation started, from my end at least, asking why because I was of the belief (mistaken) that an unprovoked physical attack, even unarmed, would be considered to rise to the level of a threat of severe bodily harm. I've learned a lot and been given case-study examples because I was wrong and dared ask why.

[OldMarksman]

say you (or whoever) are in a verbal altercation with someone and he reaches for his belt.

Avoid verbal altercations!

Get this and read it slowly and carefully. Let it sink in, and read it again.

[briandg]

You very clearly stated that when you are presented with an aggressive and threatening person, you will not engage in less than lethal force, that you will attack center mass and yet God decide.

You very clearly stated that you don't have a backup plan. Reading what you said, I guess that you w would feel justified to draw and kill any man woman, child, or even dog that you felt was threatening you. Deciding on a plan, at its all sizes one trick pony plan isn't a good idea.

So it is clear that your plan, and only plan laid out in the first post was to jump straight to deadly force in a situation in which you felt threatened. According to that post, you had no plans for lesser levels of threat

The nuclear superpowers have yet to draw their guns and fire. My sincere belief is that using excessive unnecessarily is a great sin, and I believe that everyone should train just as hard at not killing people. It's good that you came here and sought advice.

Probably every harmful situation could best be handled by preventing escalation. A while back I watched a police shooting, taken with body cam.. man was being escorted from a restaurant, and the lead cop reached over to a table and pushed the silverware away, so the guy couldn't use it as a weapon. Only seconds later, this cop killed the suspect, despite those products caution.

No details is too small, no step too small, if it keeps a conflict from escalating. The good guys don't always win, and there's an easy way to increase your chances of survivAl. Stay cool

[Lohman446]

You very clearly stated that when you are presented with an aggressive and threatening person, you will not engage in less than lethal force, that you will attack center mass and yet God decide.

You very clearly stated that you don't have a backup plan. Reading what you said, I guess that you w would feel justified to draw and kill any man woman, child, or even dog that you felt was threatening you. Deciding on a plan, at its all sizes one trick pony plan isn't a good idea.

So it is clear that your plan, and only plan laid out in the first post was to jump straight to deadly force in a situation in which you felt threatened. According to that post, you had no plans for lesser levels of threat

The nuclear superpowers have yet to draw their guns and fire. My sincere belief is that using excessive unnecessarily is a great sin, and I believe that everyone should train just as hard at not killing people. It's good that you came here and sought advice.

Probably every harmful situation could best be handled by preventing escalation. A while back I watched a police shooting, taken with body cam.. man was being escorted from a restaurant, and the lead cop reached over to a table and pushed the silverware away, so the guy couldn't use it as a weapon. Only seconds later, this cop killed the suspect, despite those products caution.

No details is too small, no step too small, if it keeps a conflict from escalating. The good guys don't always win, and there's an easy way to increase your chances of survivAl. Stay cool

I read what I wrote again and I see where I was not clear. I bolded part of what you wrote because this is the area I was not clear in and caused that misunderstanding.

My intent is and was avoidance, retreat, and pacification. I have no problem getting up and leaving a situation that "doesn't feel right". If things start to go badly and I can safely and reasonably retreat, preferably unnoticed, (I am not turning my back and fleeing) I am going to. If handing over the small amount of money I keep in my front pocket is going to pacify my attacker chances are I am handing it over and being thankful we both walk away. Frankly if my attacker is going to hit me once and walk away I will do what I am capable of to mitigate that attack and damage but I really don't wish to pursue a physical confrontation even at that point.

My argument was (I feel the need to add incorrectly repeatedly) that being physically attacked in a way that prevented retreat by a competent adult was so far outside of the ordinary that the attack itself was proof the attacker intended great bodily harm. Based on this premise I argued that there was no intermediate level of force to be considered. I am not, for instance, going to perform the function of a police officer and detain someone who does not pose an imminent threat if I can retreat.

It was not my intent to ever pose an argument that deadly force was the proper response to being threatened. My argument was limited (again, incorrectly it appears) to the idea that deadly force was an appropriate response to an ongoing (even unarmed) physical assault that prevented one's ability to retreat.

Ironically, considering how I posed my initial post, my question now becomes at what point is it appropriate to deploy pepper spray. I'm of the opinion that, assuming no massive disparity of force and an unarmed attacker, you still have to wait until an active and ongoing attack that you cannot retreat from before you should use any force (other people's ideas will vary) and questioning if pepper spray is, under those terms, a reasonable consideration.

[OldMarksman]

I'm of the opinion that, assuming no massive disparity of force and an unarmed attacker, you still have to wait until an active and ongoing attack that you cannot retreat from before you should use any force (other people's ideas will vary) and questioning if pepper spray is, under those terms, a reasonable consideration.

Why?

Force may be used when immediately necessary to prevent harm, assuming all other elements of justification are present. One need not wait to be struck.

If one is defending against something less than deadly force, deadly force is not appropriate.

There are pros and cons of using pepper spray. It may not work against some individuals. Wind may prevent its effective use.