CCW & Pepper Sprey - Liability?


PDA






DonNikmare
June 22, 2005, 12:19 AM
The thought of carrying both had made me wonder...

If you carry both and end up using your CCW, aren't you more exposed to a negative outcome of a possible lawsuit?

You had a less lethal deterant, the pepper spay, but went for the CCW. You didn't exhaust all less lethal means available to you before going for the gun. It seems it would make the use of deadly force harder to explain and justify.

What do you think?

Nik

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW & Pepper Sprey - Liability?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Car Knocker
June 22, 2005, 12:37 AM
I think that if you meet the level of force being exercised against you with the appropriate level of force, you wouldn't have a problem because you hadn't used every less lethal level available to you. For example, if some guy is charging at you with a huge knife in his hand, you wouldn't be expected to start off with verbal commands, progress to hand-to-hand combat and then finally use lethal force when all else failed. If you are in immenent danger of great bodily harm or death, you need to use the appropriate level of force to stop the threat.

DonNikmare
June 22, 2005, 12:43 AM
if some guy is charging at you with a huge knife in his hand

I would think the average individual in the average situation, dark evening on a poorly lit street, would not have the time to see if the attacker is holding a knife much less how big it is.

Nik

R.H. Lee
June 22, 2005, 12:46 AM
If you're worried about it, get prepaid legal for about $15 month.

c_yeager
June 22, 2005, 04:44 AM
COnsidering how often you hear people honestly say "why didnt you just shoot the gun out of his hand"? I would hate to think what they would think if you had pepper spray and didnt use it.

Phoenix_III
June 22, 2005, 01:09 PM
Oh come on guys... =P

Realistically, you will have to convince the jury that there was no time to draw the pepper spray and use it while keeping yourself out of immediate danger. It would have to be such a swift and savage/lethal/potentially lethal assault that the level of force required (firearm) translated to no d1cking around.

However, any time you carry a firearm, you should also carry OC spray, as you do not want to ever go 'hand to hand' with some one when you are carrying. Imagine if the gun is discovered after you have 'lost'. Not worth the risk. OC Spray, and get away (or then go hand to hand if they have you cornered). Just watch out for cross contamination if you are using a cone spray... try stream... practice at least once.

p3

pcf
June 22, 2005, 02:45 PM
Has this ever been used as a successful argument in court? Not Ayoob's court, but an actual criminal or civil court? Has a police officer (or anyone) ever been ruled against where the ruling was not is lethal force justified or not, but despite lethal force being justified using non-lethal force was the more appropiate response.

Either lethal force was justified or it wasn't, unless your lawyer is an idiot it doesn't matter if you have a pepper spray, a pocket knife, kubaton, a big keychain, steel toed boots, a heavy purse, or 19 inch biceps.

Spreadfire Arms
June 22, 2005, 03:47 PM
i think if an intermediate force option was carried it shows that you at least didn't have the mindset to use just deadly force. it also gives you the option to use it instead where deadly force is not justifiable.

also its a good tool when holding a BG at bay with a firearm. you may not be justified to shoot if his hands are up (weaponless) and still advancing on you. pepper spray would be a great asset here.

the "dual force" concept is taught at California police academies (having two force options available, say pepper and gun or impact weapon and gun, or pepper and impact weapon, etc.

just because you didn't carry pepper spray doesn't relieve you of the legal obligation to use the appropriate level of force, meaning, if pepper spray was appropriate and a firearm was not appropriate, but you didn't have pepper spray available, that does not justify your use of a firearm.

Standing Wolf
June 22, 2005, 09:49 PM
We live in far too much fear of assault lawyers.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 11:19 PM
Put me down for one more "some people worry too much about lawsuits, either it is a justified shoot by your state law or it isn't, so make sure you know the difference" vote. Thanks.

And if you can use the pepper spray and avoid having to shoot someone, you will probably feel better about it. So carry both and know when to use each. Then again, if I could use pepper spray, I could probably run away too, so why carry pepper spray? I carry pepper spray in my car, but that is because I can flee in a car fairly easy. Actually, I really don't know why I carry pepper spray in my car. I am either going to drive away or shoot them. Maybe I should just use the rest of that stuff as hot sauce.

Double Naught Spy
June 23, 2005, 01:06 AM
I do not think there is any more liability in carrying pepper spray and shooting a bad guy with your pistol in a justified lethal force situation. If you are going to worry that a civil court is more likely to win a case against you because you didn't attempt to use the pepper spray first in the lethal force situation, then you also need to be concerned about each and every other less or non-lethal option that you did not exercise in that situation.

Why didn't you use pepper spray first?
Why not ___________ first?
fist - punch
foot - kick
belt to beat the gun
cell phone or other item on your belt to use as a thrown projectile, etc.
Why didn't you simply run away?

If the situation is such that lethal force use is justified, then you don't have to justify why you used lethal force. By legal default that justifies lethal force, you were in fear for your life or of severe bodily harm.

just because you didn't carry pepper spray doesn't relieve you of the legal obligation to use the appropriate level of force, meaning, if pepper spray was appropriate and a firearm was not appropriate, but you didn't have pepper spray available, that does not justify your use of a firearm.

I have trouble following why this statement was made. Nobody here was suggestion lethal force be used in a situation where lethal force was not justified.

Spreadfire Arms
June 23, 2005, 03:15 PM
double naught spy wrote:
Quote:
just because you didn't carry pepper spray doesn't relieve you of the legal obligation to use the appropriate level of force, meaning, if pepper spray was appropriate and a firearm was not appropriate, but you didn't have pepper spray available, that does not justify your use of a firearm.

I have trouble following why this statement was made. Nobody here was suggestion lethal force be used in a situation where lethal force was not justified.


the original question was:

You had a less lethal deterant, the pepper spay, but went for the CCW. You didn't exhaust all less lethal means available to you before going for the gun. It seems it would make the use of deadly force harder to explain and justify.

the original question reads "You didn't exhaust all less lethal means available to you before going for the gun." thus, the logic being that if you didn't have pepper spray you wouldn't have to account for not using it since it wasn't there.

pcf
June 23, 2005, 10:23 PM
On the flip side of the coin, if by using pepper spray you instigate a violent confrontation (or that is later determined by an investigation), and as a result you use deadly force, you can lose the right to claim self defense.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW & Pepper Sprey - Liability?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!