Carrying OC or other "less lethal" weapons while CCWing - bad idea?


PDA






Green Lantern
October 11, 2006, 07:50 PM
In the 'what's your daily load' thread, a point was raised that carrying OC while CCWing could lead to trouble in court if you had to shoot someone in self-defense. Since any bloodthirsty prosecutor/lawyer could make a case that "you SHOULD have used the spray instead!"

What do you think? Does the legal risk outweigh the advantage of having something besides my bare hands for instances where deadly force is not called for?

I was thinking "GOTTA" get Kuboton training and carry my 'innocnet' MiniMag everywhere with me...but heck, for that matter it wouldn't be too hard for a lawyer to find out about being my trained to fight with one, I imagine... :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Carrying OC or other "less lethal" weapons while CCWing - bad idea?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MountainBear
October 11, 2006, 08:32 PM
If your are legal to carry a concealed firearm (CCW), then carry it, train with it, and get used to the idea that if you ever do have to use it, some waste of air lawyer, D.A. is going to atttempt to prosecute you and your first born. Do not give them any ammuntition, including the carrying of other means of self-defense, to use against you.
It may sound cynical to think that you will get prosecuted no matter what, but I'd rather be prepared for that and not have it happen than to think notings going to happen and then get prosecuted...
This is my humble opinion, hope it helps...

torpid
October 11, 2006, 08:44 PM
Conversely, it gives you the ability to counter a threat "appropriately" in a non-lethal manner if the situation calls for it.

They operate under a separate set of requirements, but the police carry both and use spray far more often then their guns.

.

ArmedBear
October 11, 2006, 08:48 PM
The guy in Arizona headed for jail shot two dogs and their unarmed owner (okay he had a screwdriver in his back pocket) on a trail.

Did they really pose a threat that justified lethal force? Only one living man will know for sure, and he's the defendant. This is not a good place to find yourself.

Could he have neutralized most threats from two dogs and a man with spray? Yup. If he had any.

Assuming he was innocent, would that have saved him a lot of trouble? Hell yeah.

TallPine
October 11, 2006, 11:39 PM
I'm carrying enough stuff already ... can't handle anymore :(

hso
October 12, 2006, 12:23 AM
Only an idiot limits his options to lethal force.:banghead:

PlayboyPenguin
October 12, 2006, 12:44 AM
First off, are you Hal Jordon, Guy Gardner, Jon Stewart, Kyle Rayner, or maybe even G'nort?

Second, that is a good question. I am not the best to answer it but i agree with alot of the things said here. I will have to think on it more myself before forming a hard opinion but I am leaning towrds it being okay and having options.

Handgun Midas
October 12, 2006, 12:57 AM
I am definitely going to be carrying Fox OC, right in front of my .45.
CCW is still forthcoming and I'm shopping around a bit for OC.

I want to be able to respond to a violent confrontation, that I determine at that moment not to be deadly, with less-lethal force if the odds are against me.
This would be charging dogs; this would be someone hassling me and getting too close. I can just spray and get out of there.

However, if for a second I fear that I will be seriously harmed or killed, the .45 comes out.

Rem700SD
October 12, 2006, 01:04 AM
Most gunfights happen at around seven feet(or so I've been told)

Given the time it takes to cover seven feet, I really don't have time to consider less-than-lethal options. My guess is that if you can use LTL force, you should probably just walk away.

Just my $.02

edited for syntax

carpettbaggerr
October 12, 2006, 01:23 AM
What legal risks? If they're going to go that far to prosecute you, they'll do if even if you don't have OC on you.

It wouldn't be that hard for them to find out you decided not to learn less-lethal defense methods.

Mr. Jordan was so eager to shoot someone, anyone, that he refused to learn any other methods of self-defense. Here is a printout of his postings, under the Nom de plume "Green Lantern" where he states his reluctance to carry anything but a gun for self-defense, even in situations where deadly force is not necessary!

HSO is right. Don't be an idiot. :)

torpid
October 12, 2006, 01:44 AM
Most gunfights happen at around seven feet(or so I've been told)

Given the time it takes to cover seven feet, I really don't have time to consider less-than-lethal options. My guess is that if you can use LTL force, you should probably just walk away.

Walking away is wise advice.

But there may be a situational gray area between "peaceful walk away" and "lethal force gunfight", and it would be nice to have the option not to go straight to "gunfight" if "walk away" was denied as an option.

Spray might give you the option to run away when conflict avoidance is initially denied to you.

.

thexrayboy
October 12, 2006, 01:59 AM
OC spray is a viable mid level alternative to respond with in limited circumstances. If you are confronted with single assailant who is obviously
unarmed, is not of such a disparate size as to pose an obvious lethal risk and simply will not let you leave the area without first engaging in a physical confrontation it is a definite option. The obvious example is the drunk in a sports bar type eating establishment intent on proving his masculinity and wants you to be the punching bag. You can't really shoot him unless he is so vastly larger and stronger that you are in imminent danger. You can't walk away as he insists on blocking your exit. In this case OC is a useful alternative. Other such scenarios can be postulated. Most would involve
an assailant who is unarmed. If your assailant produces a weapon of any type of course your response options change. However if you are in such a scenario without OC or other less lethal options you are limited to three choices. Run, if you can, fight or firearms. Options are always nice to have.
Your guideline should generally be this. Avoid problems if possible. If not respond with the minimum force needed to guarantee your survival. If this is OC fine. If deadly force so be it. Your goal is to be alive to face the potential legal fallout. Who cares if you avoided legal action but were killed or seriously injured.

strambo
October 12, 2006, 02:45 AM
Only an idiot limits his options to lethal force.To that I would add; only an idiot lets the "tools" he carries define his options. I always have lethal and non-lethal options available to me wherever I am, whatever I carry in any part of the world. Tools can make exercising those options more or less efficient, that is all.

PlayboyPenguin
October 12, 2006, 02:58 AM
Okay, I am convinced. I will have to agree with the stances taken by Strambo, Torpid, HSO and others and say that it is probably a good idea to have other non-lethal SD options. Especially with Strambo's point about letting the tools you carry define your options.

Eyesac
October 12, 2006, 03:05 AM
Essentially every non life threatening situation is a good reason to carry OC. I can think of a million situations where firing to end someones life would be "over kill" and could get me in serious trouble. There is a reason LE carries and uses it, because there is a great big "gray area" that many physical confrontations fall into. I'm for it. Fox labs is the best.

MountainBear
October 12, 2006, 03:18 AM
I have carried OC on the job before. It works, but most scenarios where I could see deploying it, I could have walked away from as a civilian (probably not on the job). If I feel threatened enough to defend myself, and not just back away, I damn well better be able to justify whatever means I use. And in today's litigious society, you are liable to get you but sued off for dousing someone with OC or using some other less than lethal means. Is this right? No, but it is reality in this day and age. After all, how many of us have had propper training on the deployment of OC or similar sprays? How many understand the propper distance to deploy it? How about the duration of the spray? What about the effects of cross-contamination?
Those of us that carry concealed are at least required to have a rudimentary knowledge of firearms, lethal force laws, etc. This might or might not save us when we are inevitably sued, but at least we can say we are are more knowledgable about our CCW pistol than we are with OC.

It also occurs to me that the carrying of a less than lethal option such as OC can escalate a situation rather than difuse it. And having a LTL option might make some a little "trigger happy." Rather than look for a good opportunity to distance themselves from their assailant, they may choose to douse them with OC instead.
I am a firm believer in standing my ground, but I am more a believer in going home alive every night.

I guess I rambled a little bit, but I guess my ramblings can be summarized by this: Whatever you carry, TRAIN with it. Go to a self defense class and learn about OC (its nasty to get sprayed with, by the way), and how, and more importantly WHEN to deploy it. And remember, the law will look a lot kinder on you if you distance yourself from an aggresor whenever possible...

strambo
October 12, 2006, 03:22 AM
The key is training. Your (and the enemies') primary weapon is your mind, not some gadget.

As an example: I'm confronted by 3 individuals. 2 are a lot bigger, one about the same size. They make their intent known to cause me serious bodily harm, no weapons evident (doesn't mean they don't have any). I draw and prepare to use deadly force to counter this disparity of force and threat.

The 2 big guys run away when the gun comes out. The 3rd, about my size is too hyped up on drugs for his own good. Makes another threat and charges. Now, we've seen from the AZ hiker thread what can happen if you shoot an unarmed, crazed individual. That guy was 57 yo and had a backpack on. I'm 32, fit with extensive military and HtoH training.

So, I step in, turn the gun sideways with my left palm on the slide and strike his sternum with the slide (finger was never on trigger) and knock him down, knock the wind out of him. Worse case scenario, his sternum could be fractured making breathing very difficult...but as Arnold said in Terminator 2 "He'll live". Retreat to safe area, call 911 and get police/medical enroute to him.

That's how you can retain a non-lethal option even with a "lethal" weapon in your hand. No time to re-holster. I could have just held the gun and struck with my 3 other appendages too.

MountainBear
October 12, 2006, 03:43 AM
At risk of pissing Justin the Moderator off (sorry Justin)

+1 Strambo!

PlayboyPenguin
October 12, 2006, 03:49 AM
First, I must have missed something...why would that PO Justin?

Second, Strambo left out the other option of just emptying your bladder and bowels into your pants and hoping that was enough of a deterent to make them go away. :)

strambo
October 12, 2006, 04:37 AM
Heh, speaking of bladders, a slide or muzzle strike to his would probably rupture it.;) That kinda takes the starch out of a person.:neener:

These skills are useful even in a lethal situation. The 3 in the above hypothetical all rush me, I shoot 2, then get a malfunction. So, I step in with all my body weight and strike the sternum of the last one with the muzzle (fracturing it and the ribs, likely damaging his heart.) This is lethal force after my "lethal" weapon jammed. Continue to engage the other 2 who still may be a threat after only 1 bullet per, clear malfunction and retreat as soon as practicable.

How many people when shooting at say 5 yards with some snap caps in the mag, immediately close and strike the target when the malfunction happens instead of standing in front of it fumbling with your weapon? You can strike faster than the fastest tap-rack-bang, nevermind a double feed. At minumum, move offline rapidly while clearing.

Bennie Cooley has a great video series called "The Fighting Mindset" 1 and 2. "Fighting Mindset 2" covers the whys and hows of striking with a handgun. Also applies to rifles. "Muzzle-punch" is your close quarters friend!;)

Green Lantern
October 12, 2006, 08:33 AM
First of all - it depends. ;) Guy Gardner's one of my favorites, but he's usually a bit too cocky for his own good. Kyle Rayner was my "first" GL when I started reading. Like your "first" James Bond, you have to hold him up as the standard. And Jack T. Chance has about the best Green Lantern Oath ever:

"You who are wicked, evil, and mean - I'm the nastiest b****** you've EVER seen! Come one, come all, and put up a fight - I'll POUND yer *** with Green Lantern's light! Yowza..."

Back to business: ;)

Ahhh, knew there was a reason I decided to carry OC anyhow besides my too-frequent need to disarm....

I think the new brand is settled now, "Fox" comes up very often on boards like these. And I may need to invest in this brand SOONER than later:

Let me ask a question about my Mace "peppergard" spray I currently use. I found an old unit I "retired" years ago assuming that you should change them yearly or so. It still had some spray in it so I took it out and test-fired it against a tree. I then CAREFULLY went up to where I had hit to get an idea of how potent it was.

Er...well...nothing! I thought I should wait a few moments for the propellant ot evaporate. I did, and took a small sniff...then a BIG one.

My nose might have tickled just a bit. I think I sneezed once or twice within the next 10 minutes.

Worried, I took another "test shot" of my current unit on a tree, with similar results. Is this a bad sign? I would imagine I should have got SOME kind of effect from breathing the stuff in at close range! :uhoh:

1911 guy
October 12, 2006, 09:33 AM
While in the service, I taught a class for deployed sailors wives. Personal security, make sure you lock your doors type stuff. We also taught use of sprays. We had three instructors and once a week at least one of us would get maced. It blurrs your vision and takes your breath away the first few times. After that...nothing.

Now that I'm out of the Navy and working in a nasty environment (air quality) and still smoke a pack a day, my lungs and eyes are so used to irritation that mace still has no effect.

I agree with carrying less than lethal options. You can palm a can of OC spray whenever your spider senses tingle. Can't do that with a handgun. Spraying someone for grabbing ahold of you is perfectly legal. Shooting them, not always.

StuckInMA
October 12, 2006, 09:50 AM
The first time this was brought up to me was during the training course I had to take to get my CCW. The general rule was OC plus CCW is bad news in front of a jury. The basis for this argument was that it added another obstacle because a defense attorney will paint you as a trigger happy gun nut because you chose to use your firearm instead of your OC. Unless the attacker was also carrying a firearm, using anything more than OC would be viewed as overkill and negligent. The fact that PO's use tasers and OC before drawing a weapon more often than not nowadays reinforces that thought process in a jury's mind. A good example would be using your firearm against someone high on meth coming at you with a knife/hatchet/pipe while you had OC on your person. The question that would be raised is why you thought it was necessary to shoot someone in a situation where a PO would respond with LTL force. This is from a legal standpoint only. Again, it's about removing one more obstacle while in front of the jury.

On the other hand I read an article by Massad where he states that OC is a must have. I honestly don't remember his reasoning, but I can try and find the article if no one else here has the info.

I choose not to carry OC because when fight or flight kicks I don't think "fight" would result in me grabbing for OC first. The only time I could see myself using OC would be if the person was unarmed in which case "flight" would kick in.

I don't ever want to have to draw my weapon, but if I do I want to remove as many obstacles as I can when it comes time to face the jury. That's strictly personal preference though.

hso
October 12, 2006, 09:54 AM
Batons, saps, kubatons, sprays, etc. no more escalate a confrontation than a gun kills on itís own. The individual controls the tool, not the other way around.

The gun is not a magic talisman. It does not protect us. It is nothing more than a tool that we use to enhance our ability to protect ourselves. Our mind protects us. We decide to avoid dangerous places. We decide to carry a gun. We decide to get training in how to use it in a street defensive crisis. We decide to cross the street, leave the bar, lock the car doors, call the cops. There are plenty of people that understand this on THR and they train in how to use the full range of ways to protect themselves. Voice, empty hand MA, MA weapons, sprays, guns. I've walked away from conflicts, I've talked my way out by de-escalation or domination, I've used my hands and feet. I've yet to use a weapon and pray I never do, but at least I've got options to choose from.

Manedwolf
October 12, 2006, 10:40 AM
I've always thought it's a good idea to have something else.

If someone wants to punch you, you use the Fox OC. If someone wants to kill you, you use the gun.

tenbase
October 12, 2006, 11:02 AM
I carry a 2 ounce flip top Fox with me and keep a 4 ouncer in the truck. Just another tool in the toolbox, so to speak. I've used OC twice - once on a dog and once on a very aggressive financially challenged outdoor urban dweller. Both of these incidents were in our wonderful and safe gun-free nations capital, but I would not have fired had I been carrying as the OC quickly resolved the problems, with no resulting police paperwork or lawyers.

michaelbane
October 12, 2006, 11:44 AM
I carry Fox spray with me as well, for the same reason that previous posters have given, namely, the less than lethal option. Any prosecutor or ambulance chaser who wants to paint someone as a bad guy for trying to have an alternative to deadly force is a scumbag.:barf:

On a practical note, it's important to consider how to carry multiple weapons. I carry the spray on the weak side, so I can simultaneously draw and reholster each weapon as the situation escalates or de-escalates. It saves precious seconds.

Green Lantern
October 12, 2006, 08:09 PM
good example would be using your firearm against someone high on meth coming at you with a knife/hatchet/pipe while you had OC on your person.

Not the best example - it shouldn't be rocket science to convince a jury that it was a deadly threat, and that OC is most likely NOT gonna work on a methhead. Especially around here...:uhoh:

To bump my previous query about my Peppergard spray...should I just ditch it being that I got "nothing" in the way if ill effects by smelling around where I shot some onto a tree?

StuckInMA
October 12, 2006, 09:44 PM
good example would be using your firearm against someone high on meth coming at you with a knife/hatchet/pipe while you had OC on your person.

Not the best example - it shouldn't be rocket science to convince a jury that it was a deadly threat, and that OC is most likely NOT gonna work on a methhead. Especially around here...

Understood. But unless you can prove that you knew he was high on meth and that OC would have little or no effect before you pulled the trigger you're still just a trigger happy gun nut that chose to reach for his gun instead of his OC (or other LTL) to a prosecutor. Finding out he was high on meth after the fact played no role in your decision to pull the trigger. Our decision to use whatever force we do is a major part of a trial.

PlayboyPenguin
October 12, 2006, 09:46 PM
I would think the fact that they had a knife or lead pipe would be enough to justify fearing for your life. pepper spray will not even stop me all that quickly. I could still very easily slash someone if they sprayed me as I came at them with a knife. And the only thing I am high on is life (and sometimes twinkies).:D

Manedwolf
October 13, 2006, 12:26 AM
I still think it's pretty simple. If they're coming at you with a deadly weapon, you use the deadly force. If they have just their fists and seem intent on picking a fight, or take a swing at you, use the nonlethal force.

That sort of thing would most often happen if someone was drunk and decided it'd be a Really Good Idea to go punch the guy standing over there. Which happens. In such a case, no need to shoot them, but making them feel like they've just stuck their head in bubbling french-fry oil is a good deterrent.

hso
October 13, 2006, 12:36 AM
Only an idiot or simpleton would consider an attacker charging you with a knife or pipe anything other than a lethal threat.

A guy with a pipe or knife will kill you just as dead as the same thug with a gun and just as quick. It has been demonstrated over and over again that anyone with a knife or pipe within 20-30 feet is a very real threat. They certainly have the means to inflict great bodily harm or cause death. If they charge or move within striking distance they have the opportunity. Intent is determined if they voice a threat or their actions demonstrate their intent.

Even mediocre training will teach you this.:banghead:

strambo
October 13, 2006, 01:45 AM
Even mediocre training will teach you this.Yes, but the jurors don't have that training and half could be idiots easily persuaded by a scummy DA who represents the authority of the state. They were talking about what could happen in court, not what you should do (with no legal consideration) on the street.

I sometimes worry about my training and background (but not too much;) ). It's the type that can be made to quite honestly look a lot better on paper or to a jury than it is. They might think that I should have been able to just knock the guy out with the pipe or knife with little or no risk to myself. The highly trained heros in Hollywood do that. They only kill the really dangerous bad guys who shoot at them with copious amounts of full auto weapons first.

I would have to show that a reasonable person in my situation with my level of training would still use deadly force and why. A jury would hopefully agree. What can and can't be done with a degree of safety in the realm of hand to hand combat is a mystery to most people clouded by Hollywood, martial arts BS. Yeah, I could take out a knife wielding attacker or two with my bare hands and probably just need some stitches after...most times (?) A small percentage will have me dying, another percentage could have me take them out, then bleed out after and a further percentage could have me sustain irrepairable nerve damage probably to the arms. I wouldn't know how to put a percentage number to those risks, I'm gonna shoot if I have a gun and time to draw it.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
October 13, 2006, 11:36 AM
My ,"less lethal", option involves the bad guy running away screaming like a little girl after I produce a .40-.45 sized hole right before his eyes! If he sticks around after that, I can reasonably say I was in fear of my life, as the guy must be crazy or on drugs, since I gave him the option to run away screaming like a little girl:scrutiny: !!! So no, if YOU choose to carry OC or pepper spray, or a baton for all I care; as long as you train and know how to use it, it is not a bad idea. It is just not for me.

SAWBONES
October 13, 2006, 12:28 PM
"Only an idiot limits his options to lethal force."

Agreed.
Isn't this glaringly obvious to anyone capable of rational thought?
Occasions absolutely requiring deadly force may arise, of course, but are fortunately less likely than occasions requiring only awareness, a self-confident demeanor, running away if possible, a minor form of resistance/deterrence (eg, OC spray), or employment of some other less-than-lethal weapon, like an impact weapon, for instance, and approximately in that order of escalation too, according to the nature of the threat.

If a persistent bum or street looney panhandles or otherwises engages you and follows you down the street getting "in your face", are you going to shoot him or run away? If he doesn't respond to commands and avoidance attempts as you attempt to proceed, a little OC would be altogether appropriate and proportional to the nature of the confrontation.

Many examples come to mind wherein some less-than-lethal deterrent which involves neither firearm nor edged weapon nor potentially dangerous-to-oneself types of hands-on techniques would be reasonable, effective and readily defensible in court as representing the response of "a rational man", and it accordingly seems to me that everyone who practices CCW with a lethal weapon should also carry OC, so that he can hopefully avoid having to use his firearm or edged weapon.

Even if an attack or threat is such that use of a firearm was instantly necessary, the mere carrying of OC on your person would be an indication to any reasonable judge and jury that you were a thinking man who had considered a continuum of options for self-protection and not a simple-minded "gun nut" yearning for an opportunity to shoot someone (as several of the above posts suggest!). I cannot conceive of any way in which the carrying of OC could work against you unless your use of deadly force rather than a less-lethal method was, in fact, inappropriate.

Master Blaster
October 13, 2006, 01:10 PM
Batons, saps, kubatons, sprays, etc. no more escalate a confrontation than a gun kills on it’s own. The individual controls the tool, not the other way around.


Before anyone here advocates carrying a club or sapp, they better check their local law veryt carefully. In Delaware a "MAY issue state" I have a permit to carry a "concealed deadly weapon." That means ANY weapon including a club or a knife.

I also have a Pennsylvania license to carry, but its a license to carry a firearm concealed or open. A sapp or club or knife over 3" is an illegal deadly weapon, which could land me in jail on a felony charge.
So if a crack head charges me with a baseball bat, In Pa. I can draw my legally concealled .45 and put three holes in his chest, and its a good shoot and no problem.

BUT if I draw my illegally concealed ASP or my 4 inch spyderco, and go hand to hand with him, I could expect to be arrested. If I crack him over the head with my ASP baton, and he dies, I am in deep legal trouble even if defending myself with lethal force was justified.

So please check your local Laws, just cause you read it on the error net doesnt make it so.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
October 13, 2006, 02:42 PM
If this ,"bum, panhandler, street looney", is bothering me, I would either ignore him while walking away, or strike him if the situation requires. A well placed punch to the throat or stomache, however painful, is most likely going to be non lethal, and more effective than oc to convey the message of,"Back the hell OFF!"...

That's what is good about the 'net, you state YOUR opinion, and it in no way needs to make sense to me. So like I said, carry whatever makes you feel better, but oc ain't for me. Besides, I don't have any pockets left after cell phone, extra mag, keys, money, (sometimes) knife and light... Avoidance has worked the best for me so far anyway.

So I also agree,"Only an idiot limits his options to lethal force", non lethal is where hands and feet come in:) .

biere
October 13, 2006, 04:32 PM
More options are a good thing.

Right now I am struggling with how much stuff I am carrying right now.

I plan to swing by the gunshop this weekend and take a look at some options for carrying spare mags and flashlights and spray of some sort. As I recall someone makes a mag holder with a built in flashlight holder.

If I got that I could use my current flashlight carry spot for spray of some sort.

I don't even think about trying to figure out what some jury members might think. I feel like some just feel like they are on tv or something after some of the quotes I have read from jurors.

I can tell you that today it was windy enough here in east tn that I doubt I would have wanted to mess with using any spray because I might wind up with a face full of my own spray and I hate the stuff.

Flopsy
October 13, 2006, 04:37 PM
I carry an elite defender surefire torch in addition to my piece. I'd love to be able to end a confrontation by a smash with the torch rather than Mr. Blasty, and am far less likely to have the DA trying to put me away than if I plug somebody in self defense. And in that case if a prosecutor looks at the situation, he'd see that I had the gun and didn't use it, bolstering my self-defense case.

I like to keep my options open and would only draw if absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life, and the torch gives me the option of handling the aggressive panhandler without paying for lawyers and bail money and new bullets.

Zen21Tao
October 13, 2006, 05:59 PM
How about this:

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/987/sigwpeppersprayba9.jpg

strambo
October 14, 2006, 03:09 AM
A well placed punch to the throat or stomache, however painful, is most likely going to be non lethalWHOA!!!! HOLD UP!! A well placed punch to the throat is exactly what I would do if my life were in danger. Damage to the thyroid cartilage (adams apple) and/or crychoid (little thing that holds windpipe open above adams apple) is going to cause the the windpipe to close up. The person will asphyxiate in about 3-5 minutes unless a trachiostomy is performed.

If you strike the trachea (windpipe below the adam's apple, above the sternum) it will likely be non-lethal and just cause them to choke and sputter a bit. However, a fist is too big to hit this area, need to use an open hand (web of hand between thumb/index fibger), edge of hand or finger strike to hit the trachea and avoid the thyroid.

This is another reason why it is important to know how to kill with your bare hands...so you also know how not to by mistake. Also, any time you lay hands on someone, you run the risk of them dying. You punch someone in the solar plexus (non-lethal) but they have a heart problem and this is enough to kill them. Or they fall and fracture their skull. If you were justified in using force, you should be OK, accident. If you punched someone in the stomach because he insulted you, or you could have left, but your ego kept you there...think "manslaughter" charges, even for an accident.

Think this doesn't happen...remember "hockey dad". Reckless coach putting kids in danger. Father of player talks to coach. Father is big man, coach small. Coach is whacko trys to pick fight, father walks away. Coach jumps on back of father as he is walking across the ice, father throws him down on the ice and just shoves him a few times. Problem is, the other man's skull is hitting a hard surface with each shove, brain accelleration, subdural hemotoma, concussion leading to coma and death. The dad had no idea the trauma he was inflicting, now one man is dead, the other in prison for manslaughter.

I know how to cause this type of injury, if my life is in danger, grab his head and slam it into the concrete. On the other hand, if it is some drunk nut that I can handle, I know to say; grab his arm, yank him on his stomach and put my knee in his back holding him for the police.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
October 14, 2006, 04:53 PM
I was not specific(enough) in the type of blow to the throat. A punch using the second knuckles, not the actual balled up fist approach, is what I am speaking of; and yes it would have to be placed low enough not to collapse the throat. The mention of,"well placed", in my post was me elluding(unsuccesfully) to the fact that the punch would need to hit a specific area to be non lethal, yet still effective. A ridge hand would work just as well:o !

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
Strambo,

You must have been taught to fight by my mother also. That was her last resort defense. She said if the person was bigger and intent on hurting you badly the first punch should count and the best one was the ball of the hand to the throat. As you know there are three point on your body that are natural weapons and can sustain a massive amount of impact without damage (ball of the hand being one of them). So make use of them she always said. I once had a guy laugh at me because I held my hands back and open during a challenge to a fight once...a ball of the hand to the bottom of the chin later he rethought that reaction. :)

p35
October 14, 2006, 09:49 PM
Consider the incident in Seattle last week- street loony attacks some guy for no reason, knocks him down and starts kicking him, guy produces .357 Ruger and stops him with one shot. It's been made clear that nothing more is going to be said about this by the authorities, but it had to be a difficult situation for the victim while being questioned about it, and I'm sure he still feels badly about having killed the loony. If he could have stopped the assault with a shot of OC, wouldn't that have saved him a lot of head/heartache? OTOH, if the OC hadn't done the job, wouldn't the attempt have made it even more clear that he had no choice but to shoot?

Katana8869
October 15, 2006, 02:11 AM
I am an experienced martial artist, but I carry my spray everywhere I carry my gun. I am confident that I can handle myself, but I do not want to end up grappling with an attacker and risk losing my gun or having the situation escalate into a deadly force encounter because the assailant discovers the gun and decides to go for it.

This came into play for me a couple of weeks ago. For the last year and a half, I have been trying to rebound from some serious back troubles, so I walk every night after dinner. Because of my work schedule, I have to do it at night.

My neighborhood is pretty safe, but on this night 3 teenagers started shadowing me, making noises, threats ect. They acted and sounded intoxicated and at one point, one of them bounced a small rock past me in the road.

I had my light, spray and pistol on me at the time. I kept walking and kept my mouth shut. Running was out of the question, because since I had the back trouble, I simply don't run well.

I did palm my light in my left hand and palmed the spray in my right hand. I started taking turns and corners and kept observing them out of my periphery with them matching my every turn all the while.

I worked my way to our development's church, crossed the parking lot and stepped into the shadows between buildings. The three guys were about 50 yards away and still trailing me. Throughout this they never rushed me or came closer than 20 yards or so, but they did follow me despite every turn I made and they continued laughing and shouting comments and insults at me.

Now I was in the dark and they were approaching across a lit parking lot. Maybe at this point their radars were up, because I was now concealed by a building and waitng for them, planning to catch them in the dark after they had just been in that bright parking lot, throw the light in their faces and spray hell out of them with the spray then beat feet outta there as well as I could.

They stopped about halfway across the lot, conversed among themselves for a second and headed out the other side of the lot. I waited there for a few minutes and then headed home. I didn't see any more of them and have not had any trouble since.

I was glad to have an option available other than either a hand to hand streetfight or the pistol. I never saw a weapon, but their intention to either harrass or possibly harm/rob me seemed pretty clear. However, nothing about the encounter would have justified me pulling a gun.

I'm sure I would have ended up with some explaining to do about the spray, but I felt justified in taking action to end their shadowing of me especially since they had clearly demonstrated that they were intentionally following me after making threats, name calling, throwing the rock in my direction, ect.

In hindsight, I guess I could have walked into somebodies yard, knocked on their door and asked them to call the police, but it didn't occur to me at the time and I really wouldn't expect anyone to open their door at night since I wouldn't normally do so myself.

strambo
October 15, 2006, 04:03 AM
Still2Many; I'm glad that's what you meant. I also wanted to make that clear to anyone else reading this thread. I'd hate to see a THR member end up in prison for manslaughter by mistake like "Hockey Dad."

Whenever you train or learn a new strike, target, technique, think about it from a medical perspective as to what it is doing to the opponent. If the instructor doesn't know...that is a big red flag. Consult a friend in the medical profession or an anatomy text. Sports medicine texts are very applicable because they deal with injuries caused by bodies slamming into each other and the ground. The type of injuries sustained in accidents (auto, etc...) involve forces much higher than the human body can generate. and aren't applicable to hand to hand training.

There is a book I have called something like "Lethal Karate Strikes, The Medical Implications" That is close to the title (I'm kinda far away to check;) ), written by an MD. Ignore the set up, illustration strikes, they are kinda cheesy at times, but it is a great start to understanding this stuff. Good intro before trying to wade into an anatomy text.

Now I was in the dark and they were approaching across a lit parking lot. Maybe at this point their radars were up, because I was now concealed by a building and waitng for them, planning to catch them in the dark after they had just been in that bright parking lot, throw the light in their faces and spray hell out of them with the spray then beat feet outta there as well as I could.
Good plan Katana, glad it worked out.
I'm sure I would have ended up with some explaining to do about the spray, but I felt justified in taking action to end their shadowing of me As long as you didn't immediately spray them, but only sprayed if/when they advanced on you after "Lighting them up" and saying something like "Back off" or "Leave me alone". That way, you aren't initiating a chemical assault based on them following you, it is based on them advancing towards you in a menacing manner.

GEM
October 15, 2006, 08:57 PM
First, I know no competent trainer that doesn't recommend carrying OC and I've met quite a few. They carry OC.

Next, you don't convince the jury - your lawyer does. You get a law competent in self-defense issues and experts to back you up. I think it will 1000 to 1 that carrying OC was a wise thing and if it was a reasonable shoot they will back you up.

Also before you go talk about martial arts making you safer or unsafer in court, you might be surprised to learn there are law review articles on the subject. Might go to the library.

Is there one case in the country where using OC was used as a negative if it was followed by a shoot? I've never heard of one in a DGU.

In the absence of clear evidence, the OC sounds good to me rather than Internet speculation.

Green Lantern
October 18, 2006, 07:45 PM
Woo-hoo, got my Fox OC this week! I put in an online order for a 2oz stream can. Then found a 2oz "spray" can cheaper...thought "why not" and got it too. Think I'll carry the cone instead of the stream for now...til I become a "marksman" with the stream at least.

NUTS - I had a great quote from Ayoob's book "The Truth About Self Protection" on defending use of a firearm against a DEADLY threat while also carrying OC. I'll see if I can find it...

HERE we go - from Mas' book, but the quote is credited to Hank Kudlinskey, S&W "Mace" Academy Police Instructor:

"Mace is NOT to be used in life-threatening encounters! It would be extremely foolish to use Mace on a suspect immediately capable of employing a deadly weapon. That is simply not what it was designed for."

Spreadfire Arms
October 18, 2006, 09:32 PM
a less lethal option does NOT put you in a legal obligation to use it BEFORE you resort to deadly force in a deadly force situation.

Do not give them any ammuntition, including the carrying of other means of self-defense, to use against you.

that is not very good advice. other means of self defense (i.e. less lethal) are sometimes the appropriate and reasonable force level. you cannot shoot everyone in a non-deadly force encounter because you chose not to carry a less lethal option. that is the logic you are following.

My guess is that if you can use LTL force, you should probably just walk away.

in a perfect world, yes. but if someone punches you in the face, which is a simple assault, you would not be justified in shooting him. deadly force is not justified when defending yourself against a lone attacker, who is unarmed, who used his fist to assault you, and made no other threats of deadly force. so if you could get attacked, and be able to abandon the encounter without the suspect continuing his assault, then yes, i suppose this is good advice. but why limit your force option to either deadly force or nothing? thats like buying a car that either goes 100 mph or zero.

The general rule was OC plus CCW is bad news in front of a jury. The basis for this argument was that it added another obstacle because a defense attorney will paint you as a trigger happy gun nut because you chose to use your firearm instead of your OC. Unless the attacker was also carrying a firearm, using anything more than OC would be viewed as overkill and negligent. The fact that PO's use tasers and OC before drawing a weapon more often than not nowadays reinforces that thought process in a jury's mind.

i dont know who told you this. i think you are also referring to the prosecutor, not the defense attorney, which would be YOUR attorney. they can't call you "trigger happy" if the encounter required deadly force and that the use of less-lethal force was not the appropriate use of force.

A good example would be using your firearm against someone high on meth coming at you with a knife/hatchet/pipe while you had OC on your person. The question that would be raised is why you thought it was necessary to shoot someone in a situation where a PO would respond with LTL force. This is from a legal standpoint only. Again, it's about removing one more obstacle while in front of the jury.

that is a clear example of a deadly force situation. there is no expert on the use of force in the United States that i am aware of that would advocate the use of OC first prior to shooting someone who is presenting deadly force against you. i am not aware of any police department that would respond to this situation with less-lethal force.

Next, you don't convince the jury - your lawyer does. You get a law competent in self-defense issues and experts to back you up. I think it will 1000 to 1 that carrying OC was a wise thing and if it was a reasonable shoot they will back you up.

that is 100% correct. im not sure if i would be considered a use of force expert, i suppose that depends on what the legal definition of "expert witness" is in a court of law. however, if i could qualify as an expert witness in the use of force (i have never been qualified as one but my friend who is a criminal defense attorney said that he could very easily qualify me if he needed one), i would never say that the use of a less-lethal option was mandatory in a deadly force encounter.

First, I know no competent trainer that doesn't recommend carrying OC and I've met quite a few. They carry OC.

i am a CHL instructor, i carry OC, and i actually use OC more frequently than anything else (about 2 cans a month - on dogs primarily). i advocate carrying it, or another less lethal force option, to all students that go through my CHL class.

Only an idiot limits his options to lethal force.

Amen.

If you enjoyed reading about "Carrying OC or other "less lethal" weapons while CCWing - bad idea?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!