[Carl Levitian]

Like it or not, we are living in a new era of what some people call political correctness. We may not like it, but it's a fact of life that we are going to have to deal with. This means what we we may consider for use to defend ourselves.

Sap's, blackjacks, things called jaw jackers, stun rings, and such, seem to me a law suit waiting to happen. Most of you have the luxury of living where you can get a CCW. Some of us don't, so we have to rely on 'other' means. Or you may find yourself traveling on an airline, or to a place where you can't pack your trusty rosco.

When I was a young police officer in the town of Trinidad Colorado, we had a case where one of my fellow officers did some serious damage with a blackjack. A drunk was resiting arrest quite vigorously, and this one big cop who 'hailed from Big Springs Texas' hit him good. Problem was, he'd intended to tap him one place, but with the thrashing around, hit him in another, and the man ended up loosing sight in his left eye, and sueing the department for a large sum. The Chief imediatly issued a memo that any officer found carrying a blackjack, slapjack, palm sap, sap gloves, or other non issued gear, was to be suspended for one week without pay. And this was 1978 mind you. I don't think that in the more than thirty years since, attitudes have changed for the better.

Pocket sticks are a good example. How do you explain why you have a length of hardwood or other material with no obvious use that you just sevearly injured somebody with? The police are not the problem, but the low life's lawyer will be, in the civil suit on how you ruined his right hand that he plays pool with, or some other riducious suit. The fact that you may have used what can be considered an out and out weapon is going to hurt you. If this item is pictured in some catalogue as a self defence weapon, a politicaly aspiring deputy D.A., or nightshade lawyer for the low life you hit, is going to have an easy case against you. You, the Walter Mitty concrete comando. The jury will eat it up like candy.

On the other hand, an AA mini-mag is a pretty low profile tool. What can a dedicated pocket stick, Yawara stick, kuboton, do that the butt end of a minimag can't? As it gets dark every night that I know of, a flashight is a handy tool. You can pick them up for 8.99 at Walmart, and the drop in Nite-eyes LED conversion is another 4.99. Heck, that's near disposable tool cost if push comes to shove. Or blows as it may be.

I'll go on record on saying how I hate P.C B.S. But it's here, and not going away anytimne soon. So in my picking what I carry when I leave the house, I look at each item as how would it look to a jury? Or would I feel at all embarassed to explain it's presence to a police officer? Or, the acid test; can I walk through TSA security with it right onto that airplane?

The most potent weapon we have is our brain. With a little thought, there's no shortage of everyday items that can inflict real damage and injury. From ballpoint stick pens to canes, to AA minimag flashights, to a small screwdriver.

Be careful what you chose to carry.

[glistam]

Civil liability is a oft-overlooked matter in self-defense. But so is mens rea that the legal system will establish based on what you happened to be carrying. Good article.

Of course, my lizard brain is hearing "blackjack" "low profile" and "innocuous" and saying to me "leather coin bag anyone?"

[Dimis]

just my outlook on the situation but when an officer hits someone the DEPARTMENT is liable when a single individual does it that person alone is liable
the chief was protecting the whole group with his descision

myself on the other hand i will use whatever is needed when its needed and plead my case when that day comes untill that day comes i cary a plain jane hunting style folder on my belt a minimag light because your absolutely right about it and since im lucky enough to live in a state that issues CCDW permits and an open carry state at that i carry my gun

you are 100% right about the P.C.B.S. but a trial is always going to boil down to whos lawyer is better at the B.S.ing part so ill take my chances and if i defend myself against a scumbag i hope and pray that the jury will be smart enough to see what i did was what was needed to be done to ensure my livelyhood and the wellbeing of my lovedones and if they should see fit that i am in the wrong then i hope that God will forgive me above and beyond that theres nothing that really can be done

[theotherwaldo]

It is better to alive, well, with a healthy family, and in court, than to be politically and legally correct and dead, or mangled, or at a family member's bed-side or grave-side.

I think that it's a pretty simple choice.

[7X57chilmau]

Carl's point is that you can have both, by avoiding tacti-cool implements of uber-death and using a common everyday tool that functions as well, I believe.

That way you can be alive, in court with an easily defensible legal position, if it even got that far. Better still.

Bad guy still has a headache.

J

[Coyote3855]

Carl, well said, as usual. Thank you for well-written, common-sense posts.

[theotherwaldo]

-So it is your duty to identify the artifacts that you can logically carry or which are normally in your vicinity which are better than your own body parts at defending you and yours. I always thought that that was taken as a given.

[7X57chilmau]

Thing is, alot of folks (many prime examples in this forum) think they need a kubaton, or a sap, or whatever purpose-built weapon they think is cool today.

They forget that their old maglite is a kubaton, the leather coin purse is a sap.

These items have MANY non-defensive every-day purposes, making them harder for the prosecutor to paint you as a paramilitary schmuck or thug out looking for blood, rather than the upstanding citizen rightfully defending himself that you are.

It's about exercising your right to defend yourself without jeopardizing your future freedoms by taking unnecessary risks. Traveling among a hyper-sensitive public, under an over-zealous law apparatus with a single-purpose defensive weapon IS taking that risk. By removing the single purpose from the weapon, this risk is much deminished.

It's about situational awareness. The "situation" is far more than the thug approaching from behind. It's also the legal environment you are in. And the social moires of the time.

Protect yourself from all threats, not just the obvious ones.

J

[Deltaboy]

Carl is correct! I keep mini-mags and Mag lights around all the time.
Along with my canes I am in pretty good shape.

[Carl Levitian]

"Protect yourself from all threats, not just the obvious ones."

Bingo!

The thug on the street is the least of you're worries these days. For every thug, there's probably a half dozen cheap lawyers who will help him try to put a lean on your house. My take on it is not to give them anything to work with. My inspiration for this was the little old lady I reported on who was attacked while she was sitting in a church writing, as it was quiet there. When she used what was in her hand, a Bic stick pen, she left her attacker with a bloody pockmarked face, making it easy to I.D. the low life. While he was found guity, he had no trouble finding a low life lawyer to file his suit against the eldery lady for disfiquiring his face. Apparently the Bic did a number on it. At the preliminary hearing, the lawyer asked the victim why she stabbed him in the face with the pen. She answered that it was already in her hand as she was writing a letter. There was some snickering from the courtroom and the jury box. The judge tossed the case out and warned the cheap lawyer not to clutter up his courtroom again with trash. But the fact that it made it to a court room is proof that we are facing a crooked game if we do exercise our freedom to defend ourselves, and we own a house or have assests. Get a judge that's more on the screaming meemie side, and you could be in trouble.

It pays to be careful out there. why work hard your whole life just to have some low life fail to mug you, but clean your clock in court? Why give them ammo to use on you?

We are living in strange times. It pays to think about things a little different. I think the time has come to look at your edc gear, and see if there is anything that you won't have a good exuse for carrying in a normal day. In fact, I've taken the tact that I'm not going to pack anything I can't go through airport security with, exepting my innocent looking sak bantam, or classic on my keyring. Heck, the last time Karen and I took a cruise, I had to hide my little classic and leave the bantam home.

Very strange times.

[conwict]

Anyone have some substantive cases or evidence of lawsuits that might have gone differently if "tactical" items hadn't been used? I am playing devil's advocate here, but it seems like the lawsuit is caused by an action first and foremost. Plenty of people get sued for using their bare hands to hurt someone, justified or not. If you're gonna play rough you might get sued, and that's a fact. I understand the concept of mens rea that someone mentioned, but past the existence of terminology implying that it happens...any real cases/analysis??

-A sap and kubotan carrying devil's advocate, at least for now

[alaskanativeson]

With my partially torn rotator cuff I can do most normal light duty things, but I hope I never have to depend on just my arms to stop a bad guy. If my .45 isn't with me (and even when it is) I usually go places with my Cold Steel City Stick with the heavy metal pistol grip handle. One swing from it against a temple will result in a hole in the skull. Even without the cane, my legs are capable of leg pressing over 1000 pounds. I can certainly kick someone into submission.

To quote the Gunny from Full Metal Jacket, "It's a hard heart that kills."

[glistam]

conwict, a valid point. A lawsuit is possible for anything, as Carl's example points out. I have no hard examples about the outcome of civil matters based on weapon characteristics.

I do have just one example that springs to mind for criminal matters rather than civil. This is the matter I spoke of when I mentioned mens rea, or more specifically, intent inferred by weapon type.

These two cases involve minors with knives found in their lockers at school rather than use of force, but I feel they do illustrate how the type of weapon can affect the court's rulling. It is illegal in Maryland to have "a knife" at school. However, there is not a definition for what a knife is.

In In re Melanie H. 1998, the defendant had a butter knife in her locker. The court found her innocent, because it was clear it was not meant as a weapon, and because they felt a blanket ban on all knives was not the legislative intent, because clearly knives are used to prepare and eat food, and do tasks around schools.

More recently, a young man e-mailed me looking for advice on Maryland knife laws. A CRKT Hissatsu and a Cold Steel Ti-Lite have been discovered in his locker. Of course, I told the dope to get a lawyer through his parents. Nevertheless, he was convicted of having a dangerous weapon on school property because of the styles of these knives.

[conwict]

Yes, and (as much as I disagree with the premise of banning a simple inert object) I don't dispute that legally, the line is often very clear about what's allowed and what isn't. I don't want to use/carry prohibited items.

But, the lawsuit angle is what gets me interested. I think I agree in general not to carry more than what's necessary (no knives with skulls, ball bats with nails, etc, for me)...but I guess I just didn't see how a little wooden dowel or a lead filled leather pouch are going to tilt the scales of justice one way or another, assuming I did my part and was in the clear.

Personally, if I hear "a guy killed a guy with a flashlight" I'm gonna want to know what happened...whether it was a brutal assault or a justified defensive encounter.