Is a Laser deadly force?

Being blinded by a laser doesn't qualify as a "deadly force". Something else is still needed to cause "fatal injuries".

I searched for this and turns out, Andrew Branca voices in. Lasers powerful enough to cause blindness do fall under the great bodily harm criteria of deadly force. However, there are avoidance considerations. Covering your face, turning away etc. So it boils down to an untested grey area. The transcript of the show is long so I won't paste the whole thing in here.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/news-qa-show-july-24-2020/

I "think" what you are asking is would this justify using deadly force if someone comes at you with the laser? If so, to me, in my opinion, YES. If someone is trying to permanently blind me, and I can not get away from them I would have zero problems using deadly force to stop them from harming me or mine.
Now if you do this the standard warnings apply. I am not a lawyer, did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so can not give legal advice. The only advice is the same one I give for ANY time someone used a gun to defend themselves. DO NOT try to plead your case to the Police who respond. They are not there to give you advice or help you. Say "lawyer" and keep your mouth shut until you speak with one. It is nothing short of amazing how many people can not do this. Every time you read of someone who gets into hot water over a shoot they seem to have one thing in common. They could not shut up when the Police started asking questions.

Someone 1) has the means and 2) repeat #1, to completely eliminate your most precious sense, sight, and there is even a debate on whether or not that's a serious grave injury? Great bodily harm? Reasonably feared to be crippled for the rest of your life?

Using the grave injury/great bodily/crippled definitions, I can see where the attorney stated, YES

Read the above arguments and thought to myself - I sure wouldn't want to be the guy that was the first "test case", having shot someone that shined a laser at me (and yes, I've actually been clearly targeted by a homeowner with lazer , unknown if it was attached to a weapon, while working a night charter a few years ago..). NO, I didn't respond except to display the standard naval gesture of defiance... I must admit that particular homeowner did make me a bit cautious as I fished folks behind his house... Actually did that last night just after midnight - but that's another story...

Remember if an attorney says he (or she) will stand up in court for you... They aren't the ones that will have to face the judge...

In Iowa, the use of deadly force is justified in defense against an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Permanent damage to the eyes would certainly qualify as "serious bodily injury". Like any other self defense situation, the extenuating circumstances better support your actions or you are probably going to prison.

It's not "deadly force",,,
But it dang sure is "great bodily harm".

That's enough to justify a response with a fiery-arm.

Aarond

.

A laser could also have a gun attached to it.
So are you going to wait for the person to point it in your eye to make sure it's one of those lasers that makes you go blind or wait and see if the laser is attached to something that goes bang?

Note that this is not a hypothetical question. Rioters in Portland have used high-energy lasers against federal agents and local police.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25E0P8

and

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...by-lasers-pointed-at-them-in-portland-wh/amp/

It would appear that one or more of these rioters is asking to be a "test case".

You cannot turn away or cover your face quick enough to avoid the damage from a high enough powered laser. Laser blinding weapons were banned by international treaty as it was thought that permanent blinding can be more devastating over the long run to someone than a survivable gun shot.

This issue is under serious discussion in police circles on how to respond to such lasers in crowds. If the user is embedded in a large group, returning gunfire is problematic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/11/photos-lasers-discontent/602263/

https://www.police1.com/federal-law...s-at-protest-may-be-blinded-vF8xB47hVvvFovc5/

It would up to your attorney to deal with the charge. If it's a kid, who knows how that will play.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/10/us/toy-laser-gun-brings-death-to-a-teen-ager.html

david58 said:

Is a Laser deadly force?

Click to expand...

Is mace deadly force? Since it provides an otherwise incapable attacked with a huge advantage, it sounds like it can be.

A Taser? Same story.

I guess it depends on context. If an attacker is using a laser as suppressive fire to approach my position with a contact weapon, Yes.

If my neighbor's ignant child is continuing the family tradition of truancy and disturbing the peace, No.

Edit: if I have a good reason to believe the laser is attached to a firearm, Yes.

david58 said:

For $199, you can buy a 50W laser, which will burn, cut, and blind, and fit in a shirt pocket. Flashlight sized.

Shined in your eye, instant and likely permanent damage, up to and including blindness.

If someone blinds you, they can pretty much have their way with you. You are defenseless at that point. So, if a person is lighting you up with a laser, attempting to do you harm, what do you do?

Click to expand...

First of all, gimme a link to this laser. Is this a CNC laser, or one specifically modified to be hand held?

I have two, a 1W and a 2W.

No I wanna 50W.

Second, yes. It's a class IV laser, which can cause eye damage with the briefest of exposure. That's permanent. That's maiming. So this non-attorney's opinion is "yes".

PRE-POSTING EDIT:

I googled this. I'm finding it difficult to believe that the 50W hand held lasers I've looked at are really capable of pumping out 50 Watts of power. Using the batteries they do? And the heat that would be generated in that small of a device? Not likely a NUBM44 laser. I did see one that MIGHT be in the power range, but it most certainly wasn't in the $200 range.

herrwalther said:

I searched for this and turns out, Andrew Branca voices in. Lasers powerful enough to cause blindness do fall under the great bodily harm criteria of deadly force. However, there are avoidance considerations. Covering your face, turning away etc. So it boils down to an untested grey area. The transcript of the show is long so I won't paste the whole thing in here.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/news-qa-show-july-24-2020/

Click to expand...

For Class IV lasers, even the briefest of exposures will cause permanent eye damage. You cannot blink fast enough to avoid that damage, much less turn your head or raise a hand in time to avoid it.

Kleanbore said:

If it creates a substantial risk of great bodily harm, it is deadly force, by definition.

Click to expand...

Then why do the statutes always say something like,,,
"Fear of imminent death or great bodily harm."

Both are justification for an extreme response,,,
But they are not the same thing.

And just stating, yes they are, doesn't make them so.

Aarond

.

This parallels long legal discussions of lethal force used to stop rape. The debate was that if you didn't think you were to be killed, was a forced sexual sufficient to use lethal force. The argument was that even if there was not long lasting physical damage (unlike laser blinding), the long lasting psychological damage was grievous enough to allow lethal force.

Current legal views in most of the world accepts lethal force to prevent rape or sexual assault.

Just looking at statutes, I'd say yes, it is a deadly force situation. Like others mentioned, I would not want to be the test case.

Texas Penal Code:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Sec. 9.32. A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force

I have responded with deadly force to having a laser pointed at me, I just had the rather safe case (at least legally speaking) that said laser was attached to the bottom of a Glock pistol.

GEM said:

This parallels long legal discussions of lethal force used to stop rape. The debate was that if you didn't think you were to be killed, was a forced sexual sufficient to use lethal force. The argument was that even if there was not long lasting physical damage (unlike laser blinding), the long lasting psychological damage was grievous enough to allow lethal force.

Current legal views in most of the world accepts lethal force to prevent rape or sexual assault.

Click to expand...

That argument is a load of legal tripe, the kind which attorneys are paid to make in court for their client when they argue a case.

Rape is, by definition, "assault". SEXUAL ASSAULT IS STILL ASSAULT.

What is the difference between forcible sexual assault and a physical beat down? There is none, in my book.

On cannot simply enter into any given assault (sexual or otherwise) and ASSUME the outcome is going to be a lack of serious bodily harm or death.

The question to be answered in any case in which deadly force is used is whether or not "reasonable force" was used. And each case must be judged on its own merits when it comes to this, because each case is different in all the details which make it up.

Which means that a verdict in one particular case does not mean the same verdict will be reached in another case, even if similar.

That argument is a load of legal tripe, the kind which attorneys are paid to make in court for their client when they argue a case.

Click to expand...

That may be the case but read the scholarly works on the development of the use of lethal force, the sexual assault issue was debated for years in that literature. Look at spousal rape, think that wasn't a debate if it was even illegal?

About entering an assault and assuming the outcome justifies legal force? Most penal codes have gradations of force beyond 'any given assault' to allow lethal force.

You may think this arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin but as Frank points out the law is more complicated than gut feeling.

Given the number of rapes that are also homicides... I'd expect the law (and decisions arising from it in court) has leaned in favor of the victim in this kind of situation...as far as using deadly force to defend from that kind of assault. I'll certainly defer to the lawyers on this board for a proper response...

In my years of on the street enforcement I only came on one rape in progress - and that was actually after the fact with an armed very drunken perpetrator semi passed out in a car and a young victim without a stitch of clothing too terrified to even move. The gun involved, a cheap saturday night special, was on the floor of the car within an inch or two of the subject's open hand... I called for back-up as I removed the victim from the car then we didn't try to awaken the subject - as my back-up opened the driver's door I dove in from the passenger side and just shoved him as hard as I could out of the car and onto the street. I was scared that any other action might allow him to reach that gun - even if his pants were down around his ankles...

What gave me the shakes afterwards was that I'd walked up on the car without the slightest idea what I'd found by myself late at night parked in a residential area. I was telling the girl to get dressed when without saying a word she made a hand sign indicating the driver was armed... That could have turned out a lot differently than it did... Later that evening the victim declined to prosecute after learning that her parents would have to learn that she wasn't exactly a virgin at age 15 - but that was the law here in Florida back in the seventies... and hard working sexual assault detectives were quick to quit working on anything that might never go to court...

As far as lasers go I've actually been targeted by a laser on one occasion late at night by someone in a house we were fishing behind (a night charter, something I've been doing for many years with one or two anglers in a small skiff down here in paradise... we fish around bridges and docklights behind big houses on the water) -west side of Miami Beach -places where the electric bill would be more than a monthly mortgage payment for us mortals.... I have no idea whether that laser was attached to a weapon but we'd have been an easy target 100 feet from the house... I never reported it and last night that same house was one of the docklights we visited - just after midnight... Lasers that can actually blind are problematic - but I'd want to see an eye doctor's report after a thorough exam before signing off on a cop's actually having seriously damaged vision in recent riot situations...Just too much incentive to stretch the truth on either side of that question right now... I know a bit about that sort of stuff since my son was disabled out of the service not long ago with serious vision problems after a closed brain injury on the job....

As far as use of a powerful laser as a deadly weapon in court... I sure wouldn't want to be a "test case" for a shooting in response to a laser attack. Not very comforting when you know that no matter how great your lawyers are they're expensive - and not one of them is facing the penalty in front of a judge if a jury convicts...