To carry or not to carry OC Spray, that is the question.

normally don't carry both.

I "should" but I don't. Between gun, ammo, BUG, flashlight, knife, cell-phone (not to mention non-essentials like a wallet, car keys, and sunglasses!) I worry that I'll start to clank as I walk.

I do keep OC spray in the house, in the car, and on my bike. I'm trying to get into the habit of having it while I run (in case of dogs), but not much success yet. I do take it hiking.

OC can be an important "less lethal" non-contact force option, but it has its limitations. For one thing, it gives you an extra decision point, which can cause confusion absent training and practice. For another, I'm very sensitive to it, so it may not make sense to get myself tearing and wheezing--and then find out I have to draw my gun because it didn't work on the attacker.

I carry it on a keychain (Spitfire brand, which was recently bought by Sabre Red) and don't find it to be an overly complicated decision to make. When in doubt, spray . Mostly just for obnoxious people who I would rather not lay hands on and where other force is not warranted. Drunks, rude people, and people who are in your face but not giving serious violence cues.

I also keep a big can of Fox Mean Green attached by velcro to the inner surface (next to the steering column) on the driver's side of my car.

It really fills a niche IMO. Spray-n-leave. I would be less likely to spray someone who represented an immediate physical threat because I am quite confident in my empty hand skills to bridge the gap before lethal force, but I'd be very likely to spray someone in a "simmering" situation where they are just being angry, unreasonable, rude, etc.

A firearms instructor recently told me that one of the three biggest regrets of his life was not having his OC spray on him when he saw a guy "stroking his putz" right on Peachtree (in Atlanta)...

Spray-n-leave.

Click to expand...

I take it you mean spray, leave as you immediately call 911, and then fill out a a full police report on the incident.

I'd be very likely to spray someone in a "simmering" situation where they are just being angry, unreasonable, rude

Click to expand...

I'm sure you mean something different, but your statement seems to imply that you "can" spray someone simply for being rude to you. Spraying someone with OC is (to the limits of my knowledge) at least assault unless justified by SD (reaction to a reasonably perceived illegal threat of immediate physical injury, or actual on-going attack).

LH, I would call 911 as soon as I'm safely off scene. OC is not a standalone solution. Its very nature means you need to evacuate the area. I'm not sure what kind of phone you have but mine takes a good 5-10 seconds of devoted attention to dial a number, from the locked in-pocket state. NOT happening if I need to leave the area, until I'm safe, which could be a matter of minutes.

I have never sprayed someone just for being rude, but verbal assault is a common and well-known precursor to physical assault, so it could trip a warning bell that merits OC. It would depend on the situation of course. A "simmering" situation where OC use is merited, to me, would be one where I attempted to verbally de-escalate (where possible) and/or leave and was unable to.

The distinction between immediate violence and imminent violence is not a legal distinction for me, but rather a personal one. If I really do think I am about to get hit, like right this second, I wouldn't default to OC. If I have reason to believe that the situation will further escalate to that point, I will consider OC use.

After a very informal survey of cases readily available on Google, where criminal charges were or were not filed, it appears a common charge is criminal mischief or criminal nuisance for misusers of pepper spray.

There are some documented justified uses of OC against groups, and some where charges are filed against those using it against groups, even by police. A "wannabe superhero" was charged because he was operating under a mistaken assumption that a fight was going on and sprayed a group. The reason I bring up groups is in some cases the groups clearly did not pose an actual immediate literal threat to the sprayer, but were acting in a way that led the sprayer to think that before he or she could fully disengage, physical harm may have occurred.

Basically like many things it comes down to your ability to articulate why you felt threatened, your own involvement or lack of involvement in escalating (everyone I turned up who was "arguing" and sprayed the other person was charged, although in some cases a more direct physical assault accompanied the spraying) the conflict, and whether your own reading and articulation of the situation passes the behavior standard of a reasonable person in your shoes, etc.

That said, the informal survey does confirm that OC is a nice option for lower risk situations, and to prevent lower risk situations from escalating further when your de-escalation options are exhausted, as you are unlikely to get more than a slap on the wrist, fine-only misdemeanor. I'm sure there are exceptions but like many legal issues it's a matter of degree, so if you are not involved in escalation, and you use common sense, to me it makes sense to use OC if possible instead of default to other more legally repercussive modes of force.

To spray, or not to spray

A firearms instructor recently told me that one of the three biggest regrets of his life was not having his OC spray on him when he saw a guy "stroking his putz" right on Peachtree (in Atlanta)...

Click to expand...

IMO, spraying the "stroker" in the face, might be considered assault by some. However, if I witnessed this act, and my grandchildren were in tow, I would be tempted to spray the stroker in the "putz". I wonder what effect OC would have on the genitals?


Packing both a pistol, and chemical force brings up an interesting, and confusing dilemma. It is called the Use of force continuum.

This continuum is used by the cops, and military.

Lets just say one is out walking his pet duck, and someones pet tiger runs out looking for a meal. Do you spray first, or go for the firearm? Using the OC might upset the tiger, and both you and the duck are lunch. Shoot the tiger, and one might find themselves looking at a criminal case because they didn't use the OC first. Or, you might just walk away. Interesting.

Civilians and most cops are no longer bound by an actual use of force continuum. Having options along a continuum from nonlethal to lethal is not a bad idea, but that is not the same as being bound by such a continuum, or needing to escalate in a particular pre-determined way.

I've sprayed both humans and dogs that I would not have been comfortable shooting. It was nice having the option. Even while all my sprayings have been on duty, I still believe in carrying off duty as well.

In my state, using OC offensively is a misdemeanor. So.... in the event the authorities do not feel you were facing a valid threat, drawing a pistol could get you an aggravated assault. Whereas having your pepper use deemed inappropriate would result in a simple battery. I am not suggesting either of these are pleasant outcomes. I am saying that, when faced with a lesser set of consequences, one might be less inclined to second guess themselves in regards to taking SD action.

Basically like many things it comes down to your ability to articulate why you felt threatened

Click to expand...

Right. Which is why I pointed to your articulation of "a 'simmering' situation where they are just being angry, unreasonable, rude, etc." Not sure that's enough articulation to forestall criminal charges, but YMMV.

Rory Miller and others have spoken about the idea that we should avoid "training to go to jail."

I would be tempted to spray the stroker in the "putz". I wonder what effect OC would have on the genitals?

Click to expand...

Why don't you try it on yourself and see?

We'd all be tempted--are you tempted enough to go to jail? I think we in general recognize that cops are given more leeway in use of force than private citizens; but do you know of any cop who would be found justified in doing what you have suggested? If not, why would you be justified?

Civilians and most cops are no longer bound by an actual use of force continuum.

Click to expand...

Failed to get that memo rescinding the force continuum. Maybe you could post it?

Until then (and a confirming conversation with a lawyer or two) I'll assume the SD jurisprudence of the last few decades--and centuries--hasn't suddenly evaporated. Even if you tell me your google searches "prove" it.

in the event the authorities do not feel you were facing a valid threat, drawing a pistol could get you an aggravated assault. Whereas having your pepper use deemed inappropriate would result in a simple battery.

Click to expand...

I understand. But we should be careful to avoid even the vaguest appearence of saying, "Of these two assault crimes, I'd recommend committing this one!"

We might turn around your statement: since you won't "second-guess" yourself about pepper-spray, it may cause you to fail to make an even better choice (as a private citizen, not LEO): just leave.

I am glad your encounters turned out okay. I had one time that I didn't spray a dog--and it quickly became clear that I should have!

Loosedhorse said:

Failed to get that memo rescinding the force continuum. Maybe you could post it?

Until then (and a confirming conversation with a lawyer or two) I'll assume the SD jurisprudence of the last few decades--and centuries--hasn't suddenly evaporated. Even if you tell me your google searches "prove" it.

Click to expand...

"Use of force continuum" refers to department-specific models. They are not and never have been binding to civilians, regardless of whether any particular civilian's lawyer may have referred to one in a court case or not.

They are sometimes a stair-step model and sometimes a "gauge" model, and each new level corresponds to level of resistance or fighting by a suspect.

Police departments in the past had some issues since the UOFC models were considered binding (whether correctly, or incorrectly, by individual officers), and for the most part, they are now suggestive in nature, with force use left up to officer discretion, which makes sense as if they were binding, officer safety would be compromised due to the fact that they were entirely reactive to the suspect's own use of force and allowed only minimal application of judgment by the officer.

You and the other fellow were using the term colloquially.

"Use of force continuum" refers to department-specific models.

Click to expand...

Not exclusively. The concepts apply well to private citizen encounters.

There is "command presence" and "command voice", for example--both concepts from the force continuum. These are important elements for non-LE, as (unless, while using "command voice," you threaten physical violence) use of this level of force does not contain any elements of a crime.

Next is usually empty-handed contact force, which is generally considered non-lethal force (unless you are a "trained-to-kill" "my hands are lethal weapons" martial artist, of course). Use of such force usually contains the elements of the crimes of simple assault and battery, and so justification must be present.

Next comes the use of non-lethal (or less lethal) tools, which might include kubotan, OC spray, or electonic stun device. Jurisdictions vary, but use of a tool can up the ante to some elevated (aggravated) form of assault and battery.

Finally, there is lethal force, which typically includes the use of per-se lethal weapons (bludgeon, knife, and gun) and de facto lethal weapons (like the shod foot in the right circumstances). Use of these weapons will usually buy you assault with a deadly, if not attempted murder.

As we go up the force continuum, we need to also go up the justification continuum. If you think that is not true for private citizens, you are wrong.

You and the other fellow were using the term colloquially.

Click to expand...

No, I am using it precisely and correctly. You are claiming that it has only one, exclusive correct use, (yours, coincidentally ), but it has more.

There is no "the" or single use of force continuum, and the concept applies much more as policy to LEO than it does to civilians as a legal concept. The concept of appropriate force, and the concept of a force continuum, are related but not interchangeable. It's not "my" definition, it's a formal policy concept of police departments. That is the main way it's used, and other uses are confusing and unnecessary since there's a better and less confusing term to refer to the concept you are referring to.

colloquial, adj. characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing; informal.

You were using the informal definition, thus colloquial. Why muddy the waters by using a term pretty much reserved for LEOs when "appropriate force" is more appropriate, and less confusing?

Where is the ignore button on THR? :banghead:

Edit: found it.

You were using the informal definition, thus colloquial

Click to expand...

No. I was using the formal definition. Just not YOUR formal definition.

Would you like me to give you the definition of the word YOUR, or can you handle that?

Why muddy the waters by using a term pretty much reserved for LEOs when "appropriate force" is more appropriate, and less confusing?

Click to expand...

I don't find it confusing--I find it clarifying. If you find it confusing, fine. But "conwict finds it confusing" is not the definition of "colloquial," as you are so kind to point out.

So why muddy the waters by using "colloquial"?

BTW, the active term for private citizen SD is not "appropriate force," but "equal force." Formally.

I carry an ASP Street Defender whenever I leave the house. It's a handy way to carry keys (with the Defender tucked under the belt) and it offers the option of an impact weapon, using the keys as a makeshift flail, or the Defender as a kubotan) as well as pepper spray. I've carried one or another of the ASP OC products for some years now, and usually buy a new one every couple or three years and replace the cartridge every year. There's a 'test' or training cartridge available as well, to get the hang of how it works without distressing anyone.

http://asp-usa.com/product-catalog/aerosol-protection/street-defenders/

I don't carry OC spray. Ironically, that came after deciding to get some training on the use of OC spray before carrying it.

The training (which probably isn't as credible as I thought it was at the time... but I digress) on OC spray is what convinced me not to carry it. Too likely to spray myself in the process of deploying it, in my opinion.

That's just my two cents.

Good point. I suppose right now, my wife and I are in the class of "should carry it but don't." And she's a former LEO (also rather big and strong, as women go, and really likes the ASP baton). I've seen even commercials for pepper spray that tended to turn me off of the stuff.

Seems to me there are lots of places where it would be too easy to spray oneself. It reminds me of the warning on spray paint cans: "Use in well ventilated area." If attacked in an elevator, inside a car, in a small room, or perhaps just having the attacker come at you from upwind, I can foresee problems.

You'd have to make your decision based not only on the situation, but also on the environment. Gives you more to think about.


OK, I know, none of us advocates "chemical assault," but I'm visualing the "stroker" getting sprayed in the putz. Wouldn't you like to be a bug on the wall while Stroker makes his Police report about how he got pepper sprayed in that part of his body and at that particular time and place?

Hamilton Felix said:

OK, I know, none of us advocates "chemical assault," but I'm visualing the "stroker" getting sprayed in the putz. Wouldn't you like to be a bug on the wall while Stroker makes his Police report about how he got pepper sprayed in that part of his body and at that particular time and place?

Click to expand...

If I were to spray him, I would simply tell the officer that it was a "spray or be sprayed" situation.

If I were to spray him, I would simply tell the officer that it was a "spray or be sprayed" situation.

Click to expand...

ROTFLOL! I love it!

I don't carry it and won't. I used to have to get sprayed annually as part of my qualification to carry OC as an MP. This qual entailed being sprayed in the face and then preforming multiple police skills fighting open handed, fighting with an ASP and given verbal commands to a suspect. I never saw anyone fail this evolution and it made me lose confidence in OC. The real kicker of this whole thing is that while I was sprayed annually I was never once issued OC...My point is while OC is extremely aggravating it will not stop a determined individual.

That's exactly the kind of training I received, Madwell.

Mine also included operating a cell phone after being sprayed and other tasks like that. I guess it was reputable training after all...

Still, it did convince me not to carry OC spray.

OC may not incapacitate a determined attacker. But it sure slows them down in my experience.

Wasn't it just a little harder for both of you to complete those actions after being sprayed?

Its a lot easier to defend yourself against someone who's having trouble breathing and keeping their eyes open. That's why I have my keys on an ASP key defender. Been carrying one in my waistband for about 10 years with no unintentional discharges.

I think if Harold Fish had bear spray along with his 10mm it would have saved him a lot of heartache.

No doubt it slowed me down but every group I observed going through the training had at least one person who was for lack of a better word was unaffected by the OC. The other thing I know is that OC Jacks me up making it harder for me to fight, and secondary contamination is a common thing when using OC.

I think OC os a good tool and has it's place. It's just not part of my personal defense plan.

During my training, it was painful, irritating and frustrating.

It made me clumsier, which was especially a problem when I was trying to operate the cell phone (simulating calling 911 after deploying the pepper spray and accidentally spraying myself, for instance).

I /WAS/ still able to fight unarmed, with a contact weapon (knife, asp, etc.), and even able to deploy a blue gun while shouting verbal commands.

I had actually never stopped to think of it in the manner that Madwell is presenting it, but he's right. If I were intending someone harm, and they were to deploy pepper spray or pepper foam on me, I would still be more than capable of causing them harm, and I would also be much, much angrier than before.

My reason for deciding against OC was because I'd rather not carry around the risk of spraying myself in the process of deploying it defensively. I'd rather not carry decon wipes around with me. I'd rather not... etc. etc. I just would rather not have it around!