Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, a few. Some states allow the use of "force" but not the use of "deadly force" in certain instances. A taser or OC might be allowed under those circumstances, but I couldn't say for sure.Is there any variance from one state to another?
From another thread:
Kleanbore said:In a few jurisdictions, force, but not deadly force, may be used when necessary to terminate trespass. In others, force may not be used at all. In at least two states, the threat of deadly force is now lawful under some circumstances if force is justified, but in most, producing a weapon is only lawful if deadly force is justified.
None that I can immediately call to mind, but I'm certain there are many. Hopefully someone has a few to share.Does anybody know of any specific cases involving a less than lethal device?
Maybe. The penalties are generally pretty close to the same -- felony record, jail time, loss of job/friends/relationships/money, etc. -- only the length of sentence really changes. And, the results are not as assured. Pepper spray is not terribly easy to use and requires very close range, and is often a one-shot deal. Miss and your chances of an effective second strike aren't good. Most tazers (except maybe some of the newest models) are effective ONLY while you're actively engaging the target. When the juice stops flowing, your attacker is right back in the fight, and you've only "paused" the action for a moment. You can't leave while he's twitching. ASPs and other batons require VERY close contact and are only somewhat less-lethal. Plus, they're heavily technique-dependent and require some training to use effectively.One could also argue though that for a "gray area" threat the risk of an assault conviction is far better and cheaper in court than manslaughter or murder. It does seem probable that if a man were verbally threatened by a male of roughly equal size, as in "i'm gona beat your ass", he could argue the use of pepper spray or a tazer was self defense much easier than the brandishing or firing a gun.
So, yes, there could be benefits if a case goes to court, but those aren't guarantees and the detriments seem to outweigh them.
The biggest benefit seems to be in those few jurisdictions which prohibit carrying a firearm but which do allow OC or a Tazer -- or for those individuals who are unlicensed or unwilling to carry a firearm for self-defense for whatever reason.