Carrying a Less-Than-Lethal Weapon in Addition to a Firearm?

[Kynoch]

I have been thinking a lot lately about carrying a less-than-lethal (LTL) weapon (such as pepper spray) in addition to a concealed firearm. Thinking about it in terms of my own safety and from a legal standpoint.

Though my life I have found myself, my family and/or my friends in more than a few situations where there was a threat of physical violence from aggressor(s). In a few cases the threat was realized. Thankfully the aggressor(s) have received worse than they have given, at least thus far.

In none of those situations did I feel my life or the lives of any of my family/friends were ever remotely in danger. On the other hand until the adrenaline got pumping I've felt concern a number of times that one or more of us were going to be physically assaulted. Some suggest one cannot make such a distinction on the fly. I vehemently disagree with that belief although it might be true of some with absolutely no street smarts.

Only a fool draws their firearm to "scare" someone away without the intent to shoot them if they do not back down. Only a fool draws a weapon with the intent of firing a warning shot or heaven forbid "to shoot the aggressor in the leg." Not one time did I encounter a situation where I felt it would have been prudent to draw my firearm. Not even close.

In some cases had things gone differently, I might have been forced to draw my weapon. Not because I was afraid for my life based on a potential beating from the assailant. Rather, a concern that a wrestling match could end with the assailant getting control of my weapon and using it on me and/or my family/friends.

All that said would it be best to train-on and carry a LTL weapon in addition to a concealed firearm? I can think of more than one time where I would appreciated having that option. Just spray away and then bug-out. Explain it to law enforcement once I was out of harm's way.

Has anyone else pondered this question at length? Have any of you made use of an LTL weapon like pepper spray while also carrying a firearm? I know LEO's do it all the time, but I have read little about private citizens doing so. I would appreciate any insights.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Look at the non-firearms weapons forum. Many of us are carrying heavy 'walking canes' when we travel or go into the bad part of town. You can always have the option of whacking the bad guy in the leg rather than using deadly force. Besides, canes are legal everywhere, even on airplanes.

 

[DNS]

I'm pushing fifty with a bad wrist, knee and ankle so running and fighting are not happening.

Yes, i carry pepper spray as an alternative to physically having to defend myself. Never needed it but it can be reassuring to have in your hand with your car keys. I got them for my wife and daughter too since non lethal defense is a good option for everyone.

If your old enough to pull it off a person could also use one of those zap canes.

 

[hso]

You'd refer to having more options than a gun as having more than one tool in the defensive tool kit or being able to have to tools to put a force continuum into use.

Many of us think it is foolish to just have one defensive response.

 

[Owen Sparks]

A cane in hand can be put into action faster than a concealed handgun.

 

[Kynoch]

Thanks for the input. The is good stuff -- especially the cane. I hope there is more...

 

[hso]

Training is important for any weapon, lethal or less-lethal, whether it be the simple training to use pepper spray or the more extensive training of a martial arts tool.

Whether you carry sprays, canes or tasers you should at least have the basic training to put them to use with minimum effect.

 

[glistam]

I definitely agree with this idea. I personally do not think anyone should ever have just one tool in the "toolbox" as hso often puts it. No one weapon or tool is appropriate for all defensive situations.

 

[Bikewer]

This is the reason we police officers carry a variety of tools. It's to give us additional steps between "hand-to-hand-combat" and "gun".

Pepper spray can be mighty effective, and has far fewer legal repercussions than does the firearm.

 

[Sam1911]

...and has far fewer legal repercussions than does the firearm.

With respect, this is completely untrue and dangerous to believe.

One of the problems with less-than-lethal (or "less lethal") weapons is that the threshold of legal justification for their use is not substantively different from the threshold for use of deadly force.

Non-sworn citizens don't have a "force pyramid" like a police officer does. They have no (or very little) situations where they are allowed to use force on another person. They don't have the authority to force compliance, or make an arrest. They can ONLY use force to stop an unlawful attack. If an attack is happening, the threshold for deadly force is crossed. (In almost all cases.)

(Yes, there are places where the use of force to defend property or some other need is lawful, but deadly force isn't. They are few and I'm not getting into that dangerous territory.)

It is ALWAYS good to have more than one option for defending yourself, but the primary benefit of less-than-lethal weapons in the hands of a citizen is for carry where they are legal but deadly weapons are not legal. And there aren't many places like that.

I can think of more than one time where I would appreciated having that option. Just spray away and then bug-out. Explain it to law enforcement once I was out of harm's way.

The problem there is that if you weren't faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, you've just assaulted someone, which is a felony. If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm.

The risk is in believing that, because your weapon is less-lethal, you can use it under broader circumstances. And that's just not so.

 

[Kynoch]

With respect, this is completely untrue and dangerous to believe.

One of the problems with less-than-lethal (or "less lethal") weapons is that the threshold of legal justification for their use is not substantively different from the threshold for use of deadly force.

Non-sworn citizens don't have a "force pyramid" like a police officer does. They have no (or very little) situations where they are allowed to use force on another person. They don't have the authority to force compliance, or make an arrest. They can ONLY use force to stop an unlawful attack. If an attack is happening, the threshold for deadly force is crossed. (In almost all cases.)

(Yes, there are places where the use of force to defend property or some other need is lawful, but deadly force isn't. They are few and I'm not getting into that dangerous territory.)

It is ALWAYS good to have more than one option for defending yourself, but the primary benefit of less-than-lethal weapons in the hands of a citizen is for carry where they are legal but deadly weapons are not legal. And there aren't many places like that.

Actually that's not true. First, please don't suggest I am promoting the cavalier use of LTL weapons. I'm not. Their use is not a trivial matter. No matter how you spin it though, someone shooting an assailant in self defense is going to face a FAR different reality than someone who pepper-sprayed an assailant or someone who was able to knock them out their canes. That's not disputable.

Further, even in locations that do allow one to carry I am convinced that one or more legal LTL weapons make an invaluable part of a defense system.

The problem there is that if you weren't faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, you've just assaulted someone, which is a felony. If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm

The risk is in believing that, because your weapon is less-lethal, you can use it under broader circumstances. And that's just not so.

Absolutely, positively, no way. It's simply not true to suggest an individual cannot be faced with an "realistic, immediate threat" without fear for their lives. I've seen many suggest there is "no time" to make the differentiation" and that's just not true for me, although for others with absolutely no street smarts it might possibly be.

Others suggest that even if one faced immanent attack and honestly felt no threat to their lives that they should draw because it's legally justified. (Please no chest-thumping about how the safest thing to do is just to clear leather and fire.) Legal or not it doesn't seem as though it would always be the moral thing to do. The one complicating factor of course is that a fight could always lead to the assailant getting hold of one's firearm and using it on the concealed carrier.

 

[hso]

If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm.

Sam,

I gotta disagree. Using a spray to help you break away to avoid having to resort to a lethal weapon is a valid reason to use a less lethal defensive tool without knowing that your life was threatened, but being assured that you were at risk of assault and bodily harm that might or might not represent a threat to your life.

LE have an obligation to use a force pyramid, but as citizens we have no obligation to risk a beating because we're not convinced that our life is threatened.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps I'm overstating the matter (or oversimplifying it) then. If so, I apologize.

What I'm getting at is that there are instances where force is justified, as distinct from deadly force. However, that is tricky ground. The rules for such are different from state to state, and speaking very generally (and I know NOT to the law in every state) the threshold for applying force (but not deadly force) is very close to the threshold for use of deadly force.

I do not count on being able to operate in the slim margin between the two. As laudible a goal as NOT SHOOTING someone is, I practice situational awareness, avoidence, de-escalation, and all means of not engaging in violence. If forced into a violent encounter that I cannot escape from, I have every reason to believe my life is in danger, and drawing a weapon is a reasonable response.

Spraying someone with pepper spray, Tasing them, or striking them with a baton (a really knotty issue itself), (or, for that matter, punching or kicking them) is still felonious assault, and you have to have an articulable reason for why you HAD to do that. It cannot simply be that you felt they were threatening, or that they did not comply with your request, even your request for them to go away and leave you alone. The bad guy has to have done or attempted to do something specific, harmful, and unlawful to you for you to justify your assault on him -- whether it was just assault or assault with a deadly weapon.

Kynoch, you said:

In none of those situations did I feel my life or the lives of any of my family/friends were ever remotely in danger. On the other hand until the adrenaline got pumping I've felt concern a number of times that one or more of us were going to be physically assaulted. Some suggest one cannot make such a distinction on the fly. I vehemently disagree with that belief although it might be true of some with absolutely no street smarts.

Only a fool draws their firearm to "scare" someone away without the intent to shoot them if they do not back down. Only a fool draws a weapon with the intent of firing a warning shot or heaven forbid "to shoot the aggressor in the leg." Not one time did I encounter a situation where I felt it would have been prudent to draw my firearm. Not even close.

If you "aren't even close" to drawing your weapon, and you are not even "remotely" concerned that the lives of you or any of your family/party are in danger, then you should not be considering using any form of force.

Now, if you're saying that you were actually being attacked, that's a different matter. If you can break away, you should break away and de-escalate. If you are unable to retreat to safety, it would appear to me that you are in fear for your life. If you are attacked while carrying a gun, you're in a fight with a gun -- i.e. a GUNfight -- IMHO, you HAVE to draw that weapon in order to retain it. Whether you must shoot or not depends on the actions of the attacker in the next instant.

I do not actually mean to say DO NOT avail yourself of these options. Of course, any encounter where someone DIDN'T die (and in fact, where you didn't have to draw your sidearm) is a victory. My caution is that these things are often treated with casualness that is wrongheaded and unlawful. These aren't tools to help you win a fistfight. They are to stop an assault and prevent grevious injury or death. Just like a firearm.

 

[hso]

However, that is tricky ground.

Sure is. We understand that when we're in fear for our lives that lethal force is justified by the law, but it is much less clear when force is justified without the fear of death. That's the sticky part. The law doesn't require you to let yourself be subjected to an assault.

I'd much rather a chemical defensive spray be used when force, but not lethal force was justified.

 

[Sam1911]

I'd much rather a chemical defensive spray be used when force, but not lethal force was justified.

Well, I sure would, too! Maybe we should discuss exactly where the boundaries lie? That might help focus the conversation.

Under what conditions would you say you are in fear of grevious injury -- sufficient to pepper-spray an assailant -- but not justified in firing a handgun?

 

[Kynoch]

Perhaps I'm overstating the matter (or oversimplifying it) then. If so, I apologize.

What I'm getting at is that there are instances where force is justified, as distinct from deadly force. However, that is tricky ground. The rules for such are different from state to state, and speaking very generally (and I know NOT to the law in every state) the threshold for applying force (but not deadly force) is very close to the threshold for use of deadly force.

No worries about your comments...

The ground exists though. One of the main reasons I posted this thread is because where I live, it's very difficult to get a CCW permit. I know quite a few people that have been denied. One of the first things I ask them is if they have trained and carry a LTL weapon? To a person, none of them do. That is a very eye-opening piece of information to me.

I do not count on being able to operate in the slim margin between the two. As laudible a goal as NOT SHOOTING someone is, I practice situational awareness, avoidence, de-escalation, and all means of not engaging in violence. If forced into a violent encounter that I cannot escape from, I have every reason to believe my life is in danger, and drawing a weapon is a reasonable response.

I do. It's something I train for.

If you "aren't even close" to drawing your weapon, and you are not even "remotely" concerned that the lives of you or any of your family/party are in danger, then you should not be considering using any form of force.

That's not what I said. I said despite the immanent threat of physical harm, I did not fear for my life. You are trying to gloss over that critical point -- the instant one chooses to flee or fight and the means in which they choose to flee or fight.

It's not as simplistic as you want to make it sound. You're trying to boil down to a black and white flee (always choice #1 if possible) or shoot and it's simply not always that simple in real life.

 

[Kynoch]

Well, I sure would, too! Maybe we should discuss exactly where the boundaries lie? That might help focus the conversation.

Under what conditions would you say you are in fear of grevious injury -- sufficient to pepper-spray an assailant -- but not justified in firing a handgun?

That's very difficult to define. It's more an instinct honed from coming in contact with a whole lot of different people in one's life. I can certainly give examples but I don't think I could define the exact boundaries in all cases.

 

[hso]

That's a sliding scale issue and can be a slippery slope (see what I did there, huh, huh).

Why should I have to gauge the difference between a slap in the face, a poke in the nose or a full on fight? A slap in the face may not produce permanent harm, but having had my nose broken and paid for the surgery to make it more functional after years of unpleasantness I'm personally aware of the consequences of a busted trunk. I'd happily pepper spray some guy to keep that from happening again (although I seriously doubt I'll ever end up in a situation that I'd have time to deploy a spray that I wouldn't extract myself from before it got that far, but I've been surprised by life before). The point is that making a gun and deadly force your only option between a busted nose/teeth/head and life and death leaves you unable to deal with the range of hostile behavior you might encounter.

We talk about awareness, avoidance, deescalation, withdrawing before using deadly force, but there is a continuum of responses to threats that aren't obviously lethal (but are injurious) that are justifiable. If I do all the things we preach to avoid a violent conflict and still find myself under the threat of a violent assault that I don't know is life threatening and justifying of a lethal force response I have the ability to defend myself and the legal right to do so.

 

[gym]

Is a knife considered LTL? Close up they can be handier than a gun if used properlly.Also quieter and faster, "again if used properlly". I have always carried a folder, but have thought about a slim combat knife, carried in the waistband. Practice with it and you can easily become quite good, from a strike to a more deadlly move in under a second.
Close up a knife can be deadlier than a gun or used to buy you time to escape or get to your gun as you aquire distance.
I never liked sprays because of the wind factor, and the possibility that the person may not be bothered by certain types. No one is going to grab a two sided combat knife from you if you spend a little time each week doing a bit of work or instruction on the proper use and stratagies.

 

[scar_47]

I've never heard of a jurisdiction where a knife wasn't considered a lethal weapon, most jurisdiction's include the baton as a lethal weapon as well. I think theres a place for LTL if you cannot ccw for whatever reason but the standards for legally deploying a LTL weapon makes them fairly useless if you can ccw.

 

[Valkman]

Yea I wouldn't consider a knife LTL or a cane for that matter since you can definitely kill someone with it. Mine came with a warning not to hit someone in the head as you may kill them, so of course that's what I'll be aiming for!

 

[Kynoch]

I've never heard of a jurisdiction where a knife wasn't considered a lethal weapon, most jurisdiction's include the baton as a lethal weapon as well. I think theres a place for LTL if you cannot ccw for whatever reason but the standards for legally deploying a LTL weapon makes them fairly useless if you can ccw.

Wrong. I wonder a great deal about that mindset too. If one is legally able to carry a concealed weapon that does not render an LTL weapon "useless." If anything, a person who chooses to carry a firearm should be even more keen with the idea of also carrying an LTL weapon.

I say "more keen" because I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would fairly comfortable fighting my way out of a corner (unless I could escape first), unless I had a gun. If I had I might be very worried that my assailant might get control of it during a fight and use it on me.

So if I cannot escape, if I have no LTL because I previously decreed them "worthless" because I had have a gun and if I am paranoid about having my gun used on me, I am left with one option. That's bad form.

 

[hso]

Is a knife considered LTL?

Nope

 

[JShirley]

Yeah, I also have a rare instance of disagreement with Sam.

If someone approached you, giving a threat of assault, but not necessarily grievous assault, a stick, pepper spray, or Taser would be justifiable force, but firearm or knife might not be.

On the other hand, if someone clearly poses a (potentially) lethal threat- you see a crowd running towards you waving machetes, screaming "Die!" for instance- there is clear justification for immediate use of lethal force. There are a lot of gray areas, and someone with only a firearm may be reluctant to bring it into action when force but not lethal force is justified.

Example: someone doesn't like the way you look, as you innocently shop at Target. You are followed into the parking lot by one or more individuals uttering threats of physical but not lethal force. With a stick or OC spray, you can engage. With a firearm, you choose between deploying while NOT facing what appears to be a lethal/grievous threat, or not deploying, being beaten until you can't choose, and then hoping it's only a beating, and that your firearm and/or life aren't taken in the process.

Option 2 is pure foolishness, and anyone who says "all or nothing" regarding defensive tools doesn't live in the real world or understand the appropriate laws.

John

 

[Kynoch]

Yeah, I also have a rare instance of disagreement with Sam.

If someone approached you, giving a threat of assault, but not necessarily grievous assault, a stick, pepper spray, or Taser would be justifiable force, but firearm or knife might not be.

On the other hand, if someone clearly poses a (potentially) lethal threat- you see a crowd running towards you waving machetes, screaming "Die!" for instance- there is clear justification for immediate use of lethal force. There are a lot of gray areas, and someone with only a firearm may be reluctant to bring it into action when force but not lethal force is justified.

Example: someone doesn't like the way you look, as you inocently shop at Target. You are followed into the parking lot by one or more individuals uttering threats of physical but not lethal force. With a stick or OC spray, you can engage. With a firearm, you choose between deploying while NOT facing what appears to be a lethal/grievous threat, or not deploying, being beaten until you can't choose, and then hoping it's only a beating, and that your firearm and/or life aren't taken in the process.

Option 2 is pure foolishness, and anyone who says "all or nothing" regarding defensive tools doesn't live in the real world or understand the appropriate laws.

John

I really appreciate and agree with your comments. There's one other factor I would like to discuss. Being followed out into the parking lot while carrying vs. not carrying.

If I was not carrying and was attacked, I wouldn't hesitate to get physical. But if I had a gun, I would be very concerned that in a struggle it might be taken from me and used on me. My only option then (assuming I do not have an LTL weapon) is to draw.

I really wonder why this isn't talked about more? The fact that carrying a gun (by itself) might further limit options for some?

Second, I have read little about means of carrying (holsters, etc.) that make it very difficult to be disarmed during a struggle.

More and more this is becoming a profound subject to me. Thanks for the input.