Carrying Non Lethal

[mrokern]

B yond-

You're right, but in the state of MN civilians are not required to adhere to the force continuum used by sworn peace officers. We also are fortunate in not having any "Brandishing" law, short of actually pointing a firearm at another person. Sweeping back your jacket to expose, and placing your hand on the butt is not an offense (concealment is in no way required). I know we are a fortunate state in that respect.

That said, I have absolutely no desire to ever expose, much less pull, much less use my firearm. The hypothetical I listed was actually used as food for thought in the carry class I attended. At the end of the day, it is always a personal decision. In my case, I'm 6', 250lbs, and used to work in corrections. I have what would be termed "command /control presence", and fortunately that seems to deter most folks. If I'm feeling threatened, a bladed stance with my strong hand going to my hip will get the point across in a legal manner.

-Mark

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Depending on the state

If you go to the state of Utah, it may be different. I emailed the Department of Public Safety and asked what the "use force to stop or prevent anothers use of unlawful such force" meant. They said that it means like force, that if someone's unarmed and is going at you with their hands, you can't use deadly force like a firearm. If someone has a bat or knife, you can use deadly force. I responded to the email asking about using less-lethal options like pepper spray or dart-firing air tasers, since both of them are less likely to cause permanent injury than punching someone. They said that you can use less-lethal weapons against those who are unarmed, even though many don't have those sorts of things.

I'm sure that the state of Utah doesn't require a use of force continuum, like it does for law enforcement officers. That doesn't mean that they won't get a non-LEO civilian for excessive force, just like a store owner may get in trouble for breaking a 5 year old's leg for stealing a candy bar from the store. I would think that there are other states out there that you can be convicted/sued for excessive force? Doesn't useofforce.us say that in many states you can get in trouble for excessive force, or using lethal force when it's non-lethal? Doesn't http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com say that you can get in trouble for attacking someone if you use excessive force?

 

[mrokern]

Such a response from a public safety agency in any state surprises and greatly disappoints me. If someone my size were attacking someone the size of my wife (120lbs), I'd consider bare hands to be a lethal threat to her. Has there been any case law to back up that "official" statement?

-Mark

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

mrokern,

I don't know about the state of Utah case law, but I just posted another thread that states some cases. I think if I was a juror, I'd side with the people with the gun, but it does make some points.

 

[R127]

I always carry pepper spray and a knife in addition to a gun. They all do things that the other two can't do. I can't free myself from entangling straps and whatnot safely with a gun or at all with pepper spray if my car ends up in the drink. I can't reasonably open a package or cut some lunch with a gun.(but I could spice it up with pepper spray! ) Guns and knives are lethal force, empty hand techniques mandate that you must be a badder man than you're attacker and that you must touch him. Running is just retarded, like the idea that you can punch out or wrestle to submission anybody who might try to attack you. Telescoping batons are even useful for a whole lot more than just wacking somebody upside the head. You can use them to get leverage on something, help you carry stuff, move or poke at something you don't want to touch with your bare hand or get too close to because it is gross or on fire or something. The list goes on and on. At any rate a can of pepper spray weighs a couple ounces and is the size of your cell phone. Unless you get the 25lbs model.

Why does a civilian need intermediate options in a force continuum? A civilian is not going to take anyone into custody.

So kill them all and let God sort them out? I'm picking up all kinds of wrong off this. And cops ARE civilians. All kinds of wrong.

Any which way it doesn't make sense. Ordinary people can and do need to be able to hold somebody till the authorities arrive without necessarily killing them. Drunks are one example. Then of course there is,

I have no intention of putting myself in a position where I would need a less lethal option.

So maybe we just need to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?