legality of lethal response to mace

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roscoe

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,852
Location
NV
So, I am sure we all have seen the news. The photo captures the big spray from one of those bear-mace sized cans hitting the shooter. In the photo I saw, the shooter is literally firing into the cone of spray.

However, protesters have been macing each-other quite a bit, without it necessarily meaning that the intent is to disable then injure or kill. I am not sure about this specific case - there was a blow landed by the sprayer, suggesting a further assault was potentially forthcoming.

But, as a general rule, this seems like an interesting question: under what circumstances can you elevate the conflict to the level of deadly force?
 
I don't think you can elevate it, justify it, or whatever, because a spray, whether it's mace or just pepper spray, certainly isn't lethal and only by quite a stretch would be capable of great bodily harm. Therefore under any jurisdiction's laws governing such, it simply wouldn't be legal. But that's an opinion. Not an expert one, even.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that shooting would be legal in Washington state. You are obliged to attempt to de-escalate prior to a defensive shooting- in this case he should have attempted to retreat before firing.
 
Judging by the actions of the shooter I would say he was seeking conflict, he made no attempt to deescalate or escape. could someone clarify if the victim pulled pepper spray before of after the gun was drawn?
 
roscoe said:
But, as a general rule, this seems like an interesting question: under what circumstances can you elevate the conflict to the level of deadly force?
Click to expand...
Without addressing the Denver incident, the basic rules of self defense apply.

W. r. t. pepper spray, pepper spray used against an armed defender, whether LEO or civilian, can facilitate the disarming of the armed person by the sprayer.

So, if the armed person would have been privileged to use force to defend himself in a particular circumstance, he would have been privileged to use deadly force to defend against an unlawful attack by pepper spray.
 
Kleanbore said:
So, if the armed person would have been privileged to use force to defend himself in a particular circumstance, he would have been privileged to use deadly force to defend against an unlawful attack by pepper spray.
Click to expand...
That implies that the prerequisites necessary to lawful use of lethal force to defend one's self would exist prior to the use of the pepper spray against him, a scenario that doesn't really make any sense to me because the defense against the pepper spray alone doesn't meet those prerequisites, UNLESS the sprayer is ALSO armed with a lethal weapon and demonstrating intent to use / deliver.

Would that situation apply here?
 
wiscoaster said:
That implies that the prerequisites necessary to lawful use of lethal force to defend one's self would exist prior to the use of the pepper spray against him,
Click to expand...
Well, a defender need not wait until he has been attacked.

wiscoaster said:
a scenario that doesn't really make any sense to me because the defense against the pepper spray alone doesn't meet those prerequisites, UNLESS the sprayer is ALSO armed with a lethal weapon and demonstrating intent to use / deliver.
Click to expand...
What? the attacker need not be armed with a lethal weapon.
 
if you are not the agressor, and believe you are about to be the victim of imminent death or great bodily harm, you can defend yourself.. I'm under the understanding the use of a stick, rock, mace, or other - makes no certain situation absolute, that you can fire. a reasonable person, usually assembled by a group of peers, would have to reasonbly believe you believe you were going to get jacked and hurt or killed, for lack of a better term.

say, if someone was shooting mace at you, and you had just seen the exact same tactic used moment earlier, followed by a harsh beating, you're probably within your rights, but if you don't exit when seeing that take place, you're a fool IMHO.
 
Kleanbore said:
Well, a defender need not wait until he has been attacked.
Click to expand...
It has to be imminent. IE - it's going to happen if you do nothing.

Kleanbore said:
What? the attacker need not be armed with a lethal weapon.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely, per my CCW instructor, a police officer. A club would be sufficient, if the attacker is able to get close enough to me to use it.

Lethal force against a spray would not be seen as justifiable use, at least not in my state, because the spray alone is not capable of producing death or great bodily harm.
 
wiscoaster said:
It has to be imminent. IE - it's going to happen if you do nothing.


Yes, absolutely, per my CCW instructor, a police officer. A club would be sufficient, if the attacker is able to get close enough to me to use it.

Lethal force against a spray would not be seen as justifiable use, at least not in my state, because the spray alone is not capable of producing death or great bodily harm.
Click to expand...

I'd move.

Joe maces you, you can't see, Joe then proceeds to beat the living snot out of you, because you can't see. While lying prostrate, in a pool of your own blood and spit, Joe takes your handgun that WI said you couldn't use and shoots your family to death.
 
And if I shoot Joe first?

I land in Federal prison, convicted of homicide.

Dunno; I'm screwed either way in your scenario.
 
DerMerchant said:
Judging by the actions of the shooter I would say he was seeking conflict, he made no attempt to deescalate or escape. could someone clarify if the victim pulled pepper spray before of after the gun was drawn?
Click to expand...
I have not seen a definitive answer to this yet.
Kleanbore said:
....W. r. t. pepper spray, pepper spray used against an armed defender, whether LEO or civilian, can facilitate the disarming of the armed person by the sprayer...
Click to expand...
And this is one of the points that scares me about carrying a gun. I hope I'm never in a self-defense shooting. That said, I also understand that if I'm ever attacked, the one thing I absolutely, positively cannot do is let my attacker have my gun. Under any circumstances.
wiscoaster said:
....[In response to question about whether attacker has to be armed with a deadly weapon to justify deadly force.]
Yes, absolutely, per my CCW instructor, a police officer. A club would be sufficient, if the attacker is able to get close enough to me to use it.

Lethal force against a spray would not be seen as justifiable use, at least not in my state, because the spray alone is not capable of producing death or great bodily harm.
Click to expand...
I'm having some trouble with my legal searches at the moment, but I'll suggest a visit to a local criminal defense attorney about that. I know it's not cheap, but may be worth your while. The FBI statistics clearly bear out the notion that hands and feet can be deadly. On top of that, any scenario with multiple attackers would result in a disparity of force that (I believe) has been used as a justification for deadly force.
 
wiscoaster said:
Point made; point taken. Life is not fair.
Click to expand...

No, it most certainly is not. If I'm thinking about laws when SHTF, I've already lost. Good to run lots of scenarios, but I trust myself and shooting isn't and shouldn't be always the first solution, but again I trust myself to know.

You can run scenarios all day long and you'll never hit on the one that you may face one day. That's just how it is. Train, and trust yourself.

Hesitation is a great killer of man. So is not trusting your gut. Seems the fear of offending is worse for many people than the fear of death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
A Fisking: letter from Rep. George Miller (and response)
Replies
5
Views
768
Cal4D4
C
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Seecamps Advice on Point Shooting.
Replies
2
Views
454
1 old 0311
1
6
  • Locked
An Essay Regarding Self-defense
Replies
6
Views
586
MGD 45
M
S
  • Locked
NY City's Gun Industry Responsibility Act - good commentary
Replies
2
Views
372
Henry Bowman
H
2
  • Locked
All Out War
Replies
16
Views
2K
PATH
P
Back
Top