Medicare/Old Age Self Defense

[Serenity]

MicroTecniqs, check out this peephole viewer that has a wide viewing range: I learned about them at the NRA Refuse to be a Victim class.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Metal-D...ref=sr_1_7?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1328926438&sr=1-7

 

[JRH6856]

^^^^ Great viewing angle. only drawback is it you still have to stand behind the door. Between CCTV and a strategically placed mirror, I can see the exterior of my front door without going near the door.

 

[jimbo555]

At home I reccomend a dog.Dogs hear things way before our old ears do,and burglars will move on to the next house if they hear barking.I would stick with a revolver if weak wrists are an issue but i would replace the naa with another lightweight snub loaded with wadcutters.

 

[theicemanmpls]

I have been reading up on the disparity of force.

A must read for all those who may use force on their fellow man, and those who think they know everything.

Knowing what the law is important.

I had a nice chat with a retired LEO, and attorney. Most interesting.

 

[3KillerBs]

...
My question is; are there any of you with really bad backs (to the point that they can't take pressure from a belt) and if so; how do you carry?

Is a bellyband around the ribcage an option?

That's my answer to the problem that I don't wear belts (or pants with beltloops for that matter, or pants at all if I have the option of wearing a skirt).

I carry the Taurus slim in the bellyband as if it were a vertical shoulder holster but on my strong side rather than my weak side since the combination of being large-busted and significantly overweight makes reaching across to draw from the weak side problematical.

 

[3KillerBs]

Speaking of seniors in general rather than the OP's specific case, I'm surprised that no one mentioned one of the better versions of off-body carry -- in a holster inside the pouches that are commonly found fastened to a walker.

It satisfies the off-body safety requirements of always being within arm's reach and under the person's control better than purse carry or dayplanner carry do since people who use walkers would only very, very rarely face situations where it is socially uncommon to set them down and walk away from them.

 

[Kleanbore]

Where is it Likely to Happen?

The OP spoke of getting older and suffering from some of the usual age-related maladies.

Much of the discussion has centered on home defense and on preparing the home so that the likelihood of the need to employ deadly force is reduced. The OP did not limit the question to home defense, however.

It is true that the majority of DGU (defensive gun usage) incidents do involve home defense, as indicated anecdotally here. It is also true that many of us who have reached retirement age spend more time at home than those who have not. However, one should not conclude from either fact that the danger of a violent criminal act is necessarily highest at home.

A more accurate conclusion from the statistics is probably that the reason that the majority of the DGU incidents occur at home is that citizens are much more likely to have access to a firearm while at home than while out and about. Only a minority of citizens in most places are permitted to carry a firearm, and of those who are, still fewer elect to do so.

Of the several dozen incidents reviewed by Tom Givens, all of which involved citizens who were permitted to carry, very few involved incidents that occurred at home, and of those that did, one involved the case of a person who had been taken home to get money after having been kidnapped by robbers. There were two incidents which the victims were not able to defend themselves, and in both cases, the victims did not have firearms with them. I recommend acquiring and watching this DVD, which contains a detailed analysis of ten of those incidents.

Tom emphasizes the need to carry the firearm in the first place. Another of Tom's recommendations is to "carry a real gun"--one with sufficient capacity and effectiveness to provide one with a reasonable chance to stop one or more determined assailants. I do not want to start an argument on the subject, but the OP's choice of a single action NAA would not be my choice for that. I do think that Cosmoline's recommendation is a good one.

Of course, the best defensive encounter is always the one that does not occur. Older citizens usually have more latitude than other in deciding when and where they buy gasoline or other things, and when and where they use the ATM.

I believe that prudence in those decisions is more important by a long shot than what one carries for self defense, or how.

 

[Deaf Smith]

blindhari,

A couple of good airweight .38s, cain, cell-phone, and maybe some good pepper spray will get you through the night just fine.

If you can, get a .22 snub revolver and practice alot!!! And then pack the .38s, maybe with DPX ammo.

Deaf

 

[alemonkey]

I am fairly young but do have a physical limitation. Due to a surgery and subsequent therapy I have a very vulnerable area of my body where I can barely stand any pressure, let alone take a hit. Probably similar to the 'boys', for you guys. I have recently acknowledged that attitude and mindset can't make up completely for limitations in physical soundness.

My question is; are there any of you with really bad backs (to the point that they can't take pressure from a belt) and if so; how do you carry?

I just noticed this thread - I had a similar situation with my back. I had an L4/L5 discectomy about 4 years ago. The protruding disc caused a lot of damage to my left side sciatic nerve and for quite a while I couldn't handle any pressure on my left hip. I found one of these holsters worked quite well - the material is soft and spread the pressure over a larger area so I was able to carry.

http://www.pistolwear.com/holsters.htm

I also found carrying at about 2:00 (appendix carry) made a big difference, rather than carrying on my hip. I'm pretty much fully recovered now, but I still use this holster with a J-frame for running.

 

[aaronu]

Seems like blindhari, the OP, has a good solution. The NAA is purely a backup to his snubby, and he has a layered approach. I wish everyone who chose to carry for self defense invested as much. Also I respectfully submit that once a Ranger, always a Ranger. This is someone who's been tested before. Thank you for your service, sir.

I have a question about the cans of wasp spray. Are there any clauses in the law about a "weapon of expedience"? Seems to me it would be justified to (mis)use readily available chemical products in the event of a home invasion.

"Yer honor, he was gonna kill me. I grabbed what I could and used it."

I sure as heck wouldn't think twice about grabbing a fire extinguisher -- nasty stuff for sure, and makes a decent bludgeon.

What may stop me from using insect spray (or maybe a small fire extinguisher) is:

• Little or no deterrent effect
• Only effective sprayed in someone's face
• Most importantly -- the possiblity of a civil suit, which has a lower burden of proof relative to criminal cases.

Speaking as a newcomer to THR, thanks to theicemanmpls and Kleanbore for keeping to the high road through such a contentious topic. It makes for an informative read.

 

[Carl Levitian]

I would think that a senior citizen would have an easy time with the disparity of force issue, when using an unusual object or wasp stay on an assailant. Living in the Peoples Socialist Republik Of Maryland, it's a challenge to keep ahead of the bad guys. I turned 71 years this winter, and my wife is 67. We have to plan our lives carefully to compensate being unable to carry firearms. Pepper spray is good, as is a nice sturdy cane, an easy to access knife. But most of all, we work a high level of awareness into our daily routine. Two pairs of eyes see more, and if one of us see's something on the radar, we inform the other with a quiet "Bogy at 2 o'clock." We have no hesitation to reverse course, cross a street, or duck into a cafe for a cup of tea and scope things out. Being older, we're not party goers out at night, or bar hopping. If we go to the movies, we catch the afternoon show where they have a deep discount for AARP members.

Being married for 40 years to the same person, it's easy to act as a team, and being able to read each other. A nod, glance and squeeze of the hand, non verbal communication works well to alert the other. Pre-arranged actions are rehersed. My better half Karen, carries a full size police style canister of pepper spray, and I have the pocket size one. She keeps a knife handy, and she's handy with it. In her younger day, when we were a young married couple with our first child, she taught dance and aerobics at the local community center. A stalker jumper her one night and tried dragging her into the woods, but Karen ended up opening up his arm from wrist to elbow with a sliding blade Stanley utility knife she carried. These days the Stanley has been replaced with a Spyderco Delica clipped on her person. That's for close up if the pepper spray fails, and somebody gets by my blackthorn stick.

But the situational awareness is king. It comes first before anything else. Software over hardware.

So far, so good, we haven't been victimized first. The main rule is, we don't talk to strangers. Literally. If someone looks like or tries to engage us on the street, we're not afraid to keep on walking and ignoring them while keeping a wary eye on them. If we have to be rude, so be it. I'm not looking at my watch to tell them the time, I don't have a light, I'm not interested in what they're selling, just keep on keeping on. In that kind of situation, we are on a borderline red alert, with hands in pockets on pepper spray, ready to use it. Karen's job is to keep on the other side of me, and be ready to spray, and I'll have a bit tighter grip on my cane ready to go.

Our basic outlook is to border on paranoid. We're old enough to know that we are prime targets for the wolves, and we know that we're not up to much of a fight at this stage of our lives. The only way we have to go is the Q ship tactic. Look innocent, but if it comes down to it, we unload everything we can in a short action and hope to do enough damage to make an escape. We're not under any illusion that we can fight, but just inflict enough hurt to make an opening. But if it comes to that, our situational awareness will have failed.

 

[JRH6856]

I have a question about the cans of wasp spray. Are there any clauses in the law about a "weapon of expedience"?

There are no such clauses in the federal law which bans the use against humans of toxic chemicals not specifically designed for self defense.

I would think that a senior citizen would have an easy time with the disparity of force issue, when using an unusual object or wasp stay on an assailant

It isn't an issue of force or the disparity thereof. The use against humans of toxic chemicals not designed for self defense is prohibited. Period. The only question that will be brought before the federal court is did you or did you not use the toxic chemical against a human. The question of why is not an issue.

It isn't a judge and jury you need to convince, it is the federal prosecutor that you must convince not to bring the charge.

 

[xXxplosive]

Unless I'm expecting you...........I will not answer the door... although our Male German Shepard is willing and able. Even if he's out with my wife, I won't answer.....If you decide to make entry on your own.......well, Bad Idea.

 

[theicemanmpls]

I don't care if they use a can of silly string on their attacker.

The case of Carol Bond. It seems that Carol, who was employed by a commercial chemical factory, had a husband, who impregnated his concubine. Carol, understandably, became upset and tried to poison her rival with chemicals stolen from her employer.

Normally, one would think this would be a ADW felony, and prosecuted in state level court.

For some reason the Feds jumped in and prosecuted Carol at the federal level.

Carol was convicted for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

It seems the state charge would of put Carol away for three years, while the federal charge put Carol away for at least six.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20019400-504083.html

The case is now up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227

IMHO, bug spray is not a chemical weapon as cited by the Chemical weapons convention.

It is true, that anyone can be prosecuted, and or civilly sued for all most anything. One can sue anyone at any time for anything. Getting it before the court, and winning, is a different matter.

Disparity of Force is defined as a situation that any reasonable person would conclude places you at an overwhelming disadvantage in your effort to protect yourself against immediate and serious bodily injury to yourself or another person even without a weapon being present because of them being physically stronger.
or
where a victum is unable to provide the same amount of force as the attacker due to physical capability, i.e. size, handicap, or outnumbered.
or
When a bare-handed assault is so one-sided it is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the greater power of the attacker becomes the equivalent of a deadly weapon. that warrants the victim's recourse to a per se lethal weapon in self-defense.
or
Force of greater numbers is one example of disparity of force. Others include male attacking female, able-bodied attacking the disabled, adult attacking child, an attack by a person known to the shooter to be highly skilled in destructive unarmed combat, and other such "unfair" match ups.

Let me make this clear;
If I carry a can of bug spray while on a walk, and am attacked, and use it justifiably against my attacker, IMHO, I could be in some trouble. I should of been packing pepper spray, or another weapon designed for self defense. Bug spray is not intended for use against anything except bugs.

I can't help but scratch my head here. If I hit my attacker with my walking stick, am I in the wrong because it is a walking stick, not an approved baton?

This is far different then a senior in their home, being surprised by an attack, and grabbing what ever is handy.

Another point to consider. If during a argument, I urinate on someone's shoes. Is this to be considered an attack with a biological weapon? Or, a case of assault?

The NBC warfare classes and drills I had in the military didn't cover bug spray, nor urine.

In WWI chemical weapons were used by both sides. The results were so horrific, they were banned as weapons of warfare. Didn't the USA go to war in search of Dubya's claim WMD's were hidden by the dictators regime?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by theicemanmpls: The case of Carol Bond. It seems that Carol, who was employed by a commercial chemical factory, had a husband, who impregnated his concubine. Carol, understandably, became upset and tried to poison her rival with chemicals stolen from her employer.

Normally, one would think this would be a ADW felony, and prosecuted in state level court.

Very true.

For some reason the Feds jumped in and prosecuted Carol at the federal level.

They did jump in, and they proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had violated a Federal law.

Carol was convicted for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemica...ons_Convention

No way. A citizen cannot be convicted on such a charge.

Carol was convicted of violating 18 USC Chapter 11B--Chemical Weapons

It seems the state charge would of put Carol away for three years, while the federal charge put Carol away for at least six.

So it seems.

The case is now up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227

Not true. SCOTUS has already ruled unanimously in Carol's favor in that case, by deciding that Carol has the standing to argue that, in applying 18 USC Chapter 11B in her case, the Federal government infringed upon rights that are reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is now up to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to decide that issue.

IMHO, bug spray is not a chemical weapon as cited by the Chemical weapons convention.

That is not the issue. The issue at this point in time is whether wasp spray contains a chemical [other than a preparation designed for self defense, such as pepper spray or mace] which through it's chemical action...can cause death, temporary incapacitation to humans....

The answer is, yes it does.

The remaining issue is the constitutional question, which is yet to be settled.

Disparity of Force is defined as a situation that any reasonable person would conclude places you at an overwhelming disadvantage ...

All of that is relevant in a trial under the use of force laws, which would be all that would apply if the force employed had involved a cane, bat, baton, edged weapon, or firearm. All of those involve deadly force (unless one has been trained to employ a baton, etc. in a non-lethal manner), but none of them are defined as chemical weapons.

If I carry a can of bug spray while on a walk, and am attacked, and use it justifiably against my attacker, IMHO, I could be in some trouble. I should of been packing pepper spray, or another weapon designed for self defense. Bug spray is not intended for use against anything except bugs.

As it stands today, you nailed it.

Should one use wasp spray for self defense, one's only hope is that the Assistant US Attorney would elect to not prosecute the case. Those of us who have some experience in Federal cases are aware of at least three things: (1) the Government is often far from reasonable; (2) the Government has unlimited resources with which to investigate, prosecute, and appeal; and (3), Federal cases other than minor routine criminal cases (drugs, immigration, counterfitting, and so on) can drag on for many years and even for decades. Such cases can severely impact even the balance sheets and competitiveness of major corporations. A citizen does not want to get involved in a constitutional case.

But that's just part of the issue. Our member Cosmoline, who is an attorney, opined thus:

Bug spray or household chemicals for self defense is a misuse of the product, can maim or blind, and more importantly won't accomplish the desired result. It's too dangerous and toxic for less-than-lethal and not reliable enough to stand in place of deadly force. The availability of proper sprays for defense moots the question. DO NOT use bug spray!

 

[ball3006]

Forget the NAA revolver. I have one and they are difficult to use or shoot accurately. If the perp is close enough to hit with the NAA, he is too close to you.

I am 68 years old and I carry a Kel Tec 3AT with me all the time. They are pretty accurate and weigh next to nothing. They come in 32ACP if the 380ACP has too much recoil. It is less than a 38 snubbie though.

You might want to look at a shotgun in 410. They aren't that heavy and the recoil is not punishing.

For me, weight/recoil is not a consideration as I can still do a respectable total in a power lift meet.

I never thought about wasp spray. The foaming kind should work better. As far as being against the law, I live in a free state where no jury would convict for using it. In adddition, isn't assulting a senior citizen against the law? Would you rather be carried by 6 or judged by 12......chris3

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ball3006: As far as being against the law, I live in a free state where no jury would convict for using it [(wasp spray)]. In adddition, isn't assulting a senior citizen against the law? Would you rather be carried by 6 or judged by 12......

One needs to realize that there is no guarantee that the reason for one's having used wasp spray would be considered relevant to the question of whether there had been a knowing and willful violation of 18 USC Chapter 11B, or that the jury in the Federal court would ever be allowed to hear testimony that the senior citizen had been assaulted.

Should things turn out that way, and should the jury be presented evidence that wasp spray had in fact been used on another person and be instructed to try the facts on that basis only, why would a jury not convict?

We are not talking about a defense of justification here, in which a jury could be instructed to determine whether the actor had been engaged in self defense when using deadly force.

Is Colorado a "free state"? How about this Federal case, which involved the trial of race driver Bobby Unser?

In 20 December 1996 in Colorado, Unser and a friend became lost while snowmobiling near Unser's New Mexico ranch. They abandoned one stuck snowmobile before a storm blinded them both. When the second snowmobile stopped working, they spent two days and nights in subzero weather[1] before finding a barn where they were found. Both men were suffering badly, and Mr Unser had vomited blood during this time.
Mr Unser was later convicted of a Federal misdemeanor, "unlawful operation of a snowmobile within a National Forest Wilderness Area" (16 U.S.C. 551, 36 C.F.R. 261.16(a)), and was fined $75. Maximum penalties could have been up to six months in jail and up to $5,000.00 in fines. Unser appealed it, claiming to have been lost before the accident, but the court ruled that maps were widely available and it was a public welfare offense, thus intent was not necessary. Mr Unser appealed this decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but his writ of certiorari was denied.

At least 18 USC Chapter 11B specifies that the offense must be knowing and willful.

Back when I was involved in legal and regulatory compliance, statements such as "no jury will ever...", "I will be able to explain...", and so forth came to be known as "famous last words."

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

theicemanmlps: In the house, instead of putting a firearm in every room, (a practice I don't understand) we have a can of this bug spray on every level.

I don't put a firearm in every room of the house, yet when I go into a room a firearm is there.

ECS

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Elm Creek Smith: I don't put a firearm in every room of the house, yet when I go into a room a firearm is there.

A very prudent risk management strategy, I think....

Of course, there remains the risk, probably higher, of needing to protect oneself while out and about.

I gather that you have addressed that, also.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

A very prudent risk management strategy, I think....

Me, too!

Of course, there remains the risk, probably higher, of needing to protect oneself while out and about.

Yep.

I gather that you have addressed that, also.

Wherever I go there are firearms there as well. At work, there is a Glock 22 and a S&W Model 37. Other times there is a S&W Model 13-3 or a S&W Model 10-5 and the seemingly ever-present S&W Model 37.

ECS

 

[crazyjennyblack]

IDK about where everyone else lives, but where I live if someone busts into my house, that is a deadly force situation. I will use anything and everything I have at my disposal to stop the attack. That includes the gun on my hip, the wasp spray, the WD-40, the kitchen knife, or even the serving spoon in the kitchen drawer and the dishwater in the sink if necessary. I doubt any decent judge here would penalize me for using wasp spray in self defense in my own home. Outside the house would be just BEGGING for trouble.

Honestly, I don't understand why you would want to use wasp spray when there are so many easier, cleaner, less legally risky things to use. I like the fire extinguisher idea, but that has the difficulty of being hard to carry. What's wrong with a can of Sabre Red, a walking stick, a pocket knife, and a nice pistol?

 

[theicemanmpls]

I heard about the wasp spray from elderly relatives. I guess someone was educating seniors to its use.

Perhaps some seniors are unwilling to use pepper spray, or have a firearm around.

There are better products to ruin an intruders day for sure. The product has not been tested on humans. The can is large and awkward. Warning label says penalty for misuse.

I have a certain aerosol spray, on all three levels. In addition I have a police sap near the front door, just in case a girl scout selling cookies gets out of line.

Question; Is pepper spray allowed in all 50 states? I thought I read somewhere they were not to be used in certain cities.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I'd suggest something counterintuitive--go bigger not smaller. For example if you are having trouble with recoil try something like a Walther PP full size with standard .32 ACP. The older steel frame pistols soak up a lot more recoil and are easier on old bones. Carried in a Galco shoulder rig you barely notice it, though.

I would suggest something like the Beretta 84/3/6 series of pistols, as they are full size .32's and .380's

I find the most pleasant pistol to shoot is actually an old ruby, solid steel, very heavy, and yet a great trigger and little recoil for a center fire, really surprised me. Not bad for a 'junk' gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by theicemanmpls: I heard about the wasp spray from elderly relatives. I guess someone was educating seniors to its use.

The use of wasp spray for self defense has been recommended in numerous Internet forums, magazines, and widlely distributed e-mails.

Most of those recommendations wrongly state that the effects on vision are temporary--that the use of the spray does not cause serious bodily harm and therefore does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Many of them go on to say that the possession of wasp spray is permitted in all fifty states, without pointing out that improper use can get one in serious trouble.

None of them address the Federal issues.

Perhaps some seniors are unwilling to use pepper spray, or have a firearm around.

I cannot understand why anyone would be unwilling to use pepper spray in a self defense situation, but there are good reasons for not relying entirely upon it.

There are many people who do not want to possess a firearm. If they are unwilling to learn how to use one, that is just as well.

Using something that is much more dangerous than pepper spray, that is not as effective as a firearm, and that puts one at risk of being charged with a crime for which there is no defense of justification does not represent an informed decision.

Question; Is pepper spray allowed in all 50 states? I thought I read somewhere they were not to be used in certain cities.

Laws involving pepper spray vary among jurisdictions. To give just one example, it is lawful to carry certain kinds of pepper spray in one major city, but only if the spray is procured locally from certain approved sources.

The conditions under which the use of pepper spray is lawfully justified also varies somewhat, as does the penalty for misuse.

For those reasons, it is prudent to consult a local criminal defense attorney, and to check the laws in any locale into which one may travel.

While the same is not true in the case of the Federal law we have been discussing, local criminal defense attorneys should be able to provide definitive answers on pepper spray.

Generally speaking, if one purchases pepper spray from a reputable retail establishment, it is lawful to possess it in that locale. One should still seek advice on its lawful use. It is probably safe to say that one should never employ pepper spray unless an imminent threat of serious bodily harm is presented and there is no alternative. In some jurisdictions, the fact of an unlawful entry into one's home is evidence of an imminent threat.

One should try out the sprayer before relying upon it--just as one should train with a firearm before keeping one for self defense. Different sprays have different ranges, and the way wind effects the spray must be understood.

Personally, I carry a Kimber Pepper Blaster. Its effectiveness is not materially impaired by wind. It has the disadvantage that if one should miss a moving target with each of the two shots available, one will have a problem.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by crazyjennyblack: ...where I live if someone busts into my house, that is a deadly force situation.

That's true in many jurisdictions, if the resident is in the home at the time.

I doubt any decent judge here would penalize me for using wasp spray in self defense in my own home.

If the evidence indicates that the use of deadly force was justified, I can think of no reason why a local prosecutor would charge a citizen for using wasp spray under the use of force laws.

The Federal aspects are an entirely different matter. One will not be dealing with a local judge and a local prosecuting attorney in a local courtroom, and under the law, it will not matter whether the agent was employed for self defense or for armed robbery.

The Assistant US Attorney in charge may choose to not pursue the case; that is his or her prerogative. Should charges be filed and a conviction result, it is also possible that mitigating circumstances could influence the outcome favorably in the penalty phase.

It would not be wise to rely on either possibility. For that reason, should the need arise, if one has access to the gun on one's hip, the kitchen knife, or the serving spoon in the kitchen drawer and the dishwater in the sink, one should always employ those items before resorting to the use of wasp spray, oven cleaner, or other dangerous chemicals.