Non-lethal options for HD

[Shadow 7D]

I hate to say, but Lee as usual wrapped this one up

I also see where it would be nice to go through an escalation of force

BUT

I'm not anyone anymore who has to do that, and regardless of where you are, if you CAN use lethal force, and if you escalate and DO use lethal force, I hate to say that it leaves you just as open, or more, in my thinking of being second guessed by a prosecutor because you were not in mortal fear for your life, or other requirements, rather you were dealing with a nuisance, and I hate to say, but you pay the cops to do that, and keep a gun for when you HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE.

Now that being said, any fight with a gun is a gun fight, but if you have other options and then pull a gun, then you are open to the question of "why did you pull a gun", let alone use one.

Secondly, anytime less lethal is used by police or military, they have backup with lethal force, and if you watch any of the police shows you know why, it usually works, but when it doesn't you are at a much worse place, and finally, the bar on the use of less lethal tends to be lower, but in a self defense case that could put you at risk of being the one in court for assault.

Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm not a lawyer, however this is what I think and you are free to disagree.

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't do less lethal. Deadly force is the only force I ever use. If it's not worth using deadly force to protect yourself, it's not worth fighting over at all. Police are paid to grapple, subdue, capture, and restrain. Let them do it.

And yeah, copy everything Lee said.

 

[easyg]

This sounds crazy even as I type it, but maybe a bullwhip, like Indiana Jones???

Or maybe you could lasso him and tie him to a tree....just don't rope his neck.

How about a super-soaker filled with ammonia?
That would have to hurt like heck if you got him in the eyes and face.

 

[Girodin]

I don't do less lethal. Deadly force is the only force I ever use. If it's not worth using deadly force to protect yourself, it's not worth fighting over at all. Police are paid to grapple, subdue, capture, and restrain. Let them do it.

Umm that is a bit short sighted. I actually had a drunk take a swing at me out of nowhere and I put him to sleep with a choke. You cannot legally use deadly force on a drunk that tries to punch you. Letting him hit me (or continue to try) or get riled up to the point he goes for a weapon or someone with me seems like a fairly poor option as well. Had he come swinging at my girlfriend and not me the same would still be true but my willingness to let the blows fall would be even smaller. It is nice to be able to deal with things on various levels if the need should arise.

 

[easyg]

I don't do less lethal. Deadly force is the only force I ever use.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's far from the only tool, but it's my best one. I don't scuffle with uncertain results. I don't get into fistfights. I don't respond to non-harmful violence with slightly more harmful violence. If deadly force is not justified, I close the door, walk away, drive away, and call the police.

I gave up scuffles and fistfights when I started carrying.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Umm that is a bit short sighted. I actually had a drunk take a swing at me out of nowhere and I put him to sleep with a choke. You cannot legally use deadly force on a drunk that tries to punch you. Letting him hit me (or continue to try) or get riled up to the point he goes for a weapon or someone with me seems like a fairly poor option as well. Had he come swinging at my girlfriend and not me the same would still be true but my willingness to let the blows fall would be even smaller. It is nice to be able to deal with things on various levels if the need should arise.

What kind of choke specifically? Because in some states, certain choke holds are deadly force.

 

[mljdeckard]

Police get paid to subdue people. I don't.

 

[Girodin]

gogoplata! No just kidding, a standing head and arm.

Because in some states, certain choke holds are deadly force.

Yes, the thing about chokes is knowing how to do them. When people get killed by chokes it is most often because they are applied to the throat and are not blood chokes to the arteries. Such chokes are also much less effective in addition to being much more dangerous. You may remember the big to do about LAPD choking people. They should have learned how to choke. Blood chokes are relatively safe. A proper choke is much safer than a straight right and the chance of the guy hitting his head on the ground IMHO. A choke leaves no marks or real damage either.

If deadly force is not justified, I close the door, walk away, drive away, and call the police.

I think this is definitely the right approach to the vast vast vast majority of situations, but there is the occasional situation where the options are either let the blows land or respond with some level of proportional force which is short of deadly force. It is nice to have the option.

Also you may find yourself in places where you simply cannot have a weapon, various secure areas such as the court house or the jail or airport etc. Then there are times when you travel to areas of the world that make it an impossibility (or at least a very very bad idea) to carry a gun or a knife. It nice to have options. I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea to learn how to really fight nor is everyone even up to it, but I like having options and ability even if my first choice is to vacate the area. I'll freely admit that I have run away (literally) from bad situations, ones that I believe I certainly could have dealt with in a number of other ways but running seemed like the wisest approach.

I definitely agree that getting involved in any situation that you don't have immediate NEED to get involved in unwise.

 

[mljdeckard]

I can use deadly force whether I have a weapon or not. I regard all hand to hand fighting as deadly. But I know I'm not enough of a fighter to win against most people in a fair fight. My solution is to not fight fairly.

If I am unarmed, and I get hit, and I know it isn't going to end there, I don't try to knock him out, I try to crush his trachea. The more fighting I learn, the less I like it. I will end it as fast as I can. And it is ONLY in airport-level security that I don't have at least one knife on me at all times.

 

[Carter]

Jokingly: Rock Salt loaded shotgun rounds.

Seriously: bean bag rounds. $15 for 5, but its less than lethal...ish.

taser is a good one.

Also I carry these alot, Travelers wrench. Its an L shaped design with a finger loop at the top for the index finger and the bottom of the L shape sticks out past the knuckles a little bit so the point of contact is the finger loop and the botto of the L and its made of abs plastic. It also has hex wrench sizes along the handle to make it look like an actual tool.

never under appreciate the ability to defend yourself with your hands only. I practice grappling and boxing a lot with friends and you would be surpised how much better you become and how much you learn and are able to do with frequent practice. But no, you'll never be able to catch bullets.



Most obvious though, BLUNT OBJECT works. No matter what form.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I hate to tell you, but a blood choke carefully applied is much faster in killing someone than an airway choke, the danger of crushing someones air way (what you describe) is that you can cause major damage and swelling, it takes them some time to choke to death.

Where the proper blood choke can cause a stroke, vaso-spasm, clotting, swelling of the brain, and if you hold it long enough, major brain damage or death due to cerebral hypoxia, starving the brain of oxygen.

But, it you fire a gun is self defense, and said gun has "bean bag" rounds, well why did you have to defend yourself??
Look up the statues for your state, they often have an affirmative defense, these are the times that you are within the law to do what is prohibited by that statue, know them, if you have a question about "less lethal" ask a lawyer who specializes in this part of the law.

 

[Girodin]

Where the proper blood choke can cause a stroke, vaso-spasm, clotting, swelling of the brain, and if you hold it long enough, major brain damage or death due to cerebral hypoxia, starving the brain of oxygen.

I don't doubt it but it takes all of about 5 seconds (or less) to put some one out with a tight choke, no reason to hold it longer. I've been in in BJJ gyms since the 90s and I've seen a choke or two and honestly I do not even know how many people I've seen choked out, but a lot. Over that same period I've also been in a lot of kickboxing, boxing and MMA gyms. I've reffed, judged, cornered, been a participant in or other wise been up close and personal for hundreds of fights if not more. I've seen people injured much more badly and much more permanently from strikes than I've ever seen from chokes. I've had the misfortune of seeing some bad head, neck and eye injuries from strikes, to say nothing of various broken bones, cuts, knocked out or broken teeth, etc. I've never seen an serious problem from blood choke. Could it happen, yes I'm sure it could but I'm inclined to believe a proper choke is safer than strikes which I have seen injure people very badly. I'm unaware of any incident of a fighter dying from being choked out, I cannot say the same for a fighters being KOed. I'm sure fighters are not representative of the general population in terms of conditioning and resilience but I'd imagine that is also true of their reaction to and ability to withstand strikes.

If I had to chose between getting KOed on concrete and hitting my head when I fell and getting choked out and having the choke immediately released I think I'd take my chances with the choke.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I agree, but I was pointing out that it too is not without risks

 

[Girodin]

You are of course correct. I think Lee made the point well in his post about the term LESS lethal. Anytime you are using force on another human being that would stop a batter there is likely going to be some risk. However, the risk is likely to differ, often dramatically, with the exact type of force used.

 

[Oyeboten]

Using one's voice...

Telling a tresspasser or intruder to leave.


How one does it, is everything.

Done wrong ( ie: escalating the situaiton, inflecting resentment, superiority, challenge veiled as dominance-gambits, fear, emotion, etc ) is what people usually think of.

Done right ( 'breaking the spell' of the intruder's or tresspasser's intentions, while being merely clear and firm, no emotion of fear or anxiety, just matter-of-fact, and no disrespecting them or taking on airs or postures to challenge or dominate or invite contention ) can be very effective. It's just a mood-killer then, and the person looses will and interest in going further...they find it a 'no-go' and an energy dump, with nothing to complicate it.


This would be a non-lethal method...

 

[sm]

* my head hurts*

Thanks to the mods, for getting this thread back on track.
Read their posts, again...and again.

Some other "tools" one might consider:

-Air horn.
Scares critters, whether they are two-legged, or four, or fowl, or...also used to summon assistance if the power is out ( i.e. tornado, hurricane).

-Lights.
A well lit area is a deterrent. Battery backup systems have a place.

Keep in mind, a prime opportunity for evil, is when power and communications is down.

-Dawgs.
Self-explanitory.

-Security System, battery back up, and even as simple as baby monitors.The earlier one catches a signal there is trouble, the more "distance" they have to deal with trouble.

Distance is not just feet and yards, also time.
.
.
.

Not everything defaults to gun.

 

[shockwave]

I don't do less lethal. Deadly force is the only force I ever use.

Hope you have a lawyer on retainer. One thing we discuss from time to time in the martial arts is the concept of "two battles." The first is the violent encounter (that you hope to survive). The second is the aftermath.

On TV and in the movies, the hero wipes out a half-dozen BGs, then strolls off into the sunset with the girl. In real life, the family sues you, the DA may press charges, you have to hire some $100/hr (or more) attorney, etc. The second fight may be a lot rougher than the first.

So all power to Mr. I-Only-Use-Deadly-Force, and good luck in court. I train every day in h-to-h and weapons, rotating the key items in the arsenal through, and train with handguns and a shotgun when I can. The goal is to win both battles and the less force you apply in the first, the easier the second will be to win.

Today, for instance, we were practicing takedowns against someone charging in swinging at you. We started with the attacker wearing boxing gloves, and progressed to no gloves. Single and multiple attackers. It is fairly straightforward to close and throw the attacker to the ground and from there you can finish him off or deal with additional targets. The rush to gun or lust to kill simply shows a lack of awareness of the repercussions of killing someone. Do it if you must, but train to use only the force necessary to succeed. The weak and the untrained have no choice but to use a gun and that's a burden for them.

 

[mljdeckard]

Incidentally, I do have a lawyer on retainer. Why do you think that the legal fight is somehow less risky when you use varying levels of force? I will do everything I can to avoid using force at all. In using escalation, you are opening yourself to fights I would just avoid entirely.

I am well-trained in hand to hand, edged weapons, etc. If it isn't life and death, it's not worth fighting over at all. Each person must decide at the time of the event whether or not deadly force is justified. This is true no matter how much hand to hand training you have.

 

[shockwave]

Each person must decide at the time of the event whether or not deadly force is justified.

Exactly. And you're saying that any force, from your perspective, will only be lethal force. I think you are constraining yourself and potentially going to prison for a long time - maybe the rest of your life, if your only response to conflict is killing people. Great if that works for you. I've got no problem just hitting somebody with a shot of mace and calling it a day, if that's all it takes. A LOT fewer problems downstream.

 

[mljdeckard]

In saying; "Use your fighting skills to defuse the situation", you sound very close to Euros who say it isn't necessary at all to have guns because you should be able to protect yourself by fighting.

Self-defense is already legally complicated without going into escalation of force. FOR ME, it's just easier to keep it very simple. If myself or my family are threatened with a forcible felony, serious bodily injury, or death, I will use deadly force to prevent it. I won't go into; "The attacker is using force, but not deadly force, so I will respond with slightly more but still not deadly force. But only so that it doesn't become escalated to a deadly force situation, at which time I will change to deadly force, but only if I can clearly articulate to the jury at what point I felt that the necessity was changed, and it only changed because of what the attacker did, not what I did."

You might want your plan and training to be that complicated, I don't. All force I use is to prevent someone from killing me. If they aren't trying to kill me, I don't use force. If you have confidence in your ability to work in the grey area, go ahead.

 

[easyg]

I don't doubt it but it takes all of about 5 seconds (or less) to put some one out with a tight choke, no reason to hold it longer.

Here's my humble opinion of chokes:

Chokes (and strangulation) are great in the octagon.
And there great in a situation where you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the guy is unarmed.

Not so great on the streets where you don't know if the guy is armed or not....

A friend of mine who is quite the martial artist was showing me some chokes and submission holds, etc...
He was demonstrating to me a standing guillotine choke and said "Now how would you counter this?".
You should have seen his reaction when I gave his inner thigh, near the groin, a tiny little jab with my Spyderco Endura!

I told him I could have castrated him and severed his femoral artery.
His reply was "well, we don't use knives in the octagon".

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't make a habit of grappling and wrestling with the guys, I didn't grow up in contact sports, and it's not my thing. About ten years ago, I was messing around at about midnight with a co-worker who was pretty into MMA and such. He pulled me to the floor into a choke hold, and I started feeling myself slip out of consciousness after about ten seconds. (He later told me that if he were serious, he would have held a lot tighter and I would have gone out quicker, and I believe him.) But when I realized that there was no other move, I reached into my jacket pocket and pulled out my keys with a Spyderco folding knife attached to it. He saw it and relented. He asked me what I would have done, and I said I would open it and start slashing at his femoral as hard as I could. Maybe I would have caused enough damage to stop him, maybe not, but it would not be acceptable to allow yourself to be put out and assume that the threat is not deadly.

Always cheat. Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

 

[navyretired 1]

I don't beleave that anything you use for protection is non-lethal except maybe a squirt gun. Almost all weapons of self defense can be lethal in the right circumstances. That goes from H to H to any club, keys, knives or sharp stick. The important thing is to match the level of lethality to perceaved danger.
Remember that political motivated DA can only get you if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were'nt in fear for your life. The only idiot that can do that is yourself if you run at mouth. Let attorney do your talking.