This is far from a clear situation.
In the end it relies on the jury interpretation.
Do people safe in their seats, who may have never experienced any violence, and get a lot of their perspective on such things from movie and tv fantasy think it was reasonable to use deadly force on someone that was using a weapon that alone is unlikely to cause serious injury or death?
For them to reach that conclusion they have to believe it is a reasonable belief that more injury or death was likely to result after. Which may be difficult to convince them of.
The situation that led up to the attack will also play a role. Was it a complete stranger approaching, what interaction happened beforehand, or was it an altercation or argument that resulted in them pulling such items.
From what I gather most criminals give no warning when using tasers and pepperspray on a victim they have targeted. So there would unlikely be any verbal command to give money or comply before they use it in an attempt to incapacitate.
As a result no words or threats are likely to be spoken before use.
Criminals typically warn someone to comply with lethal force like a gun or knife, but use tasers and pepper spray immediately.
What this means is there is not likely to be verbal commands or threats which give any indication of the intent of the criminal attacker, or which the defender could convey as justification later on.
There is not likely to be any warning before such things are used.
I can recall numerous robberies where the criminals just sprayed someone before robbing them, no verbal exchange prior, and commands only coming after they sprayed the victim.
A criminal simply walks up and sprays or tazes, takes the possessions, or beats, or rapes, or kidnaps, or whatever their reason for incapacitating the individual was. Up until that attack their actions may be difficult to interpret in a way that would justify force period even less-lethal force, nevermind lethal force.
There is no law against anyone in public approaching you. A man walking right up to you, your wife, or anyone else in a dark alley or parking lot, following you on foot, approaching you as you get to your car, etc is breaking no laws. Yet allowing them to do so can remove the advantage of a defender to react.
Pulling a gun on someone or spraying someone with pepper spray coming up to ask a question would be a felony itself, yet many would be attackers are doing exactly that or would claim to be doing that if you prevent them from approaching. Turning you into the criminal for a felony assault on someone trying to ask a question.
The gender of the person attacked will likely matter as well. A jury is more likely to sympathize with a woman making the decision to shoot than a man. Even if both were equally at risk, it is just how society is. Women get away with use of deadly force much more readily than men in discretionary scenarios. What your wife or girlfriend can get away with without a long drawn out trial is quite different than what you as a man can get away with.
In the end it relies on the jury interpretation.
Do people safe in their seats, who may have never experienced any violence, and get a lot of their perspective on such things from movie and tv fantasy think it was reasonable to use deadly force on someone that was using a weapon that alone is unlikely to cause serious injury or death?
For them to reach that conclusion they have to believe it is a reasonable belief that more injury or death was likely to result after. Which may be difficult to convince them of.
The situation that led up to the attack will also play a role. Was it a complete stranger approaching, what interaction happened beforehand, or was it an altercation or argument that resulted in them pulling such items.
From what I gather most criminals give no warning when using tasers and pepperspray on a victim they have targeted. So there would unlikely be any verbal command to give money or comply before they use it in an attempt to incapacitate.
As a result no words or threats are likely to be spoken before use.
Criminals typically warn someone to comply with lethal force like a gun or knife, but use tasers and pepper spray immediately.
What this means is there is not likely to be verbal commands or threats which give any indication of the intent of the criminal attacker, or which the defender could convey as justification later on.
There is not likely to be any warning before such things are used.
I can recall numerous robberies where the criminals just sprayed someone before robbing them, no verbal exchange prior, and commands only coming after they sprayed the victim.
A criminal simply walks up and sprays or tazes, takes the possessions, or beats, or rapes, or kidnaps, or whatever their reason for incapacitating the individual was. Up until that attack their actions may be difficult to interpret in a way that would justify force period even less-lethal force, nevermind lethal force.
There is no law against anyone in public approaching you. A man walking right up to you, your wife, or anyone else in a dark alley or parking lot, following you on foot, approaching you as you get to your car, etc is breaking no laws. Yet allowing them to do so can remove the advantage of a defender to react.
Pulling a gun on someone or spraying someone with pepper spray coming up to ask a question would be a felony itself, yet many would be attackers are doing exactly that or would claim to be doing that if you prevent them from approaching. Turning you into the criminal for a felony assault on someone trying to ask a question.
The gender of the person attacked will likely matter as well. A jury is more likely to sympathize with a woman making the decision to shoot than a man. Even if both were equally at risk, it is just how society is. Women get away with use of deadly force much more readily than men in discretionary scenarios. What your wife or girlfriend can get away with without a long drawn out trial is quite different than what you as a man can get away with.
Last edited:
:banghead::banghead: I will talk, retreat , show and if forced shoot. Per Dr's Orders I am not suppost to run. But in case of life and death I will disobey that order and give it the old college try. 