Self defense against non lethal weapons?

[Cop Bob]

Humm,, I cannot speak for NJ, nor the decisions of the NJ Supreme Court . Although it is clear that they are less than "Right Minded". You can take that as leaning a wee bit to the left, or completely out of their minds.. at least to the thinking, training, and experience of this old Texas boy...

Non-Lethal, or Less than Lethal is open for interpretation..
True people have died from tasers, people have had their heart stopped by a solid punch to the chest..

As stated, once they have you down, you are totally helpless...

The only circumstance where someone would be pulling a "less than lethal" weapon on someone, would be to... 1. Stop an aggression against them... or #2. to commit a felony... Robbery, rape, etc....

Under Texas Law... your good... If you can honestly state, and the physical evidence supports it... that you were in fear for your life, or imminent serious bodily injury...

The weapon pulled on you need not be that specfic, such as a taser... etc.. it is more judged "By the manner of its intended use" .. In other words,, if someone were to push you up against a wall or into a corner, then put a Bic Pen to your throat... Is that a weapon? Is it capable of causing death or serious bodily injury? Ahh.. Yeah!!!

Meeting force, with equal force flies in the face of all that is right... I go back to the old edict, "If your in a fair fight, your tactics suck"... As stated, police officers are not required to meet force with equal force... if they did, it would be a very loosing proposition.. as most are, over weight, out of shape, carrying more weight and equipment, and are generally older, if not twice the age of their average opponent... Nor are they high on drugs or impervious to pain...

Or as we used to say in the training courses for Pepper Spray,,, "Pepper Spray only works 100% of the time on Police Officers....", on Crack Heads about 20% of the time. Choose when and where you use this carefully... and if you hose some joker down, he is going in YOUR car, not mine"

This is one of those threads that can go on forever, whatta woulda coulda....

Sam1911, Kleanbore, and lemaymiami all pretty well nailed it...

If your scared, say your scared... and tell em if your scare me bad enough I will kill you... No reasonable DA will try and push it too hard... but the facts and evidence had BETTER be there... Unless your in New Jersey, or New York.... Heck, in Texas we would have pinned a medal on Benard Getz.....

Everything come into play, weather, neighborhood, age, size weight, lighting, number of people around, involved... and you had better be able to articulate your self.... Justification is one thing, articulation, another thing all together... You can be right as rain, but if you can't communicate your justifications.. your dead in the water..

 

[MachIVshooter]

Posted by Loosedhorse: It is not at all clear to me that "I can shoot someone rather than take a punch" is solidified legal doctrine.

It is not--generally speaking.

If one is frail or physically impaired, and/or if the attacker is larger and more fit than the defender, one can try to rely on claiming that the ability of the attacker to kill or seriously injure accrued through a disparity of force that justified the use of deadly force.

And even then, it's tough. 40-something husband and father Larry Hickey was attacked by 3 people (neighbors) in his own driveway, 2 fit women and one fit man. The women were already attacking him in unison when the man sucker punched him in the head, nearly knocking him unconcious. He drew and fired, hit two of them. Nobody died, Larry even had his wife and other witnesses testify as to who the aggessors were. Yet he still spent weeks in jail, then many months and tens of thousands of dollars defending himself. He never got an acquittal, just two hung juries and a decision to not retry him a third time. And this was in AZ, not NY or some other liberal "criminal's rights" state.

I'm not suggesting that Larry would have been better off to not shoot; He may have been beaten to death or seriously and permanently injured by the vicious assault. Just saying that in a 3-on-one fight with witnesses, our defender still didn't fare well with the disparity of force defense. Not even after Massad Ayoob himself testified.

Furthermore, just to illustrate all that can go wrong, many pieces of evidence were lost/not submitted/inadmissable/etc. Real crime scene investigations are nothing like the TV's shows, and real trials don't go down like we see on Law and Order. There's a lot more chaos and human error.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If one is frail or physically impaired, and/or if the attacker is larger and more fit than the defender, one can try to rely on claiming that the ability of the attacker to kill or seriously injure accrued through a disparity of force that justified the use of deadly force.

After taking one good punch you will be impaired and unable to defend yourself effectivly, the same can be said about being blinded by pepper spray ot zapped with a Taser. Allowing an agressor to put his hands on you is to allow him to physically impair you and that is potentially deadly. You can not allow an attacker that advantage even if he is smaller.

BTW: Great post Cop Bob.

 

[tepin]

@MachIVshooter

Agree. I read the ~46 page document on this incident and based on what I read, the jury was REALLY hung-up on two of the three attackers being women. I don't want to second guess things but for me... If I see someone coming towards me yelling and shaking her fist, its an all-out retreat to the garage / house / backyard or whatever because things can only get worse from there - and they did. There is a cultural predisposition that women are weaker than men and I believe that played a role in two hung juries.

 

[mokin]

I don't think a jury would have a problem findining a shooter not guilty when faced by an attacker with a taser or pepper spray where I live. They (and the police) may question why someone would put themselves in a situation like that though.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I do not mean that if your attacker uses a knife, you must use a knife; rather that any lethal force may be meet with any lethal force.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought you were implying something like the above; because as odd as it sounds, there are some jurisdictions out there that still have poorly written statutes requiring you to use the "minimum amount of force necessary" which sometimes leads to ridiculous arguments about use of force.

And I DO think (as I said) an illegal attack with an incapacitating weapon will be seen in most circumstances as justifying lethal force

In many jurisdictions, lethal force can be used to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. As always, a lot would depend on the fact pattern. As I read more state statutes on self-defense, I am sometimes surprised at how narrow some of them are. The NRA and state groups have been doing great work at the state level in helping to promote a more workable, realistic standard for self-defense.

I'm not suggesting that Larry would have been better off to not shoot; He may have been beaten to death or seriously and permanently injured by the vicious assault. Just saying that in a 3-on-one fight with witnesses, our defender still didn't fare well with the disparity of force defense.

Heck, look at the Gerald Ung shooting. Not only multiple witnesses; but the entire shooting was captured on video, including events leading up to it. The shooter was a third-year law student at Temple with a valid CHL, clean record, etc. and he was still charged and prosecuted.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: Allowing an agressor to put his hands on you is to allow him to physically impair you and that is potentially deadly. You can not allow an attacker that advantage even if he is smaller.

I agree with that, and I think most people will too.

The issue is what one can do about it. Centuries upon centuries of legal tradition hold that deadly force would not be permitted in the vast majority of circumstances, absent a disparity of force.

Centuries ago, retreat would have been called for if safely possible. Stand your ground laws are a relatively modern concept, but precedential stand your ground court decisions of a century or more ago did recognize that the advent of firearms has made safe retreat difficult.

Arizona is a stand your ground state, but that didn't seem to help Larry Hickey at all.

After taking one good punch you will be impaired and unable to defend yourself effectivly, the same can be said about being blinded by pepper spray ot zapped with a Taser.

I believe that the concept is that one should be able to avoid being disabled by "one good punch" by using means other than deadly force, including non-deadly physical force if necessary, unless there is a disparity of force.

Pepper spray and tasers change the equation. When and if it happens, we'll see what come out of it.

Personally. I agree with an above post in which it was said that if someone were to decide to use such a thing for unlawful purposes, the victim would not see it coming. I there were a warning, I think the issue would likely be one of which party had in fact been the aggressor.

 

[hso]

Do you draw your CCW and fire

Deadly force in response to non deadly force is unethical, illegal and not required. Just drive away if your sitting in your vehicle. Your windows shouldn't be down enough to give anyone access anyway.

This abstract thoughtless experiment is why using a firearm as a crutch instead of awareness and good tactics is such a failure. Have the means and be prepared to use them instead of resorting to the "nuclear option".

As pointed out, use of a chemical or taser could be the prelude to further attack after being softened up, but it will be a difficult to argue that being intimidated with a taser or spray as a means to rob you makes a shooting defense reasonable.

 

[gvf]

I think what HSO states is a good rule of thumb: until and unless the ultimate option of shooting is overwhelmingly the ONLY one left, treat situations as if you didn't have a gun. So, if you didn't have a gun - say you couldn't legally - what protection would have on your person likely?
I don't know about you but mine before I had a CCW-permit were a wicked high-intensity Surefire combat light and Pepper-Spray. So, then, if threatened with pepper-spray or taser I'd blind them with the light and hit the road. This light is 200 lumens, no one is going to aim a narrow stream of liquid into two little eyes or aim a taser with a huge orange circle smack in the middle of their visual field. It lasts for a couple of minutes (I've tried it on myself), plenty of time to escape. Or do that and then the pepper-spray and then get out.

But if you don't have the blinding light or pepper-spray, well, you're between a rock and hard place. You may have to do something to protect yourself, but if it's just shooting in a legally "iffy" situation.................

I only a carried a gun for awhile when I got the CCW. But thoughts of these types of situations made me decide to carry them again with the gun. Now, it's not "shoot or nothing". I have health conditions that would make physical defense/offense not an option. But for those who don't, that's another card in the deck.

I'd say have levels of protection, with the gun the VERY, VERY LAST, THE last house on the street.

 

[MachIVshooter]

As pointed out, use of a chemical or taser could be the prelude to further attack after being softened up, but it will be a difficult to argue that being intimidated with a taser or spray as a means to rob you makes a shooting defense reasonable.

Except that LEO's (all flavors, including investigators) know how effective those less lethal weapons are. Tasers, if effectively employed, are better at scoring instant incapacitation than firearms. Not a very good defensive weapon, as you only get one shot, but used offensively (especially on an unsuspecting victim), highly effective.

OC is also nasty stuff. I've never been sprayed directly in the face, but even being in close proximity to a discharge made seeing and breathing exceptionally difficult.

If some thug threatens me with a taser or OC, I will do my best to evaluate the situation and decide if he really intends to use it and, if so, what he may do after I'm down. Also, will I be able to mount an effective defense, or is fighting likely to escalate the situation in which he likely wouldn't have used the weapon?

OTOH, if my lady and our daughters are with me and I believe they are at risk, all bets are off, and I will put myself between them and the attacker, then proceed to use the maximum amount of force I can employ under the circumstances to protect them. Their lives are more valuable than mine.

 

[GLOOB]

If someone unknown to you was intent on tasering and beating you to death, you'd probably never see it coming. I'm the jury. So kindly explain to me how this happened?

 

[Jeff White]

If someone pointed this out and I missed it, I apologize. If you are armed and you are attacked with a less lethal incapacitating weapon, you are in a deadly force situation. If you are incapacitated and lose control of your firearm you may well be shot with it.

This may not be as big an issue if you are carrying concealed, but it is a definite issue for those of you who open carry. When we were issued OC many years ago this fact was pointed out to us. The average CCW holder isn't going to face the same situations as a uniformed police officer, but you need to keep in mind that there is at least one firearm present in every altercation you are involved in.

Tasers, if effectively employed, are better at scoring instant incapacitation than firearms. Not a very good defensive weapon, as you only get one shot,

The new model give you two shots without reloading.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Actually the Three shot was announced a good while back.

http://taser.com/products/law-enforcement/taser-x3-ecd

Nitpicking aside, I'd think a response that stops the attack immediately would be wholly appropriate. Once you lose all control in the situation, you're trusting to the attacker's kindness for your survival.

 

[Jeff White]

Actually the Three shot was announced a good while back.

And it was only a couple o months ago that Taser International sent me a nice T-shirt to watch an online presentation of the announcement of the 2 shot

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Self defense against non lethal weapons?

Use of lethal force is justified in self-defense against a person presenting an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm: a lethal person with ability and opportunity to put your life or limb in jeopardy right now if you do nothing.

Self defense should be minimum force necessary to neutralize the threat, overkill will not look nice in court*, but lethal force is justified in self defense against a lethal person.

-----------------
*Meyer, G. E., (2009). "Will it hurt me in court: weapons issues and the fears of the legally armed citizen." The Jury Expert, American Society of Trial Consultants, vol 21 no 5, Sept 2009, p 29-42.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/0...s-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/

 

[mortablunt]

Not intending to be idiotic here, but could merely brandishing a gun be enough for this situation? It gets past the force arguments and it is a lot easier to convince people on a jury that you are not a danger to society if you didn't actually hurt someone. Besides, if no shots are fired, then there ought to not be an investigation needed.

 

[Sam1911]

Not intending to be idiotic here, but could merely brandishing a gun be enough for this situation? It gets past the force arguments and it is a lot easier to convince people on a jury that you are not a danger to society if you didn't actually hurt someone. Besides, if no shots are fired, then there ought to not be an investigation needed.

Not an idiotic question at all.

However, the laws regarding "brandishing" -- or any intentional, purposeful disclosure, drawing, and/or pointing of a firearm are pretty serious, too, and are not consistent from state to state.

Basically, if you've drawn your weapon and to any degree threatened another person with it, you've broken the law. In much the same way as if you'd actually shot someone, you'll need an "affirmative defense" argument as to why you HAD to break the law in order to prevent a serious crime against you.

YES, in some cases drawing and presenting your firearm might cause an attacker to think better of his plans, but it is a very risky proposition and the best advice is to never assume, trust, or act as though the warning you're giving will be heeded.

Do not draw your gun unless the VERY NEXT step you plan to take is to shoot, and then only with the belief that you MUST do so in order to prevent death or grievous injury from befalling you immediately.

 

[Nushif]

Something to take into account as well is the lethality of less than lethal weapons.

OC spray or a taser are probably not entirely too deadly, but what goes for a Baton that a cop carries here in the US is basically an improved lead pipe, which ironically is considered a deadly weapon. So the exact weapon has to be considered here, too. Simply because they're marketed as such doesn't make an iron or steel club less lethal than a bullet in close quarters.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The thing that makes pepper spray, Tazers and even a bare handed punch so dangerous is not the damage that they can do, but the fact that they leave you temporarily defenseless to whatever is next. If a stranger attempts to disable you for an unknown reason it can have deadly consiquences.

Look at it this way: You would not let someone tie you up, put tape over your mouth and then put you in the trunk of their car. These things in and of themselves are not dangerous, but you can not bet your life that the REASON they want you tied up is.

Being disabled by any other means is just as dangerous. It is what comes next that can kill you.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Legotactics

YES, in some cases drawing and presenting your firearm might cause an attacker to think better of his plans, but it is a very risky proposition and the best advice is to never assume, trust, or act as though the warning you're giving will be heeded.

Even if this presentation ends the situation, call 911 immediately, tell them you were assaulted (since you were) and go through the whole process with them.

Since you just pointed a deadly weapon at someone, it doesn't pay to be the second person to call the police.

 

[Averageman]

Deadly force in response to non deadly force is unethical, illegal and not required. Just drive away if your sitting in your vehicle. Your windows shouldn't be down enough to give anyone access anyway.
I don't understand this line of thought; of course if in my vehicle, I will drive away and no, my windows would not be down in that scenerio.
I must say though if you have a less than lethal weapon and are using it in a dim or dark parking lot or garage to assault me the "ethical" treatment of my assalant is the least of my worries.
Less than lethal weapons are used to incapacitate, once incapacitated all bets are off. You have no ability to protect yourself and little ability to retain your sidearm in the case of a taser attack.
You have no capacity to read your attackers mind beyond the obvious "He is trying to attack me with a weapon." If you are not in fear of your life at this point, well, you should be. Waiting to evaluate your attackers further intent may very well arm him with a better weaapon for his next attack on you.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If someone points a gun at you you must assume that it is real and is loaded. It is not the POINTING of the gun that harms you, but the threat it implies. Any attempt to stun or restrain you against your will also contains a deadly threat as the attacker obviously wants to put you in a condition that you can not defend yourself.

 

[ball3006]

I am a senior citizen................watch for the flash......you won't hear the bang........However, I rarely go out at night because I don't like to drive in the dark. I have glaucoma....chris3

 

[pacerdude]

I'm a 22 year old guy and look physically fit, but in reality I have a pacemaker and am 100% pacemaker dependent. I also dont buy into the whole tasers are non lethal theory, in short I can't take the chance of being tased or take the chance of a fist fight, because my body just can't take it. So I will respond with whatever force seems necessary at the time. YMMV!

 

[Hugo]

Not a lawyer but someone attacking and incapacitating you with pepper spray and/or a tazer is likely step one in a rape/kidnapping/murder and stealing your gun if they know or think you have one. Common sense says then you would need to defend yourself.