TexasCHLforum.com

Roshi wrote:Call me a sissy but I'm afraid of carrying it because I've never used it or have been trained in it's use.

I'm also concerned that depending on it for defense could get me killed.

You're not a sissy at all. You know yourself, and made your decisions based on that. I see no problem at all.

I don't at the moment, but I really do believe that I need to carry a non-lethal option of some kind. I've been looking into OC, but haven't had any good recommendations.

I carried for a while, as did the wife until the following thoughts occurred to me

1) In any spraying it's very likely that I'll get at least a partial dose myself and I dont want to have to deal with that AND have to shoot if the spray doesnt' work on the assailiant (I know it'll work on me, i cry like a baby but i've seen full grown men get hit directly in the face with military strength stuff and laugh like it's something they put on their nachos)

2) I don't want to have to explain to a jury why i used spray on someone and THEN shot them. Most folks dont understand that someone can be immune to the effects or fight through them. I've personally seen that.

BigDan wrote:I don't at the moment, but I really do believe that I need to carry a non-lethal option of some kind. I've been looking into OC, but haven't had any good recommendations.

Fox 5.3

http://www.foxlabs.com/Products.html

BigDan wrote:I don't at the moment, but I really do believe that I need to carry a non-lethal option of some kind. I've been looking into OC, but haven't had any good recommendations.

personally, i consider just about anything i could do with my own two hands as non-lethal (assuming I didn't need it to be lethal) and those are attached 24/7.

If you really want something non-lethal and I'd just load your first round in your carry weapon with a non-lethal round and the rest with your defense round of choice. If one round from your gun won't scare them away you'll need the rest of your ammo for sure. And that sure beats having to carry around another gadget or device to contend with. It's bad enough with your wallet, cell phone, ipod/mp3 player, thumb drive, keys, etc.

I also don't want to have to explain to the DA or a jury why I didn't use the pepper spray on the guy pulling a knife on me instead of shooting him. If i don't have the spray they can't really look at me cross eyed for not using it now can they?

KISS

LedJedi wrote:If you really want something non-lethal and I'd just load your first round in your carry weapon with a non-lethal round and the rest with your defense round of choice. If one round from your gun won't scare them away you'll need the rest of your ammo for sure.

I would disagree. Even non-lethal ammunition can be lethal at close range.

I have never believed in warning shots, but would prefer that to carrying special 'first shot' ammunition.

LedJedi wrote:If you really want something non-lethal and I'd just load your first round in your carry weapon with a non-lethal round and the rest with your defense round of choice. If one round from your gun won't scare them away you'll need the rest of your ammo for sure.KISS

There's another thread about "Good Argument Against a Six Shooter" that debates the capacity of revolvers versus semiautomatics. I would think that having a "non-lethal round" would be the equivalent of needlessly "throwing away" your capacity.

I have never understood the concept of "first shot" ammunition. Even when it is shot shells for snakes.

WildBill wrote: There's another thread about "Good Argument Against a Six Shooter" that debates the capacity of revolvers versus semiautomatics. I would think that having a "non-lethal round" would be the equivalent of needlessly "throwing away" your capacity.

I have never understood the concept of "first shot" ammunition. Even when it is shot shells for snakes.

Mike1951 wrote: I would disagree. Even non-lethal ammunition can be lethal at close range.

I have never believed in warning shots, but would prefer that to carrying special 'first shot' ammunition.

I was hoping you guys would point that out....

I agree. lets not waste the ammo, carry a full live load.

I believe my points on not carrying an alternative still stand.

I just wanted to beat you guys to the punch :)

I don't at the moment, but I really do believe that I need to carry a non-lethal option of some kind. I've been looking into OC, but haven't had any good recommendations.

I also don't want to have to explain to the DA or a jury why I didn't use the pepper spray on the guy pulling a knife on me instead of shooting him. If i don't have the spray they can't really look at me cross eyed for not using it now can they?

There's a bit of confusion working its way into the discussion here.

Use of OC (Oleoresin capsicum or "pepper spray") is a less lethal (not deadly force in itself but may cause death anyway) use of force option that may be appropriate when violence is threatened or started at a level that has not risen to the standard of deadly force. Its role in the use of force escalation is above verbal control techniques and below deadly force where "reasonable force" is called for. It fits into that uncomfortable area where you need to take physical action to defend yourself, but doing so with a handgun is not justified. There are various forms (spray, liquid stream, gel, powder) that are designed for different circumstances. I saw a pretty good discussion of the pros and cons of the various types in an earlier posting under another topic on this forum about a month ago.

OC is not an appropriate tool when deadly force is being used by the assailant (unless it's all you have at that time.) If you have it on your person, there is no legal requirement to use it as a first step to respond to deadly force, and it should be no problem to explain why it wasn't used under those circumstances. LEO's are trained not to do so. From a legal strategy standpoint, having it available may help a self defense case in the sense that the individual who carries it has prepared himself to use intermediate defensive options to minimize injury to an attacker instead of going out with only all or nothing deadly force tools.

If you have any question about whether you should carry it or not, or if you are not familiar with it at all, then don't. More people I know have tried to carry that stuff, and set it off accidentally. Outside of police work, I can't say that I know anyone that's ever used it in self defense. I know a lot of people that have tried to carry it as a self defense tool, only to have it go off in a purse, a car, etc. It makes a nasty mess. I've been covered in the stuff many times. It's not a pleasant experience.

Another problem with it is outside, sometimes it's not extremely effective. If you're not real close in, the wind can carry a bunch of your stream away, and it does take a little bit before the effects of the spray materialize. Depending on the distance, this could pose a problem. It doesn't take a lot of the stuff, but I've been hit with it, and it seems to take 15-20 seconds before you really start feeling the full brunt of the spray. That's long enough for someone to take it from you while you fiddle for something else (too long). I sprayed a guy with some OC, and he asked me if I had some he could put on his pizza. Another problem with the spray is indoors, everything will get covered. If it goes off indoors, clear the room for a while.

Given the issues with the spray, this makes people consider the foam. I sprayed a guy with foam I had to carry once. He was bald. He turned his head to the side, and the foam caked up on the side of his head. He scraped it off and asked me what else I had. Not cool.

The best uses I've ever found for any kind of spray were when I was physically fighting with someone, as in I'm on top of them, or close in hitting them, and I can get to the spray. I give them a quick squirt right across the eyeballs, nose, and mouth. And by this, the nozzle of the spray is usually no more than 2-3" from their face. I've never sprayed and not gotten any on me, so this is a fact of life with it. Expect to be fighting, hacking, coughing, spitting, and eyes water. Oh, and when you take a shower, lean way over and wash your head and areas that were hit first. The spray washes down your body. It's always funny to hear someone that's been sprayed for the first time in the shower. That stuff burns everywhere that it touches.

Personally, if I'm about to be confronted by someone, and they are 20 feet, even 40 feet away, I'd rather go ahead and verbally confront them (even if it's a "Can I help you?"), and adjust my body language to let them know I'm not going to be an easy victim. If the situation goes any worse, I have an ace in the hole that I haven't played yet.

Pepper spray is a waste of time when you're on your own. It does make for a great laugh and story though, when it goes off in your car on the way to work.

My opinion.

Excaliber wrote: OC is not an appropriate tool when deadly force is being used by the assailant (unless it's all you have at that time.) If you have it on your person, there is no legal requirement to use it as a first step to respond to deadly force, and it should be no problem to explain why it wasn't used under those circumstances. LEO's are trained not to do so. From a legal strategy standpoint, having it available may help a self defense case in the sense that the individual who carries it has prepared himself to use intermediate defensive options to minimize injury to an attacker instead of going out with only all or nothing deadly force tools.

Well said and agreeable.

I think I should narrow my point down a bit more. I consider chemical agents to be an aoe (are of effect) weapon. That's my basic issue. I can just as easily suffer the effects of OC, CS or a combination there of while dispensing it to an assailant. One could argue that these agents are streamed and pressurized so that they are directional and that is true. But anyone who's ever used this stuff in a breeze or used it in a real tactical situation (I have) can tell you that it's very easy to get it on YOU either from a breeze, wind or further contact with the assailant. You don't even have to get a direct dose for it to seriously hinder your ability to shoot (eyes watering, snot running everywhere, etc.). My advice is to leave the chemical agents to those who are well trained and used to their effects. That is exactly why I had so much of an issue some months ago letting my wife carry OC/CS combo without knowing how it effects you. Nobody who's ever been hit with this stuff either direction or indirectly can say that they are still at 100% shooting capacity after being even partially dosed, which is always a concern.

That's not to say that less than lethal is bad... it's great actually. I'm just not a big fan of most folks using it simply because even in trained people can have problems using it without being effected themselves. I was trained by the state to dispense both OC and CS as I'm sure a number of the folks here. Part of that training includes being dosed yourself so that you don't panic when you use it, because you most likely will get a shot or two your way too.

I think good less-than-lethal options for most folks include stun guns, tasers, less than lethal ammo (which has it's own disadvantages). Or... if you're going to carry chemical agents try and get one that's in foam form so that spray back is more limited than most. Also make sure it has a UV dye to make identifying your assailant easier for the police (and you) later.

I also believe that having less than lethal options immediately available can create problems in a case. I would rather not have those complications. Your mileage my vary.

Excaliber wrote:From a legal strategy standpoint, having it available may help a self defense case in the sense that the individual who carries it has prepared himself to use intermediate defensive options to minimize injury to an attacker instead of going out with only all or nothing deadly force tools.

LedJedi wrote: ...
I also believe that having less than lethal options immediately available can create problems in a case. I would rather not have those complications. Your mileage my vary.

LedJedi,

Could you expound upon your position of why having less-than-lethal options immediately available can create problems in a case? Your stance appears to disagree with Excaliber's (also quoted above).
I am very interested in this discussion and value each opinion. That being said, I want to ensure I understand your position.

Thanks...

I carry a Glock 30. It does everything that pepper spray can do and then some.

InfoTechCHL2007 wrote: LedJedi,

Could you expound upon your position of why having less-than-lethal options immediately available can create problems in a case? Your stance appears to disagree with Excaliber's (also quoted above).
I am very interested in this discussion and value each opinion. That being said, I want to ensure I understand your position.

Thanks...

Sure... I should probably clarify though.. I have specific issue against OC/CS. It's untrustworthy in my opinion. I would not stake my life on it at all. It doesn't effect everyone the same way and has a very good chance of dosing you at the same time you dose the attacker. That's my primary concern with chemical agents.

Now if you look at tasers and stun guns, those methods are nearly 100% effective and to my knowledge won't effect you as the person weilding the weapon under most normal circumstances. I've never seen anyone that was immune or extremely resistant to stun guns and tasers. (though note, they may not be legal in your area for civilian use... i have no idea on that)

On top of that there's also the personal comfort and/or hassle of having to carry a less than lethal device. OC can be fairly compact, but stun guns are bulky and usually heavy in my experience and if it's a taser it might as well be another gun. Those are just two more devices that would have to go on my bat-utility-belt. My pants fall down enough as it is.

As for legally, this is the conversation I don't even want to come up in court. Assuming i'm the defendant on trial for what I see as a defensive shooting where I was attacked by someone with a weapon.

Prosecutor: You were armed with a less than lethal weapon. Why not use it to disable Mr. Smith until you could get away or the police arrive?
Me: Well, he had a weapon sir and he was fairly close by the time I could engage him so in my judgment I thought it was immediately necessary to use deadly force. My intent wasn't to kill, but to stop. Unfortunately Mr. Smith died.
Prosecutor: So you thought it was immediately necessary? It's my understanding that less than lethal weapons essentially buy you time. If you had dosed him with OC/CS (or tased/stunned him) you may not have had the need to shoot him. Is that true?
Me: That is true, but I didn't want to risk my life in taking the chance that it wouldn't work or buy me the time needed. That would have been an unnecessary risk to me and Mr. Smith was almost on me at that point with the weapon.
Prosecutor: So you admit that Mr. Smith and yourself may both be alive today if you had used the less than lethal weapon you already carry on your person?
Me: well, yes, but...
Prosecutor: That'll be all. Thank you for this witness.

I would rather avoid this whole line of questioning if i'm ever defending myself. If i'm ever on the stand and they ask me why i don't carry a less than lethal measure all I'll say is "The law does not require me to carry a less than lethal measure." and that should close the entire line of questions pretty quickly. If i don't carry LTL they can't turn it against me if I don't think i have time to use it.

One could argue that LEOs carry LTL measures and they don't run into this. I think they probably do during the hearing/trial but it's much more likely that a jury would side with the LEO giving his opinion much more easily than a joe blow civilian.

again, that's just my perspective. It may change over time and with experience, but that's what the landscape looks like to me now. Your mileage may vary.

LedJedi wrote:

Prosecutor: You were armed with a less than lethal weapon. Why not use it to disable Mr. Smith until you could get away or the police arrive?
Me: Well, he had a weapon sir and he was fairly close by the time I could engage him so in my judgment I thought it was immediately necessary to use deadly force. My intent wasn't to kill, but to stop. Unfortunately Mr. Smith died.
Prosecutor: So you thought it was immediately necessary? It's my understanding that less than lethal weapons essentially buy you time. If you had dosed him with OC/CS (or tased/stunned him) you may not have had the need to shoot him. Is that true?
Me: That is true, but I didn't want to risk my life in taking the chance that it wouldn't work or buy me the time needed. That would have been an unnecessary risk to me and Mr. Smith was almost on me at that point with the weapon.
Prosecutor: So you admit that Mr. Smith and yourself may both be alive today if you had used the less than lethal weapon you already carry on your person?
Me: well, yes, but...
Prosecutor: That'll be all. Thank you for this witness.

I would rather avoid this whole line of questioning if i'm ever defending myself. If i'm ever on the stand and they ask me why i don't carry a less than lethal measure all I'll say is "The law does not require me to carry a less than lethal measure." and that should close the entire line of questions pretty quickly. If i don't carry LTL they can't turn it against me if I don't think i have time to use it.

One could argue that LEOs carry LTL measures and they don't run into this. I think they probably do during the hearing/trial but it's much more likely that a jury would side with the LEO giving his opinion much more easily than a joe blow civilian.

I am not a lawyer and not an expert on this, but as I understand it this line of questioning just isn't allowed in Texas.

The justification for using deadly force is clearly defined. What can be at issue is whether you are justified in using deadly force. You either are justified or not. The issue of whether or not less than deadly force would have have been sufficient isn't up for debate at either a civil or criminal trial. The recent castle doctrine have helped clarify these issues

Charles Cotton's seminar is a great source of information on this topic and an explanation from him is from someone who literally wrote the book on this topic.