how many of you carry pepper spray

[seamusTX]

LedJedi, can you point to the type of case that you are speculating about ever happening in real life?

In Texas, if you use deadly force in the following situations, you are golden:

• burglar in your occupied house or actively breaking in
• armed robbery
• Attack by an armed criminal in circumstances where you obviously did not provoke the attack

Beyond those cases, Texas juries still tend to no-bill or acquit.

OTOH, the only prosecutions of CHL holders have been against people who shot in self-defense against an unarmed attacker. Even most of those were no-billed.

I think it's very likely that if Harold Fish had had pepper spray, he would be a free man today, and we never would have heard of him. The man that he shot had a violent history, but for the most part his M.O. was to intimidate people verbally and by using body language, rather than actually harming them.

[LedJedi]

LedJedi, can you point to the type of case that you are speculating about ever happening in real life?

Nope, i honestly can't man. I'm not a lawyer or by any stretch a legal expert. I'm simply going by what seems common sense and logical to me. I don't know the first thing about the Harry Fish case you're talking about but it sounds like the guy was being intimidated and verbally abused and he shot. Verbal threats and body language are justification for Force, but not deadly force. If he shot the guy without justification for DF that's probably why he's behind bars. I'm not about to speculate on whether OC/CS would have changed the outcome. there are too many variables and i'm not familiar with the case. I can tell you I don't want to be the first case where this IS a factor though.

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.

Same here man. I'm not a lawyer either by any stretch, but I don't see why that questioning would be disallowed. In that scenario the attorney would be trying to invalidate the "immediately necessary" part of the DF justification by suggesting that you had the opportunity to use LTL measures that were immediately available to you (on your person). If the attorney is trying to cast doubt on immediately necessary then he can completely unwind the justification for DF so I would think that would be relevant.

I'd like to be perfectly clear here. I have 100% respect for anyone who carries LTL measures. I think it's noble, but I think in some cases with a clever lawyer it can be turned against you. I can't cite where it's happened, but I don't know how many CHLs have had LTL on them when they had to pull the trigger.

But, if i apply this logic to a case most of us are familiar with you might at least see my perspective. What if joe horn had had OC/CS on him when he shot those two guys? Everyone in the country would be screaming that he should have used that instead his shotgun even though he was completely justified in using DF. IMO him having OC/CS (he didn't have it to my knowledge) would have made even more trouble for the defense if he didn't use it first. He had enough trouble defending himself without that extra added layer of complexity. no?

You guys may very well be right and i could be just off my rocker here. In reality i dont think there is a right/wrong answer, there are only trade-offs. I'm much more comfortable with the trade offs where I don't carry LTL at the moment, but I see the benefit of carrying as well. You just have to decide for yourself if it's the right decision for you.

If you chose to carry LTL i highly recommend foam OC/CS over standard spray or use of stun gun or taser so at the very least you minimize the chance of YOU being affected by your own weapon.

If you doubt that your standard stream OC/CS can hurt you if used correctly then try this... simulate a close quarter deployment on your own. Climb into your shower and close the curtains and get your back up against the back wall. That + 2-3 feet is about the effective range of most sprays. This should simulate a close quarter deployment pretty well and keep you from contaminating your whole house. Spray the opposite wall with whatever dose you think you would normally use and just stand there for about 10 seconds (you may not even need to do that). See how it effects you. i can almost guarantee you're going to get a pretty good dose yourself. Then, when you recover, imagine what it's like if you have to spray someone who's even closer.

You don't generally get the above with foam spray and certainly not with tasers/stuns. You're still at 100% which is good because you may need to use DF anyway.

[Liberty]

Same here man. I'm not a lawyer either by any stretch, but I don't see why that questioning would be disallowed. In that scenario the attorney would be trying to invalidate the "immediately necessary" part of the DF justification by suggesting that you had the opportunity to use LTL measures that were immediately available to you (on your person). If the attorney is trying to cast doubt on immediately necessary then he can completely unwind the justification for DF so I would think that would be relevant.

In a defencive shoot there isn't even a requirement to retreat, never mind to use LTL measures.

I'd like to be perfectly clear here. I have 100% respect for anyone who carries LTL measures. I think it's noble, but I think in some cases with a clever lawyer it can be turned against you. I can't cite where it's happened, but I don't know how many CHLs have had LTL on them when they had to pull the trigger.

Maybe one reason we haven't heard much about having the LTL on them is that its probably not a legal issue.

But, if i apply this logic to a case most of us are familiar with you might at least see my perspective. What if joe horn had had OC/CS on him when he shot those two guys? Everyone in the country would be screaming that he should have used that instead his shotgun even though he was completely justified in using DF. IMO him having OC/CS (he didn't have it to my knowledge) would have made even more trouble for the defense if he didn't use it first. He had enough trouble defending himself without that extra added layer of complexity. no?

I don't believe it would have been an issue with the DA or the Grand Jury. I think that it might have been an issue with the Quanell bunch and the press, but they aren't the ones that decide these cases.

You guys may very well be right and i could be just off my rocker here. In reality i dont think there is a right/wrong answer, there are only trade-offs. I'm much more comfortable with the trade offs where I don't carry LTL at the moment, but I see the benefit of carrying as well. You just have to decide for yourself if it's the right decision for you.

I'll be honest I don't always carry a handgun, and don't carry any spray. I should pick up a small holsterable can though. My biggest concern is that living here in a urban environment. If I fire my handgun. A bullet will hit a building. Most of the buildings here are folks homes.

If you chose to carry LTL i highly recommend foam OC/CS over standard spray or use of stun gun or taser so at the very least you minimize the chance of YOU being affected by your own weapon.

The likeliest application would be dogs and bums that won't keep their distance.

[Excaliber]

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.

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.

I very much agree with both of these positions. The earlier post I referred to (June 23 by HerbM under "How many of you carry pepper spray?" had brought out some of these points as well.

OC is not some type of magic "drop the charging 300 lb tweeker" potion. It's an irritant compound that can interfere with an assailant's ability and willingness to attack or fight under some circumstances. On some folks, it has no apparent effect (a fact they're very happy to point out to you, like the folks in Chris' examples, hoping it will unnerve you) and you need to be very aware of the characteristics of the type you carry and how it will disperse in the environment you're in when the need arises. Little things folks don't usually pay attention to like wind direction can make a big difference. And, as LedJedi mentioned and Chris explained in some detail, if you use it you are almost certain to join your target in the coughing / crying / nose running party which can be expected to limit your ability to competently execute some of your other defensive options. If you're aware of all this stuff, there are some limited situations where it may have some utility. There are a lot more situations where, even if you have it, it would be much smarter to keep it in your pocket and go to the next option in your plan. I would suggest that anyone who is considering carrying it for serious defensive purposes should attend a formal training course beforehand to get the full skinny on this option and then make their decisions accordingly.

Tasers work pretty well for the kind of situations they were designed for, but even they don't work on everyone, and their size generally makes it impractical to carry both that device and a firearm for other than a uniformed LEO application. They also are not appropriate for close in deadly force encounters, and are not a viable option at all for multiple assailants.

I have no use for "stun guns" which require that the probes maintain contact with the subject for the 2 or 3 seconds they take to cause a debilitating effect. I've never seen a bad guy who was willing to stay still that long. They' have a tendency to infuriate more than disable, and if you use one you can expect the enthusiasm of the response to ratchet up significantly. This is unlikely to improve your tactical situation.

[Excaliber]

That + 2-3 feet is about the effective range of most sprays.

There have been some advances in OC propellant technology in the last couple of years. Kimber produces a product called LifeAct that uses a pyrotechnic charge to forcefully deliver the active ingredient in a very narrow, fast moving stream to about 13 feet for the compact Guardian Angel unit and up to 21 feet for the larger JPX Projector with significantly reduced risk of cross contamination due to the delivery method. These distances are long enough to be useful in a defensive encounter.

The pyrotechnic delivery system appears to address many of the very legitimate issues raised about the challenges of successfully using OC from a pressurized canister in a defensive situation. Info on the devices can be found at:

http://www.life-act.com/

Several of the testimonials posted on the site are from LEO's who weren't happy with earlier products.

SWAT Magazine did an article on it. The full text can be viewed at:

http://www.life-act.com/press/2007-kimb ... watmag.php


I don't have any personal experience with the product, but it looks like a potentially interesting option. If anyone has more information on it, please be kind enough to share.

[LedJedi]

That + 2-3 feet is about the effective range of most sprays.

There have been some advances in OC propellant technology in the last couple of years. Kimber produces a product called LifeAct that uses a pyrotechnic charge to forcefully deliver the active ingredient in a very narrow, fast moving stream to about 13 feet for the compact Guardian Angel unit and up to 21 feet for the larger JPX Projector with significantly reduced risk of cross contamination due to the delivery method. These distances are long enough to be useful in a defensive encounter.

The pyrotechnic delivery system appears to address many of the very legitimate issues raised about the challenges of successfully using OC from a pressurized canister in a defensive situation. Info on the devices can be found at:

http://www.life-act.com/

Several of the testimonials posted on the site are from LEO's who weren't happy with earlier products.

SWAT Magazine did an article on it. The full text can be viewed at:

http://www.life-act.com/press/2007-kimb ... watmag.php


I don't have any personal experience with the product, but it looks like a potentially interesting option. If anyone has more information on it, please be kind enough to share.

I've seen that at my local Carter Country and just assumed it was a redesign of the canister housing. I didn't realize they were using projectile systems. I read over both articles and I'm honestly pretty impressed. I may buy one and test it out for myself. If it lives up to the hype that would certainly help in minimizing contamination from wind.

Still not wild about trusting my life to OC and contamination from the assailant could still be an issue, but that does look to be a marked improvement over the standard canister system, i'll certainly give you that. :)

Anyone want to volunteer as a test subject? :)

[Excaliber]

Still not wild about trusting my life to OC and contamination from the assailant could still be an issue

I wouldn't trust my life to OC either.

Whether OC is projected by pyrotechnics or aerosol propellant, it's not a good choice for dealing with a deadly force attack unless it's all you've got available at the time. If life is truly in immediate jeopardy, it's a deadly force encounter that reasonably calls for a deadly force response.

It's also worthy of note that the device's instructions caution that discharging the device in contact with an assailant or within 2 feet is dangerous and should be avoided because the pyrotechnically propelled stream would have sufficient force to penetrate the body at that distance (somewhat similar to the effect of firing a blank cartridge but with a liquid "projectile" that would behave more like a solid at that range.) This characteristic is not present with aerosol delivery systems.

Cross contamination could certainly be an issue if you still end up grappling with an assailant, or if a brisk wind is blowing from behind the target and toward you.

If you're in a situation where you're facing a physical attack that does not rise to the level of deadly force, a well designed OC delivery system may be a viable tool for resolving it satisfactorily with relatively few legal complications.

that does look to be a marked improvement over the standard canister system, i'll certainly give you that.

It's a compliment to have gotten a thoughtful man thinking. Thanks!

[Abraham]

I find OC spray with CS immensely effective - on dogs.

I use mine on average every other day. I cycle the back roads and invariably encounter from one to three dogs. I use the stream type. I make certain of wind direction and never spray above my eyes. I spray above the dogs eyes in a "mark of zorro" fashion. At times, I do this over the shoulder as I pedal furiously to get away. Sometime the dog's just to fast for me and then I aim for the eyes, nose and mouth.

A few days ago a lady working in her yard let one of her three big dogs come racing after me. I could see she saw what was happening and she never let out a peep. Not once did she call the dog back. When he was three or so feet from me and gaining, I hosed him. At that point she yelled a few imprecations.

Up to this point she was, I assume, amused and entertained by her dog chasing the goofy guy on the bicycle.

But, surprise, surprise...!!

The dog promptly stopped chasing me and pawed vigorously at his eyes and nose.

Spraying the dog doesn't injure him. It actually keeps him alive and me from possibly being mauled.

She was still yelling as I pedaled away...

[LedJedi]

I find OC spray with CS immensely effective - on dogs.

I use mine on average every other day. I cycle the back roads and invariably encounter from one to three dogs. I use the stream type. I make certain of wind direction and never spray above my eyes. I spray above the dogs eyes in a "mark of zorro" fashion. At times, I do this over the shoulder as I pedal furiously to get away. Sometime the dog's just to fast for me and then I aim for the eyes, nose and mouth.

A few days ago a lady working in her yard let one of her three big dogs come racing after me. I could see she saw what was happening and she never let out a peep. Not once did she call the dog back. When he was three or so feet from me and gaining, I hosed him. At that point she yelled a few imprecations.

Up to this point she was, I assume, amused and entertained by her dog chasing the goofy guy on the bicycle.

But, surprise, surprise...!!

The dog promptly stopped chasing me and pawed vigorously at his eyes and nose.

Spraying the dog doesn't injure him. It actually keeps him alive and me from possibly being mauled.

She was still yelling as I pedaled away...

Ya, i can very much see that. If I were a meter reader, mailman or otherwise encountering lots of aggressive dogs on a regular basis that might be the prefect tool. All a dog usually needs is a good spray and you're good. That's certainly a good use for it :)

[NathanJK]

I don't currently, and I can't see myself doing so in the future. However, I would like my wife to! I don't think she will ever be comfortable with a CHL and OC beats nothing. For myself though, I already carry keys, wallet, phone, and a knife. Adding a gun when I get my CHL means a gun and magazines as well. The good news is that they don't have to go in my pockets which are already too full. Also, I don't want to have yet another thing running through my head if things get ugly. I could see this line of thought going through my head "how dangerous is this guy? should I draw? maybe I should just spray him?" WHACK THUD no more thinking from me ever again. I don't need anything clouding my thoughts when things aren't going well.

On a side note, I've never been sprayed and I would like to be, I figure that if my wife ever had to use OC around me she'd probably get me too, better to be prepared!

[Excaliber]

I could see this line of thought going through my head "how dangerous is this guy? should I draw? maybe I should just spray him?" WHACK THUD no more thinking from me ever again. I don't need anything clouding my thoughts when things aren't going well.

There may be a few clouds in this line of thinking already. Whether or not you ask those questions of yourself before you act, rest assured the police,the DA and the media will ask them afterwards.

[Paladin]

I've been carrying Sabre Advanced with both OC/CS more often... although there's still plenty of Fox OC "about" my person.

I've seen a large aggressive dog that someone in the neighborhood(not me) sprayed with OC. Normally this dog would run loose up and down the street and be very aggressive towards other animals and people. The next time dog saw the spray-er... that dog ran away to hide.

[OldSchool]

Since this question came up in a new thread, I wanted to cast a new vote here for Sabre and a good, inexpensive knife. We are both making more of a point of keeping one or both with us. As many here probably know, my employer will never feel obligated by Texas parking lot carry rules, so we both are quite constrained on our defensive posture.

Interesting fact: I just now went to check on which Sabre we are carrying -- Sabre doesn't have anything on the case except "USA" and the patent! Probably because of the patent dispute over the case. Not Red, I'm pretty sure. Time to buy more, anyway, as they're about a year old.

Off-topic: Reason for the inexpensive knife: Simply in case of forgetfulness, when it might be taken from me. Not too inexpensive, because we just realized that one of our cheap knives did not have a metal frame!

[Excaliber]

Since this question came up in a new thread, I wanted to cast a new vote here for Sabre and a good, inexpensive knife. We are both making more of a point of keeping one or both with us. As many here probably know, my employer will never feel obligated by Texas parking lot carry rules, so we both are quite constrained on our defensive posture.

Interesting fact: I just now went to check on which Sabre we are carrying -- Sabre doesn't have anything on the case except "USA" and the patent! Probably because of the patent dispute over the case. Not Red, I'm pretty sure. Time to buy more, anyway, as they're about a year old.

Off-topic: Reason for the inexpensive knife: Simply in case of forgetfulness, when it might be taken from me. Not too inexpensive, because we just realized that one of our cheap knives did not have a metal frame!

All of the spray and foam OC products suffer from high risk of cross contamination (that's a nice way of saying it's often hard to keep the spray from affecting you too), vulnerability to wind direction and precipitation, limited range, and declining pressure during storage.

My preferred OC projector is the Kimber LifeAct, which uses a small pyrotechnic charge to deliver a 90MPH jet of large liquid drops at a range of up to 13 feet. I've test fired these units, and the really fast moving OC jet holds together well and lands with a SPLAT. It is pointed like a handgun and will deliver its effects even through face masks and around glasses. A video of the product can be found here.

[OldSchool]

My preferred OC projector is the Kimber LifeAct, which uses a small pyrotechnic charge to deliver a 90MPH jet of large liquid drops at a range of up to 13 feet. I've test fired these units, and the really fast moving OC jet holds together well and lands with a SPLAT. It is pointed like a handgun and will deliver its effects even through face masks and around glasses. A video of the product can be found here.

First question that came to mind when we saw one of these recently: Doesn't this come dangerously close to being classified as a firearm?