TexasCHLforum.com

Glad I found you guys.

Recently, there was a discussion on PDO (packing.org). (By the way, what/where is PSC?)

What do you recommend/tell students about defending against stun guns/pepper spray?

I know that many LEO think they are justified to use deadly force against pepper spray. They were taught that's why they had to be sprayed in training - so they could testify that they knew they would be incapacitated and the scum bag could take their weapon.

I am not sure a non-LEO could use that argument, especially since their 'duty weapon' is supposed to be concealed.

Also, since the stun gun is NOT incapacitating (regardless of what you see on TV), how are you going to argue you shot someone cause you were afraid he was going to shock you?

Granted, Tasers are disabling for most victims.

I tell them stun guns and pepper spray are 'intermediate weapons', as such they are non-lethal (less than lethal? less lethal?) and I do not think we can justify deadly force.

i dont think you would be justified using leathal force in defense from a non leathal weapon.

but i dont know everything either.

therooster wrote:i dont think you would be justified using leathal force in defense from a non leathal weapon.

but i dont know everything either.

It does not necessarily depend on what weapon is used, but the manner of its use.

If I slap an ink pen across your hand, that is barely force, but if I slam it point first into your forehead, I think that IS deadly force.

Remember, to be justified in your use of deadly force you must reasonably believe that doing so is immediately necessary to protect yourself from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

Deadly force includes force that would cause serious bodily injury. If a person is attempting to use an electrical device or OC against me, what is my reasonable belief about that use of force?

Also, what is your reasonable belief regarding the purpose of the others use of that device against you. Could it be the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery?

Lots to think about....................

If somebody uses/attempts to use ANYTHING on me that has the capability to incapacitate then I will use the maximum force available to me to stop it.
Lethal force included.

What are they going to do AFTER they've incapacitated you? Walk away? I don't think so.

[quote="switch"]Glad I found you guys.

(By the way, what/where is PSC?)

http://www.psc-range.com/

I disagree to an extent. If a perp. is using Pepper Spray against you, or at least threatens you with it... then you have to use the best tool you have (The gray matter between your ears) about what is happening here.

If you see a bunch of college frat looking boys spraying you as they drive along, then no dealdly force is not justified because there would be a hard time defending yourself as having "Fear of Life".

If you are a female, in a dark parking lot at 2:00AM and are approached by two thugs mouthing off and attempt to pepper spray you? Defend yourself, because you can only anticipate the worst if they get you down on the ground and do something worse to you. This is fear of life, and the police who eventually arrive on scene will be able to see why. You have at times reason to believe that your life was in danger.

LEO's are more at risk from this situation (papper) than the everyday civi, as most perps you read about do not use pepper spray/CS as an offensive weapon. But they are out there... and if it happens to you you better your head and determine in a split second if they are spraying you in a manner that leads you to believe that if your life is not threatened right now, it will be soon thereafter.

97octane:
Welcome to the forum and thanks for registering. Yeah, I know I've already sent a PM, but you get two "welcomes."

Chas.

One would think that deadly force could be justified if an intermidate, yet incapacitating ,weapon such as a taser could be deployed, rendering one incapable of securing their weapon. I guess the devil would be in the details on this one.

match308 wrote:One would think that deadly force could be justified if an intermidate, yet incapacitating ,weapon such as a taser could be deployed, rendering one incapable of securing their weapon. I guess the devil would be in the details on this one.

The law is specific, deadly force can only be used against an immediate threat, not what 'might" happen "if" something else happens.

97Octane wrote:"Fear of Life".

If you are a female, in a dark parking lot at 2:00AM and are approached by two thugs mouthing off and attempt to pepper spray you? Defend yourself, because you can only anticipate the worst if they get you down on the ground and do something worse to you. This is fear of life, and the police who eventually arrive on scene will be able to see why. You have at times reason to believe that your life was in danger.

ah, yes, the ol' F o L thing. never get tired of that one!
anyway, the point, and key, is "totality of circumstances."
my CHL instructor used that phrase more than once. He was a genius. maybe still is, I dunno.
anyway, using the examples of guys driving by, or alone in an alley, that's apples and oranges. the only common denominator is the Peppa Spray. you have to include all of the details in your "defense from prosecution," as the case may be.
dude walks up to me and tries using a stun gun on me, I may be inclined to kick him squaw in the bait'n tackle.
or use my own Peppa Spray. something to think about too.
ya'll got yer OC on ya, don'tcha?