Couldve went really bad

No offense meant.
For my personal situation I want to have an alternative to killing someone if I can help it.
If a lawyer wants to use that against me, so be it. At least I didn’t have to take a life.
And it is a better “deterrent” for the four legged kind of threat.

1 Like

I like options. But I think @Alexander8 ‘s concerns are valid. We might need a good lawyer to help explain why we chose the options we did.

But I like @Nathan57 ’s advice of doing everything we can to avoid, retreat from and/or deescalate conflict so we don’t need to defend ourselves. I can’t provide for and defend my family from real threats if I end up in jail or dead trying to defend my ego or my wife’s honor from a low life who doesn’t deserve my attention.

1 Like

None taken. The way I see it (reminder, I am not a lawyer! just musing), if you decided to use OC spray, you should stay with OC spray to keep your legal armor solid. This works for 4 legged threat. What happens though, if Mr.Fentanyl can’t smell the spice, and you find yourself fighting for gun retention. I am not saying give up your life of course, but prepare to be called the instigator, the wannabe cop, the vigilante.

Didn’t VA try to ban martial arts exactly like you describe? We need to acknowledge reality, especially if we live in some special states and cities. What are the defensive goals:

  1. Survive physically
  2. Survive legally, financially, mentally
  3. Train for survival

How does 2 stage escalation process, from OC to gun, help here? It doesn’t, neither goal.

1 Like

I think in the described situation here no escalation of any kind was necessary.

I don’t view OC as part of a multi step response on the escalation scale. It is an either or option for me. Useful only in the very limited situations where the threat is imminent but I am pretty darn certain I can stop it with less than lethal force.

3 Likes

Because you were attacked and used pepper spray to defend yourself from non-lethal threat/attack? I don’t follow

Smiddy:

Absolutely right. If you carry you are held to a higher standard. On a tangential but related note, it never ceases to amaze and disgust me how unwilling many people are to exert just a few iotas of physical effort in the interest of all. I habitually do NOT search for the closest parking spot but instead get my steps in and avoid accusations of door dinging by parking at a distance. My son had very intense in-home autism therapy and several workers at one time would be in my home. They HABITUALLY blocked my driveway, mailbox, and gates simply because they wouldn’t walk their fat flabby asses an additional 10 to 25 feet until I read them the riot act. This guy you dealt with was no different than them. Damn, people, there are more important things in the world than conserving your effort. Ok, rant over.

2 Likes

Apparently, having both gun and OC spray, or gun and baton, is viewed by the DAs as intent to police and apprehend someone. You dont see logic in this?

1 Like

I have not heard of that. Carrying pepper spray is intent to apprehend someone? No, I don’t see the logic in that. Handcuffs maybe, but pepper spray?

Pepper spray is useful for a number of reasons. “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Pepper spray is generally not going to be considered lethal force. A firearm is always going to be considered lethal force. They are different tools for different situations and applications.

If you take a look at crime stats, and look the number of assaults/batteries/attacks each year that are not lethal force (“simple” assault or battery, not aggravated, no serious bodily harm or death etc), you’ll see that non-lethal force level encounters far (far) exceed lethal force encounters. In these cases, pepper spray can be useful to help the defender escape, evade, or successfully fend off the attacker.

A baton is a different story. Generally, a baton is something that could be, I might say should probably be expected to be considered, lethal force. Striking somebody with a baton…expect that to be seen as a much higher level of force than pepper spray. A baton also relies on size/speed/strength/agility/etc of the wielder, far more so than pepper spray.

I really don’t see where a baton (why are we talking about batons??) has relevance to a discussion about pepper spray (or a gun) (or pepper spray and a gun)

Edit: But more to the point…if you aren’t trying to apprehend somebody…you aren’t trying to apprehend somebody?

1 Like

I told you what I heard. Trusting in logic, common sense, honesty comes at a risk. Multiple options complicate things and increase risk.

1 Like

Interesting. What precisely did you hear, and from whom?

But, I disagree. Options do not increase risk. Having only a gun, only lethal force, and no other options, drastically increases your risk. IF you do need force in self defense, chances are you will not need, nor will you be able to justify, lethal force.

Having a non lethal option is necessary. Now, that doesn’t mean it has to be a ‘tool’ other than your own hands, feet, etc, but a non-lethal response must always be an option. Potentially increasing the effectiveness of that non-lethal option with pepper spray, sorry, I do not believe that increases your risk.

And, really, if you’re worried about what people might say about you if they are out to get you…don’t own a gun.

If I find the link, I’ll post it here.

The 1st alternative is always conflict avoidance. Arming yourself for graduated response signals to potential jurors you are preparing for conflict, not for defending your life.

When you command “Stop!” with voice and hand signal, that is the non-lethal response. Deploying pepper spray is akin to brandishing, if you did it, you were not worried about your life, and it may be viewed as aggressive gesture by jurors, which escalated the conflict. Using OC spray against an animal is an exception. Having OC spray as the only defensive tool on you is ok. But Heavens forbid, you have to go from OC spray to sidearm, there will be a lot of questions about what your using the spray caused.

If people weren’t worried about what people (jurors, judges) might say, USCCA would not exist. You were kidding right?

Disagree.

Having a non-lethal tool for non-lethal situations instead of only having a lethal tool signals that you are preparing for non-lethal threats as well as lethal threats.

Having lethal force as your only option is bad.

In the real world, you won’t always get the opportunity to put your hand out like a stop sign and command “Stop!”, nor will your attacker(s) always listen.

Deploying pepper spray is not akin to brandishing a firearm.

No, you do not have to fear for your life to use pepper spray.

There will be a lot of questions about what you did if, Heavens forbid, you used a firearm on another person. Period.

If you carry pepper spray, which is generally a reasonable thing to do, it is best applied to non-lethal situations.

If you carry a firearm, which is generally a reasonable thing to do, it is only to be applied for lethal force/imminent deadly threat/imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death.

There is nothing wrong with having both.

2 Likes
1 Like

I respect your opinion, and appreciate you articulating it.

Great job handling the situation. I don’t see any other way it could’ve been handled. If you were standing outside the vehicle, that guy wouldn’t said a word or even walked to the vehicle. Some people always have to say something instead of minding their business & going about their day.

The benefit is one for society in general. See “On Civil Disobedience,” ~ H.D. Thoreau.

If this person had lightly tapped on the window and asked politely, I’d have started it up and moved the car with a “sure, no problem.” But he did not. He initiated conflict by verbally assaulting my sweet litttle innocent wife, whom he had no idea is the most polite lady, right til u push “wildcat button.” At that point I’d already determined no physical threat existed so it became about his bad manners. My refusal to take his rudely implied request to move and do so was my avtion = the choice of inaction. Since he had the energy to be a horses rump, I figured he had the energy to walk the 4 steps he’d taken to the window again, then however many needed to get away from us.

The mention here of “had he been armed” was because I’d already determined he was not when I did exit my car. Had he fooled me, I’d have been in the best place to respond. But he didn’t fool me. He wanted to be rude and loud and got called on the carpet after it didn’t accomplish anything for him, like magically moving my vehicle. Or, perhaps he needed attention like a child, even negative attention, in which case he got wat he wanted.

What I will not do for anyone is reward being rude to my wife with anything they want or anything good. But, I’ll also not be rude to her myself by making her come post my bail……problem was handled without incident. No one was hurt. I consider it a win that was simply fraught with potential lessons of “what if (x),” as this conversation has shown :wink:

Thanks again to all for your varied and valuable input.

God bless

1 Like