Does non-lethal force exist in a practical sense for law-abiding citizens?

The law disagrees with this.

Unless you are okay with going to prison, is not okay to assume any and every attack or threat of attack is automatically justification for deadly force.

The vast majority of attacks are not lethal force. The vast majority of attacks are simple battery or similar, not agg assault or attempted murder or something like that. A simple look at crime stats, the news, or the FBI UCR will show this fact (the majority of attacks or fights are not lethal force)

Please do not shoot the empty handed guy who pushed you and threatened to punch you (unless there are specific facts/circumstances that lead a reasonable person to conclude this is an imminent deadly threat, as generally it would not be)

4 Likes

In certain conditions, a Taser can be useful in temporarily immobilizing the assailant. The efficacy can be diminished by clothing that prevents the probes from imbedding into the skin of the assailant. Also, I believe there is a difference between the pulse rate of the law enforcement configuration of the Taser and the civilian configuration. Correct me, please, anybody? But if the probes make contact, the immobilization effect on the assailant will give you time to get away; or to cuff if you are prepared to do so.

3 Likes

You forgot your disclaimer. :thinking:

2 Likes

I was in no way suggesting that anyone shoot some jerk who pushes them but if someone violently attacks you and they have the ability to deliver on the threat and pose a risk of serious bodily injury or death then you better believe one has justification to use deadly forceā€¦ Take note that I said and has the ability to deliver on their threatā€¦ If you are 6ā€™6" 300 pounds and some 5ft nothing ass attacks you and he is unarmed then he clearly doesnā€™t have the ability to do you serious bodily harm unless he has a weapon of some sortā€¦ Conversely, if you are 5ft nothing and some 6ā€™6" linebacker says heā€™s going to kill you and begins to attack you then you have every justification to use deadly force even if he is unarmed because he clearly has the ability to deliver on the threat. If you want to wait and see what the intentions are of someone that grabs you around the throat is before you ā€œthink overā€ whether or not you should or want to use deadly force then go right ahead, but even if your attacker is unarmed and you are armed the risk of having your weapon taken and used against you is very real, but again if you want to risk that and wait to see how your attacker is going to act or if heā€™s serious about hurting you then, by all means, go right aheadā€¦ Like I said if the thought of using deadly force when warranted troubles someone then they should leave their gun at home and carry their can of mace that will give them a false sense of security because I donā€™t know if you have ever used it on someone jacked up on drugs and angry but itā€™s pretty much useless and only pisses them off moreā€¦ It is, of course, prudent to run various scenarios through your mind and even discuss them to better prepare yourself mentally in the event you encounter such a situation but when I read all these people talking about using a force continuum as civilians who happen to have mace, an ASP, and a handgun on their belt Iā€™m gonna call it as I see itā€¦ CRAZY! Iā€™d bet dollars to donuts the civilian walking around with a full duty belt full of weaponry is just looking for trouble rather than trying to avoid it and probably thinks itā€™s their job to police the public. If anyone ever sees your gun it should be the last thing they ever see and yes you had better be justified using it and not pretending to be the neighborhood cop like that clown recently convicted in Georgia with his fatherā€¦ But to each, their own, and we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefsā€¦If you are carrying a firearm though itā€™s prudent to understand the use of force. and not assume someone speaking generally and taking one sentence with no context and thinking it means they advocate you shoot everyone that walks up and shoves youā€¦Iā€™ve never had to pull my gun on anyone as a civilian because I keep my real weapon on my shoulders active and avoid bad places where there are high chances of troubleā€¦ You know places like bars or late-night parties with hundreds of drunks present or events in known bad neighborhoodsā€¦ But if someone does come into my world and jumps out of nowhere trying to choke me or starts swinging a fist or anything else at me Iā€™m going to assume what any reasonable and prudent person would and surmise they mean to cause me serious bodily harm or death and defend myself appropriatelyā€¦ If they are 5ft nothing and alone with no weapon, Iā€™ll give them a quick class in self-defense and leave it at that but if they are in numbers or much larger than me with the intent to take everything on me after beating me into submission then you may not believe deadly force is justified but I do and Iā€™m confident I have a better chance of walking away alive than anyone who spends time considering if the person who just jumped from behind something and grabbed them around the neck or hit them in the head with something has the intent to hurt them and if they should defend themselves or just hand everything over, gun included and see what the bad guy decides to doā€¦ Iā€™ll defend myself and be just fine with taking it before a jury. As for most bad guys not hurting people perhaps you havenā€™t been watching the news of lateā€¦ People are getting pulled from their cars and beat to death, groups of kids are jumping people and stomping their heads into the pavement until they are brain dead or completely deadā€¦ Donā€™t try and insert some preppy kid in Brentwood whoā€™s trying to pretend heā€™s a thug or someone that shoves you because one of you is an asshole and you can walk away with a real criminal or group of real thugsā€¦ These are just my opinions and experience thoughā€¦ Yours are clearly different and as I said, by all means, take your time and discuss things over with the bad guyā€¦ He might turn out not to be all that bad a guyā€¦ LOL But I will say again, regardless of our different experiences and understanding of things if the thought of avoiding the use of deadly force regardless of who attacks you and what their intentions are troubles you then please, you really should consider not leaving home with a gun on youā€¦ Be responsible, be safe, and train frequently! God bless you and have a Merry Christmas!

5 Likes

Have I self disclaimed that much that itā€™s missing if I donā€™t? lol.

Iā€™m not completely certain what youā€™re referring to. IANAL, I am not a lawyer?

3 Likes

Like an 80-year old man that would die from a blow to the head? Look at the FBI UCR and deaths by hands, feet and fists compared to by rifle and other weapons and get back to me. I had an 83 year old co-worker die about a decade ago after falling while jogging. He had a couple of contusions, far from life-threatening for someone much younger, but the stress on his body from those injuries eventually led to his death. Your idea of life-threatening and what is actually life-threatening is not reality. If one is in fear of great bodily harm or death varies from yours, that does not make that personā€™s belief invalid.

3 Likes

Yes, absolutely, being 80 years old is a factor. At that age, you can likely use more force sooner.

And, likewise, if youā€™re a 30 year old who just got done benching 300 at the gym, you donā€™t get to shoot the 80 year old who pushed you. If you create outlier examples, generalities might not apply.

3 Likes

It might. It depends.

In this case it likely depends on which one of our beliefs is objectively reasonable, as judged by others (prosecutor, maybe a jury, in the context of the laws of that jurisdiction)

4 Likes

Not true at all, but keep posting.

1 Like

Why not true?

1 Like

As you stated, it depends. Thanks for playing.

1 Like

It does indeed

2 Likes

Reality is always complicated and ā€œit dependsā€ is never an incorrect answer, but that doesnā€™t mean it is helpful. Weā€™ve gotten a bit off topic, but some examples might help to understand just how much it depends and how insignificant size or age or armament actually can matter. What truly matters is the tactical reality in its entirety and the mindset and preparation of the attacker and victim to accomplish their goal.

An unarmed adrenalized woman weighing 90 lbs who has seemingly lived violent realities such as a long prison term or participating in sex work or drug trafficking is always a deadly threat to someone who has acquired her rage. She has limited concern for her own safety and knows a level of psychological and physical violence in reality that most people have never seen in their worst nightmares. If her victim turns their back on her to leave, she is likely to take advantage of this opportunity to knock her target to the ground and stomp them until they stop moving. If she walks away then she is no longer a threat, but definitely donā€™t expect her to go down just from inflicted pain.

A 250 lb male athlete who is just being drunk and belligerent and engaging in social violence against a 150 lb academic because he feels his date is losing interest may not reasonably be a deadly threat, even if he is trivially armed in the eyes of the law because he is brandishing a beer bottle to intimidate. He probably doesnā€™t intend to cause serious bodily injury or death. If his target backs off, he likely considers that a win, though his date probably wonā€™t be impressed much. He also probably goes down really easy from a moderate level of uncomfortableness.

I started this thread to understand if a case can be articulated where a personā€™s escape is successfully physically prevented by their attacker where the person should not feel an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. There is an obvious disparity of force because they are unable to overcome the attackerā€™s prevention of their withdrawal. This is a kidnapping in my opinion and thus is a deadly force encounter.

If a civilian is not being physically prevented from withdrawing from a conflict, is pepper spraying or tasering someone a lawful use of force and is it even a good idea tactically? The civilian can withdraw, so no use of force is actually necessary. Right now their withdrawal is not directly blocked. Does adding a weapon of any kind, even one that is legally not assumed to be lethal force, serve any purpose except to escalate things?

1 Like

The case statement is not at all clear. Prevented from escape by what means? Physical or verbal intimidation? Physical or verbal threat of violence? Access to assistance or isolated? Battery, manually restrained, tied up, or locked in a room? For 30 sec, a minute, five minutes, an hour?

There is a subjective continuum here ā€” from departure briefly delayed in a witnessed public space by physical blocking and some words (force of any kind to escape is probably not justified), all the way to zip-tied and beaten for days in a private space (lethal force is required at any opportunity ā€” even if such an outcome is reasonable to anticipate from circumstance).

I can see that a brief detainment without battery or clear threat of violence might be characterized as ā€œkidnappingā€ ā€” but is not a deadly force encounter. One could certainly develop.

No. Not if the opportunity to withdraw is real, and does not appear to place the withdrawing party at increased hazard. Adding violence to an encounter, where imminent violence is not reasonable to anticipate, is to become the aggressor. Unless by ā€œadding a weaponā€ you mean to include display of a weapon ā€” that may be justified in the face of non-physical menace, depending upon local ROE. Might still be unwise.

2 Likes

Just because you cannot safely retreat without putting yourself at risk (for example, by having to turn your back), that does not mean it is kidnapping.

Non-lethal force absolutely has a place and that place in lawful self defense. Pepper spray is an example non-lethal force.

Not every scenario is necessarily going to be ā€œsafely retreatā€ or ā€œlethal force justifiedā€. We have already seen video examples of pepper spray deescalating situations, so, yes, it absolutely can serve a purpose that is not escalation.

2 Likes

By physical means. By blocking movement, by grappling, by intentional surrounding with people. The victim acted to intentionally withdraw, or if time and space allowed, has stated their intention to withdraw verbally.

The attacker or attackers then blocked their motion, grabbed them, or surrounded them, or ripped them out of their car specifically to interfere with their withdrawal.

Should the victim be expected to be at their attackerā€™s mercy in this situation? Should they be expected to take unnecessary risk of their own safety by limiting the effectiveness of their response to preserve the safety of their captor?

Do they just have to take a beating sometimes as a prosecutor would suggest in a self defense jury trial?

To be clear, Iā€™m not suggesting the gun is the right move here, Iā€™m suggesting physiological incapacitation of the attackers by whatever means you have might be the only safe move.

In this example the victim could go to the pepper spray, but especially if facing multiple attackers, or if being grappled with already, their chances of successfully evening the odds with pain based deterrents are lower than Iā€™d accept.

Pepper spray and tasers are both pain based deterrents. They can be overcome with psychological conditioning. FBI agents in training are required to demonstrate that they have such conditioning in order to pass the academy: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/becoming-an-agent-part-4

If someone is psychologically predisposed to violence as shown by their actions, is it safe to assume they are not psychologically conditioned against pain?

I think pepper spray and tasers are acceptable tools to fend off a would-be robber, the robber is likely to not want to endure pain or take the risk of incapacitation to get your wallet. But Iā€™d also argue the robber is likely to allow your escape if you just drop your money and run. I keep a sacrificial wad of cash in a dedicated pocket specifically for this purpose. If someone tries to rob me, they get that cash and I go home to my family.

If it is the person they want, not just cash or property, then my opinion is that pain based deterrents are an insufficient response.

2 Likes

What if the attacker, who has only made verbal threats or maybe pushed the defender one time (defender did not fall down or sustain injury from the push), is simply standing face to face with the defender, at conversational distance (letā€™s say 6 feet, because you know), and there is nothing physically preventing the defender from leaving, BUT, the defender does not believe they would be completely safe if they turned their back to walk away, nor does the defender feel they would be completely safe if they walked backwards with no ability to see where they were going.

This general scenario seems very common.

Would you consider this justification for lethal force? Would you suggest they turn their back on the attacker, or walk backwards without seeing where they are going? Other and write in your own suggested action?

BTW: Pepper spray is more than a pain based deterrent. For many people, it physiologically reduces a persons ability to fight or give chase, for some, it forces their eyes closed and they must literally use a hand to pry their eye open to see. When pepper spray works (which it often does, though not always), it works, as seen in the above videos, and itā€™s not just pain compliance

2 Likes

The best response is to be non-threatening and slowly make distance. This could be moving sideways so you can keep an eye on our attacker and also in the direction you are moving, the situation is dynamic. We have peripheral vision and we can move in any direction, not just forward and backward.

If the attacker pushed the victim and made a verbal threat, that could even be a defensive response of a person who had been victimized themselves and sees our defender as a threat to them.

I donā€™t feel pepper spraying or tasering someone in this scenario is justified use of force. There is no use of force being countered by the pepper spray. Pepper spraying this person who is simply standing face to face at a distance of 6ā€™ could be an unjustified aggravated assault.

Any attacker willing to exert physical force has ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death, if that attacker moves to close the distance they are gaining opportunity, and they have verbally threatened intent to do serious bodily injury or death then our defender is in jeopardy.

4 Likes

The defender is on a sidewalk. One direction (left) is a brick wall, the other direction (right) is moving traffic.

What do you suggest?

ā€œI donā€™t feel pepper spraying or tasering someone in this scenario is justified use of force. There is no use of force being countered by the pepper spray. Pepper spraying this person who is simply standing face to face at a distance of 6ā€™ could be an unjustified aggravated assault.ā€

They are doing more than simply standing there, as I already outlined. They already used force (push) and are threatening more force.

What do you suggest?

2 Likes
3 Likes