Generally speaking, I would not. It’s hard for me to imagine being so unaware of my surroundings as to be unable to safely take a step or two backward to physically signal intent to withdraw while verbally expressing the same. If a person operates only forward, then I guess they’re obliged to trip and fall down.
If those signals are answered with pursuit by a menacer displaying ability, opportunity, & jeopardy of serious injury or death, then I think that visible preparation for immediate use of lethal force would be appropriate — unholster and continue verbal deescalation. For as long as there is time and space — when time and space are gone, you are on. And hope that those who will judge can agree that you did it right.
In some jurisdictions I think it could be allowed to preemptively use non-lethal force in response to the initial acts of menace (subject to the whole Monday morning “reasonable” thing). But at ordinary conversational distances, I don’t think the time and space are sufficient for most of us to be considering sequential use of intermediate force levels. Feel free to try whatever you like, of course.
I think intermediate force options are appropriate when it is possible to disengage, but there is some obligation not to — law enforcement, possibly civilian defense of others. Or when certain force levels are prohibited. Otherwise, if the mythical “reasonable person”
– does not perceive probable serious injury or death, then take the hit;
– does perceive probable serious injury or death, expect to shoot.
No matter what, others will decide whether your choice was right or wrong. OC won’t prevent that — it just juggles around who might die, and who might go to prison.
What if it is pursuit of a single, similarly statured, empty handed individual who is still threatening violence, but there is no reasonable threat of imminent deadly force?
There may be some confusion. I’m not talking about sequential anything, I’m just talking about a threat or use of force that is not deadly force. No deadly force, no imminent deadly threat, lethal force at that moment not a consideration in any way, with no intent by the defender to escalate it to that level
See, I disagree with this.
I don’t think you should have to take the beating. I don’t think you should have to be punched in the face.
I think you should be able to use your pepper spray to create that opening to more safely disengage, or reduce their ability to strike or beat you effectively
Of course. Absolutely. As already laid out, using OC doesn’t prevent a need to demonstrate (or have demonstrated on your behalf) that your use of force was reasonable and justified.
But when presented with non lethal force, I propose that using OC is a better choice than taking the punch/beating, or using lethal force when it is not justified.
And we have seen tremendous numbers of OC spray uses in real life, they are very easy to find, everywhere, this isn’t theory, it’s street reality on a regular basis.
That’s fine. I think in [most/many/all] jurisdictions you would be allowed to do that. I don’t think you should have to be punched in the face, either. My point is that the interval between perceiving a non-lethal threat and recognizing a lethal threat can easily be just a second or two.
If you have the power of foreknowledge to identify a non-lethal threat with certainty, then by all means carry multiple options and deploy them appropriately. I choose to anticipate only a single response, since I don’t have the foreknowledge or the transition speed. The consequence of my decision is that if the developing threat does not justify lethal response, I need to be willing to take it in order to remain the good guy.
Very impressive choreography — like watching a proficient sports team pull together a broken play using practiced contingencies. But this falls into the “obligation to protect others” bucket, not self-defense. Maybe there was some defense of property. It was also team defense vs individual threat, not 1x1 or multiple threats. Also, everyone had the opportunity to withdraw safely from the confrontation. That option was only taken by Customer #1.
But a joy to watch the calm and purposeful team coordination:
– everyone is aware of the encounter developing;
– Customer #1 books immediately around the moving conflict;
– Counter #1 narrates continuously to 9-1-1;
– Counter #2 arms Floor #1, shelters Customer #2, witnesses, distracts;
– Floor #1 continuously maneuvers in non-threat postures to shoo, then drive Hazard #1 out of the store.
Maybe this happens all the time at this store, and they know this guy to be a nuisance rather than a serious threat. Or maybe they’re just that good.
I have to keep going back to our most effective weapon that sits on our shoulders… Using deadly force should ALWAYS be the last resort but once it becomes apparent it is necessary it needs to be decisive without hesitation because situations that justify the use of deadly force typically happen real fast and when one least expects it to happen. A lot of the scenarios being described here seem to me at least the way I am interpreting them should be avoidable with a little verbal judo to deescalate the situation. I have seen several examples given though including one you made above that are spot on…
Generally speaking if someone conveys a threat they have to be able to deliver on it… You example of the 30 year old who benches 300 pounds against an 80 year old frail man who’s telling the muscle bound kid he’s going to beat his ass is one where deadly force would not be appropriate, so-long as the 80 year old frail man is not armed and has no means to deliver on his threat. Turn that around though and the 30 year old muscle bound kid tells the old man he’s going to beat his ass and moves to act on it then the 80 year old would have the right to use deadly force even if the kid was unarmed because he is clearly capable of delivering on the threat he made.
Any time you can talk your way out of a confrontation you should do so and most of the scenarios mentioned seem like ones that the appropriate words could diffuse. The problem I encounter with people is they put a gun on their side, or toss a Rambo stick around their neck like Kyle Rittenhouse did and for some bizarre reason they think no one is going to mess with them… As the whole country saw when you walk into a rowdy crowd there are plenty of fools that will want to find out if you will pull the trigger and in such situation if you don’t and they get your gun there is a better than average chance someone will pull the trigger on you…
Carrying a firearm should humble you and your mindset should be to avoid at all cost and attempt to deescalate if it’s a situation that allows for you to do so… But if you have a gun on you, or even pepper spray and and let some beast or group of thugs take you to the ground those things will likely be used against you and their actions and words leading up to that should give you a real good indication of their intent if it starts out verbally.
Knowing the laws in your state and any state you travel into is also important… In FL for example if someone enters your home uninvited or jumps in your car uninvited they just gave you an open invitation to use deadly force… Their was a home intruder recently shot in Polk Country and Sheriff Grady Judd’s response was good, no one but Santa Clause should be coming in your house uninvited. Florida statute also allows you to pull and point your firearm at someone if it would prevent the necessity to use deadly force… In some states though if you do that right wrong or indifferent you are likely to end up with a brandishing charge.
That said I hope we could all agree that saying deadly force should be avoided if at all possible, deescalate if at all possible, but if deadly force is warranted, hesitation kills… Be decisive and stop the threat before the threat stops you… If you’re willing to risk your life so you don’t have to take another then just leave your gun at home. It will make things a lot easier. It would probably keep those who are just aching to prove their manhood because they have a gun from getting in trouble or hurt in the first place. LOL
Turn 60 degrees to the right and move away about 6" away from the brick wall, your right peripheral vision should be enough to make sure you aren’t going to run into anything and your left peripheral vision will detect changes in the attacker’s posture. You are also just an eye shift away from looking directly at the attacker.
They pushed one time with less force than is required to knock someone down or sustain injury. I put that further down the force continuum than pepper spray. They are now standing 6 feet away. There is no longer any imminent use of force to counter, until there is. Verbal threats are not use of force and don’t justify use of force by themselves. Continue to assess the situation, assert your withdrawal and apologize if there is any possibility you offended this person and move away if it can be safely done.
For people or situations where moving away is impossible without going through them, you have to be assertive in verbalizing your fear and desire to withdraw including yelling for help because you are likely to need witnesses in the near future if things escalate.
I’d rather not have the back of my head 6" from a brick wall when somebody who pushed me is threatening additional violence.
You can put it where you like, but everything I have read and heard and seen indicates that the law puts pepper spray at if not below that level of force.
As seen in the many videos I have already posted, where pepper spray is often used before ANY hands on physical violence, merely the threat of such
I disagree.
I vote that the person threatening force, who already used force, who is 6 feet away from you, is absolutely an imminent threat (not deadly, just imminent).
If that person was threatening to cut you with a knife while standing 6 feet away, would you also say they were not an imminent threat because they were so far away? I think not
I say something that requires eyes to be flushed with water for 15 minutes followed by immediate medical attention is more force than an ineffectual push and verbal threats which happened already and now two people are 6’ away with seemingly no follow-up as described.
You’re probably right, but I probably would not vote that way myself unless there is a substantial disparity of force by size, age, experience or fitness in favor of the attacker.
The knife immediately pushes this to lethal force, that’s a whole different scenario.
Pepper spray rarely requires immediate medical attention. It also doesn’t require flushing your eyes for 15 minutes, although using some water to rinse them off and out is certainly helpful.
Pushes kill more people than pepper spray. How useful that is without knowing the rate I don’t know, but, still, just sayin
You should always use loud verbal commands for the videos being shot but I would not count on anyone coming to your aid these days… The current mentality of people seems to be start filming and hope for a viral video as they watch people get the life beat out of them… It’s a sad thing to watch but it seems to be the current reality we live in… You might get lucky and have a bystander more concerned with someone’s safety and life than just filming your death with a video camera but I sure as heck would not count on it…
