You’re absolutely correct, it’s messy. I think we were talking up above about how even “less than lethal” tools can be lethal.
If we had our metaphorical phaser that could be set to stun or kill, that would certainly open up a hornet’s nest of litigation until the courts settled on some sort of new test for appropriate escalation of force. I think we’ve already seen such questions asked, though. For example, when a police officer is carrying a TASER but uses a firearm instead, s/he will have to be able to carefully articulate why the TASER wasn’t used.
I kind of like the idea of a firearm that could fire a “less lethal” round and then gradually increase force until the threat stops. But I’m not out to invent such a tool, nor would I be first in line to buy or train on one. Let the smart folks take the lead on that.
I don’t think a single tool, such as a firearm, that can fire less lethal and lethal would end very well. It would result in a rash of incidents were force level A was required and force level 1 was actually utilized.
You already generally see, as an example, tasers carried on the opposite side/draw from a firearm on a belt to help differentiate…and we’ve already seen officers mistake a firearm or taser for the other. And admit or not, those patrol officers with years of experience have more professional/total training than the vast majority of us private citizens do. And more stress inoculation/experience too.
Personally, and again not a lawyer, I think that “have to articular why you didn’t use your less lethal” is way over played on the internets. You possess hands and feet do you not? They can be used as a less lethal instead of your gun, why didn’t you? You could have hit your attacker with your gun instead of shooting them (seen that in an actual case, argued) instead of shooting it, why didn’t you?
[because imminent deadly threat/imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death]
Thew vast majority of attacks are not lethal force. Not having a tool to assist in the vast majority of attacks but rather the “all I have is a hammer everything looks like a nail” is IMO far more dangerous than it being argued on your behalf (should be on your behalf, probably, not by you) in court why you responded to the guy with a knife by using your firearm instead of your OC
All of that which you’ve mentioned, and then some, can be used for possible non-lethal, as well as to include lethal force. You could use a dull spoon or even a stick or a chair for lethal or non-lethal force. But a gun as a self-defense mechanism is designed for that use with more specificity than the others mentioned. So, why try to dumb it down? Is what I was driving at. It would be like using a pit-bull terrier with only one tooth or no teeth. I mean, wouldn’t it?
But see, here’s the thing, I’m not planning to do any of that, because the President is not going to be there when I have to answer for “maiming,” with malice aforethought.
I got my daughter a Taser Pistol that shoots out to 15 Yard’s and protection Pen she carries in her purse, and as for me I conceal carry and any time I draw my weapon i am deadly serious and don’t plan to only wound,that was the way I i was trained,and yes I do train to keep my Motor Memory up to par
