hornet spray vs. attacker

[The Big D]

Excellent; now get some more. I daresay the vast majority of members of this Forum regularly train in some fashion.

And ensure you clearly understand the parameters involving lawful use of deadly force.

Be safe.

PS:

Did not the female LEO offer advice on suitable holsters? I use "plural," specifically as most gun toters have numerous holsters to fit every occasion.

 

[AirLitenewbie]

Did not the female LEO offer advice on suitable holsters? I use "plural," specifically as most gun toters have numerous holsters to fit every occasion.

I don't recall that she did, which again, is why I'm asking. I think she was pretty clear on the parameters of use of deadly force; since bug spray is probably not deadly, I didn't realize it would be an issue, even though I'd only be using it under the same circumstances in which I'd shoot at someone if I had to.

We may have to agree to disagree about me carrying while I work. It's a personal choice that makes sense for me, though it obviously wouldn't for you. Meanwhile, I will continue to learn as much as I can about other legal and practical ways to keep myself safe during those times when the gun is not actually on me.

 

[bitstream]

I don't recall that she did, which again, is why I'm asking. I think she was pretty clear on the parameters of use of deadly force; since bug spray is probably not deadly, I didn't realize it would be an issue, even though I'd only be using it under the same circumstances in which I'd shoot at someone if I had to.

We may have to agree to disagree about me carrying while I work. It's a personal choice that makes sense for me, though it obviously wouldn't for you. Meanwhile, I will continue to learn as much as I can about other legal and practical ways to keep myself safe during those times when the gun is not actually on me.

Please pay attention to one key note he made to you. The D.A. will go off on you if they find out or even suspect that you were planning on using the bug spray for self defense. If it just happened to be there and you grabbed it, that's ok. If you planned it, then they will likely try to prosecute (depending on the D.A., etc.)

 

[AirLitenewbie]

Please pay attention to one key note he made to you. The D.A. will go off on you if they find out or even suspect that you were planning on using the bug spray for self defense. If it just happened to be there and you grabbed it, that's ok. If you planned it, then they will likely try to prosecute (depending on the D.A., etc.)

Yep, definitely got that distinction, but thanks for making sure; a legal alternative will be put in place ASAP. What does this imply about the use of fire extinguishers as previously discussed? Some people carry knives for self-defense -- where does the law fall on these?

It sounds like you can legally shoot somebody (provided there is clear fear of immediate personal danger) or use physical self-defense techniques, but it apparently gets oddly grey when it comes to using other objects as weapons. Can anyone refer me to documentation that clarifies what is okay and what isn't? I obviously can't get into a class in the next 24 hours, but would like to know as much as possible in the interim.

I'm also curious as to whether anyone knows the history of how self-defense has come to be so thorny, i.e., you can do this, but you can't do that, even though the purpose is the same and the outcome will be ugly in either case.

 

[The Big D]

A knife makes for a rather unlikely self-defense tool. I don't know of anyone who carries one for that purpose. With rare exception, one would be much better served with a baseball bat than a knife. Much, much, in fact.

I doubt you can find any documentation that clearly states what is okay for self-defense...always...as most situations are fluid. What is okay for some may not be for all.

Perhaps a "bad" example would be use of brass knuckles as they are illegal in most jurisdictions. You can't throw acid on someone. You can't rig a shotgun to fire when someone opens your door.

One could likely use a chainsaw in self-defense if you were suddenly attacked whilst working in your back yard but imagine you would be in jail if you happened to pull one out of the backseat and used it in a bar fight.

You could shoot an attacker with an AR-15, but if you had modified it to full auto and busted 40 caps in a guy you will likely be spending some time in a cell.

Do you see where I am going with this? Hope so.

Be safe.

 

[38-44HD45]

Just a few brief notes, based on more recent posts: First, while getting some self-defense training from an LEO may be a good idea, taking legal advice from one is not. Some LEOs go to the trouble to obtain a good understanding of laws related to the use of non-deadly force and deadly force, and the distinction between them, most don't. (With a few notable exceptions, most on this board seem to "get it.") In Texas, and most other places, deadly force is force that one knows or should have known could cause death or serious (read "permanent") bodily injury. Non-deadly force is force known NOT to cause death or serious bodily injury. Note the "should have known" element for deadly force.

I've heard and seen more outrageous things come out of the mouths and keyboards of law enforcement officers in that regard than from most anyone else. Again, some truly get it, most don't. And, the rules they have to go by as peace officers are not the same as those of a non-LEO citizen, in many regards. I've had a few female LEO students back when I taught defensive shooting for women classes in the 80s, and some of them had been told totally ridiculous things by their "training officers." Bad information has a very long half-life, and reproduces. Talk to a self-defense savvy criminal defense lawyer for legal advice.

Second, justification for the use of non-deadly force is not the same as justification for the use of deadly force. I have some misgivings about whether insect spray would be considered deadly force, and it could go either way, but there is a huge body of research, much from studies at The Smithsonian, saying that pepper spray is non-deadly, so there would never be a proof problem with OC. I've not looked at the federal statute to which the label on wasp spray refers, so I can't comment on just what federal penalty you'd face for using it in an "unintended manner," if any. With over 300 volumes in the US Code, it is today virtually impossible for anyone to live to the age of 30 and not unintentionally violate a federal law. Those statutes are scattered througout the US Code, not just in Title 18. Some penalties are big, others are a slap on the hand. If you choose to use wasp spray as you've indicated, it would be good to see what that statutory penalty might be, if there is one.

 

[AirLitenewbie]

Do you see where I am going with this? Hope so.

Yes I do, I'm happy to say. A lot actually snapped into place in the last hour on a bike ride (physical activity being known to be good for loosening up the synapses and all), and your post sums it up nicely.

Second, justification for the use of non-deadly force is not the same as justification for the use of deadly force. I have some misgivings about whether insect spray would be considered deadly force, and it could go either way, but there is a huge body of research, much from studies at The Smithsonian, saying that pepper spray is non-deadly, so there would never be a proof problem with OC. I've not looked at the federal statute to which the label on wasp spray refers, so I can't comment on just what federal penalty you'd face for using it in an "unintended manner," if any. With over 300 volumes in the US Code, it is today virtually impossible for anyone to live to the age of 30 and not unintentionally violate a federal law. Those statutes are scattered througout the US Code, not just in Title 18. Some penalties are big, others are a slap on the hand. If you choose to use wasp spray as you've indicated, it would be good to see what that statutory penalty might be, if there is one.

Thank you so much for this info. I'm going to dig up the code just to see, because now I'm curious anyway. I have read my kitchen fire extinguisher and found no such warnings against use in unintended fashion, though they are quite strident about discarding it after use (which seems darkly humorous in this context).

I like the idea that there is information which means there would be no legal defense problem with pepper spray. Knowing that someone has tested it, declared it officially non-lethal, and documented that gives me very good reason to get more serious about it (now that I'm seeing how complicated this can get). It's also good to know that in the interim, the wasp spray might not be the huge legal problem that some think. When I find out more specifically, I'll post it on this thread.

Knowing that there's probably much more "lurking and learning" going on here than actual posting, I think this is an especially good discussion to have. I can't be the only one who needs to understand this more clearly. Thanks to all who are participating.

If anyone beats me to the statute on the bug spray and posts about it first -- yay, and thanks in advance.

 

[38-44HD45]

Look in 7 USC, Chapter 6 as a starting point. I don't have time right now to track down the specific statute. It may also be in the Code of Federal Regulations, under EPA and/or FDA rules.

 

[sheriffoconee]

I disagree with some of the posts here. I have never found a statute in GEORGIA that limits the type weapons that is approved for self defense. Simply put, you are authorized to use force that is likely to cause death or great bodily injury in order to prevent an attack that is likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
I am of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you use a 22, 9mm, 45, 30-06, 458 Win Mag, Ford F250, boiling water, tomahawk, iron skillet, knitting needle, or wasp spray.
Deadly force isn't dependent on what you USE, it is whether or not the force IS NECESSARY to protect your life, or that of a third person. The test to be used is "reasonableness". Would another person in the same set of circumstances reach the same conclusion that said force was REASONABLE.
If I am fighting for my life, I don't care how I win, and neither should you. Coffee mugs, baseball bats, teeth, portable radios and TV sets are all deadly weapons if used in a manner to cause death or great bodily injury.

Wasp spray may or may not be deadly, or repel a bad guy. However, if that is what I have to defend my life, then I will empty the can til it sputters into someones face....and deal with the consequences later.

 

[38-44HD45]

Sheriffoconee is correct, as regards deadly force warranting deadly force in response. The question of whether wasp spray is "deadly" would really only be relevant if there were a question whether deadly force were a reasonable response to the initial attack.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Not only do I fully agree with sheriffoconee's analysis of the situation; I also believe that a lawyer would, too, and that it is dangerously misleading for a non-lawyer to advise otherwise. Furthermore, the sheriff's last sentence should be the deciding one for any rational person.

Figure out how to solve the physical problem first, then see whether there is another equally efficacious solution that some lawyer likes better.

 

[38-44HD45]

520, for the record, THIS lawyer already said he agreed!

 

[bitstream]

First, and foremost, I believe strongly that, if you are attacked by somebody, the old phrase applies:

It's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6


As far as liability for use of wasp spray. I'm no lawyer, but I've seen crazy legal things. I can see somebody trying to say that you, in a premeditated way, used a product that you shouldn't. I don't know. I'd worry about that later if you are attacked. Hope that never, ever, happens.

 

[sheriffoconee]

There is going to be liability if you use wasp spray or a 1911. Defending yourself is risky in these United States. Your actions will be scrutinized for years after the fact at a leisurely pace by people in swivel chairs. It is what it is.

 

[AirLitenewbie]

Sheriffoconee is correct, as regards deadly force warranting deadly force in response. The question of whether wasp spray is "deadly" would really only be relevant if there were a question whether deadly force were a reasonable response to the initial attack.

Well, there it is. That's the assumption I actually started with, and it started sounding like there might be more laws to run afoul of in the process than I'd realized.

If I'm blasting somebody with wasp spray, pepper spray or anything else, it is only because that's closer to my hand than my gun is, and because I'm convinced that my life is in immediate danger. Given the history of my ex, for example, and my documentation of said history which is already in the hands of the local police chief, I'm pretty sure nobody would question anything I'd do if he just showed up at my office or anywhere else in my world where he has no business. No, I will not shoot him just for appearing in my doorway, but you can bet I'll be staging for action immediately if I see him or find myself in any other situation that has potential for going quickly south.

I'm still looking up the bug spray statute though -- thanks MUCH for the head start on that one

 

[sheriffoconee]

Airlite, The Supreme Court said it better than I can....this is about US, Law Enforcement using deadly force, but it is written in such a way as to be a great guide to anyone who is considering using deadly force. I introduce you to "Graham vs Conner"
GRAHAM V. CONNOR, 490 U. S. 386 :: Volume 490 :: 1989 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

 

[AirLitenewbie]

great guide to anyone who is considering using deadly force.

Indeed, it is. I know the law can turn in surprising ways sometimes, but I am greatly encouraged by the language I see in this. Thanks for your time and trouble in making this information available.

 

[Gary7]

I didn't read through all the responses, but as an attorney I'll give you this bit of advice: If you go the hornet spray route make sure you've got a REAL good civil and criminal attorney on retainer.

 

[38-44HD45]

Just be careful using a Fourth Amendment "reasonableness inquiry" case as regards non-LEO reasonableness. While the rationale is relevant, in non-LEO self-defense cases, the standard is "reasonable person," not "reasonable officer." Should it matter? Maybe not. Does it matter? Afraid so, because the little old church ladies, schoolteachers, auto mechanics, college students and cab drivers on your grand jury or, heaven forbid, petit jury, will judge what is reasonable for a police officer differently than for a citizen. The good news for us non-LEO-types is that we have more legal leeway, especially since Tennessee v. Garner (US SCt, 1976) than do law enforcement officers, in terms of when we can shoot, subject to state law, of course.

 

[Gary7]

Just be careful using a Fourth Amendment "reasonableness inquiry" case as regards non-LEO reasonableness. While the rationale is relevant, in non-LEO self-defense cases, the standard is "reasonable person," not "reasonable officer." Should it matter? Maybe not. Does it matter? Afraid so ...

Bingo. Let's say she blinds some miscreant with the wasp spray. His lawyer is going to argue that it was unreasonable to use this product in a manner that it was never designed for. This argument would not be available if she used her gun or pepper spray. The reasonable person standard would still apply, of course, but at least she would be using a product and device designed and intended for self defense.