Is A "Less Lethal" Weapon Really A Viable Option?

[Smoke]

Had a discussion with a co worker the other day, he is absolutely adamant that if you are going to carry a gun then you have an obligation to carry a non lethal weapon such as OC spray as well.

He is also a security guard and he interacts with people on a different level than he (or I) would off duty. There are times where he has a duty to respond on the client’s behalf in situations that he would have no business getting involved in off duty (I.E. Homeless trespasser on client property).

His reasoning is that this gives you a step prior to lethal force; he draws this conclusion from the fact that he has used his OC spray far more often that he has ever even put his hand on his firearm let alone drawn or used it but again this is always in the context of situations he wouldn’t be involved in had he not been doing private security.

I have carried a gun sine 1997 in that time I have actually drawn my pistol once and have never been in a situation (outside of work) where I would have even considered a non lethal weapon.

My take is if I have time to stop, consider my options and choose a non lethal weapon I probably didn’t need any weapon at all.

The only exception I would make to that would be the time I walked around a bend in a trail in Cheyenne canyon and came face to face with a bear and he took off as soon as he saw me.

Thoughts ?

 

[aaorb104]

I carry a Tac pen and have a kubaton on my keys. The pen is for when I am at work. I work nights in a RDC for a major beverage manufactoring company in a shady part of town, and on occasions have to walk outside the wearhouse to do "yard checks" we have no security, and my firearm stay holstered in my vehicle because company policy prohibits me from carring inside the wearhouse. The pen is the same as alot of LEOs carry and can be used as a kubaton in a pinch, and writes nicely too. The kubaton on my keys would only be used if i have to get the attacker back away from me to buy time to effectivly draw a my weapon, were I in a situation where an assalant got the drop on me because i was to stupid to keep my head on a swival an maintain 360.

 

[Fishinfool]

Cant say I am in agreement with your buddy. A civilian has no obligation to get involved, or attempt to take anyone into custody. Your only obligation is to yourself and loved ones.

That said, carrying a less lethal option is smart. In a potential life threatening situation, your weapon should be in your hand to be used as is appropriate. Forget less lethal.

But there are many situations where lethal force is not justified, but a lesser use of force is. It is nice to have an option other then your bare hands.

And the good thing about OC spray is that the courts have held its justification for use to a much lower standard than the use of deadly force. I carry a "riot size" (think small fire extinguisher) can in my truck. Used it once since I retired, on a guy who followed me into a parking lot who was feeling a little road rage. Diffused a situation pretty quickly that could have become a lot more serious for both of us.

Larry

 

[Don 73]

Carrying OC IS an option you might want to consider, for those instances where you DO have time to think of other options.

 

[Smoke]

Cant say I am in agreement with your buddy. A civilian has no obligation to get involved, or attempt to take anyone into custody. Your only obligation is to yourself and loved ones.

Just to be clear, my co worker does not believe that he is under any obligation to get involved or take anyone into custody (which neither he nor I are empowered to do anyway) outside of work.

His belief is that as a responsible gun owner he is obligated to carry a less lethal means of self defense, I don’t exactly know how to explain his rationale except to say that he feels that if all you have is a gun then you might be pressured into using lethal force that even if justified wasn’t necessary.

I understand the point he’s making even if I can’t express it well but I don’t share it. I don’t feel moral obligation to carry a less lethal option and I judge my general risk level to be low enough that it really isn’t worth it.

I carry Bear Spray in the woods and when I’m ridding my bike but I see no need to lug it to Wal Mart

 

[Murdock]

Cant say I am in agreement with your buddy. A civilian has no obligation to get involved, or attempt to take anyone into custody. Your only obligation is to yourself and loved ones.

That's the core of the matter. Persons with a duty to act must insert themselves into a situation once they become aware of one. In such a case having more options available for an incremental approach is valuable.

If you are a civilian with no duty to act, you avoid the need to use any force -- less than lethal included -- by not getting involved, or just being quiet and going away. Violence at any level of intensity would only be justified if you simply are not being allowed to escape a dangerous confrontation from which you are attempting to extricate yourself. One that you hopefully did nothing to create.

 

[sipowicz]

I'm a big proponent of pepper spray...you are much more likely to have an encounter that requires a blast of pepper over a blast of lead.

 

[hotrod150]

................But there are many situations where lethal force is not justified, but a lesser use of force is. It is nice to have an option other then your bare hands. And the good thing about OC spray is that the courts have held its justification for use to a much lower standard than the use of deadly force.........

It probably is a good idea to carry some sort of non-lethal weapon in addition to your firearm, but I have to admit that I don't.
Stun guns used to be all the rage, nowadays pepper or OC spray is probably the way to go.

 

[cmort666]

1. I'm not a cop.
2. I don't want to be a cop.
3. I don't want people to think I'm a cop.
4. I don't want to do the things cops do.
   • I don't want to investigate crimes.
   • I don't want to apprehend people.

I am one of the last persons on earth likely to be in a fight with somebody.

I don't go where people fight each other.

I don't hang out with people who fight each other.

I have almost no interest in the average person. I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in stupid people who fight each other.

All that means that if I end up in a physical altercation with somebody, it's because they WANTED one for no rational reason, and worked HARD to get into one.

My goal is to avoid being unlawfully harmed by another person.

Avoiding the use of deadly force isn't a goal for me at all. It's a consequence of my other choices.

Incurring risk, ANY risk AT ALL by avoiding the use of deadly force against an attacker unlawfully using deadly force against me isn't on the agenda. Don't want to get shot? Don't do things that would cause a reasonable person to believe that you NEED to be shot.

I carry enough garbage every day as it is. I haven't GOT any place to carry pepper spray, and carrying of other things is governed by law specific to every little locality here. I'm COMPLETELY uninterested in getting arrested for carrying something to mitigate harm to an UNLAWFUL ASSAILANT.

My primary defense is not having anything to do with imbeciles.

My "less lethal" defense is my fist and feet... and it isn't THAT much less lethal.

After that, if your MOS changes to "bullet trap", that was purely YOUR choice.

My advice: If you see a middle-aged man minding his business, reading a $120 book on machine guns and making no effort at all to interact with others... especially morons, leave him alone.

 

[cmort666]

he feels that if all you have is a gun then you might be pressured into using lethal force that even if justified wasn’t necessary.

I don't see how it can be "justified" but NOT necessary.

The only thing that would justify my use of deadly force is self-defense against unlawful deadly force, or defense of another person who would similarly be entitled to use deadly force.

What your friend SEEMS to be saying is that you should incur RISK TO LIFE AND LIMB by using less lethal force against DEADLY FORCE, in order to protect an unlawful assailant from the consequences of his CHOICE to use DEADLY FORCE against you. My answer, in a word, is "NO".

 

[raymo2u]

When Im carrying my STI escort in 45acp my less lethal means of defense is my S&W SD9VE 9mm...it is less lethal than my 45acp right??

 

[shouldazagged]

I'm a big proponent of pepper spray...you are much more likely to have an encounter that requires a blast of pepper over a blast of lead.

One situation that occurs to me involves dogs. I like dogs. I would prefer not to shoot one that attacks me or my little fifteen-pound micro-mastiff (AKA rat terrier). In some neighborhoods around where I live pit bulls, trained to be aggressive, are fashion accessories. Pepper spray--the straight stream type, not the mist--seems a better alternative than gunfire.

 

[venomballistics]

Just to be clear, my co worker does not believe that he is under any obligation to get involved or take anyone into custody (which neither he nor I are empowered to do anyway) outside of work.

His belief is that as a responsible gun owner he is obligated to carry a less lethal means of self defense, I don’t exactly know how to explain his rationale except to say that he feels that if all you have is a gun then you might be pressured into using lethal force that even if justified wasn’t necessary.

I understand the point he’s making even if I can’t express it well but I don’t share it. I don’t feel moral obligation to carry a less lethal option and I judge my general risk level to be low enough that it really isn’t worth it.

I carry Bear Spray in the woods and when I’m ridding my bike but I see no need to lug it to Wal Mart

I think I understand what your getting at.
but the obligation to carry an LTL weapon with your CCW really starts to fall apart as a theory when you understand that the effort used to stun or spray, could also be used to escape and evade in most cases.
If you have no obligation to bring a confrontation to resolution as one might as a bodyguard, bouncer, security guard or LEO, the best course of action is evasion.
when your cut off from escape, and at the mercy of a threat the LTL might have some validity. but not NEARLY as much as a sidearm.
OC works both ways in the wind, and you can't keep pressing the button on a tazer or stun gun keeping someone contained till the batteries go dead without killing them with it anyhow.

 

[raymo2u]

A shot to the knee seems most effective, and to those who may think that it may be a little over aggressive to do so, it was the attackers choice to cuase the problem and i was just resolving it. In any other case he wouldnt of been as lucky, but that goes on as a case by case basis. (pure sarcasm!!)

A gun is a tool, use it as needed. Shot placement is what counts!

 

[Smoke]

A shot to the knee seems most effective, and to those who may think that it may be a little over aggressive to do so, it was the attackers choice to cuase the problem and i was just resolving it.

In just about any jurisdiction in America what you just described would get you sent straight to jail.

Deadly force is either justified or it isn’t. Shooting someone in the knee is still considered using deadly force. If you had enough time to deliberately shoot to maim you are going to have a really hard time proving that deadly force was justified

 

[cmort666]

A shot to the knee seems most effective, and to those who may think that it may be a little over aggressive to do so, it was the attackers choice to cuase the problem and i was just resolving it. In any other case he wouldnt of been as lucky, but that goes on as a case by case basis.

A gun is a tool, use it as needed. Shot placement is what counts!

The ONLY justification for using deadly force is to defend against deadly force.

Attempting to degrade deadly force into less lethal force is prima facie evidence that one does not feel in danger of life and limb. Hence use of deadly force in such a situation, even ineffective deadly force, is neither warranted, nor lawful.

If faced with the unlawful use of deadly force, I will respond with deadly force in the most efficient and effective manner calculated to remove the threat. That means one or more rounds center of mass until the threat is neutralized. If somebody is trying to kill or maim me, the LAST thing I intend to do is to leave them capable of continuing to try to harm me.

I don't care one way or the other whether they die. I only care that they stop doing what they were doing that caused me to shoot them. Shooting them in peripheral areas of the body is not likely to accomplish that.

 

[raymo2u]

If Im using deadly force there would be a reason for it, i would be right in my decision and i was stand oroud in court with my lawyer

Talking to you from his Samsung Galaxy S4

 

[cmort666]

A gun is a tool, use it as needed. Shot placement is what counts!

What's easier to "place", a shot center of mass, or a shot on a moving knee?

 

[raymo2u]

Thats a good question. I was being sarcastic in the quote stating about a knee shot but i guess it didnt translate well-the situation your in would justify where your shots could be made. Center mass may not always be available when a enemy is hidden bwhind cover and a limb may be the only shot you have.

Talking to you from his Samsung Galaxy S4

 

[cmort666]

If Im using deadly force there would be a reason for it, i would be right in my decision and i was stand oroud in court with my lawyer

Shooting to wound is prima facie evidence that there was either NO reason for it, or a BAD one.

If you're not shooting to stop the threat, that tells me that there WASN'T a threat... or there was one you didn't feel merited dealing with using deadly force.

You should be shooting to stop the threat. ALL of the likely ways of doing that incur substantial risk of death to the person being shot. If you don't think that risk is justified, you shouldn't be shooting AT ALL.

Deadly force is deadly force, whether you shoot someone in the earlobe or between the eyes.