OK:
Advantage of gel spray is it doesn't come back at you.
"Interesting, but in California the law seems to me to suggest that a beatdown is to be endured in lieu of drawing a weapon."
Thanks for the cite. Locklear is the AG, and, as such has only power over the Assistant AG's, who are used for trying cases in Supreme Court cases, in Kali. His interpretation of Kali law is much like what you get in law school, an overview of the law. However, you have to go to case law that most closely represents your case to get an idea of what that phrase means:
In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great
bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.
Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.
NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal
penalties.
The situation is the key to the entire issue. If Bernard Geotz had been 40 years older, and kept his mouth shut, it
would have been very difficult to anyone to try him, much less convict him. Law is determined by specific cases, and, the back chair, after the fact quarterbacking of first a police officer, and his crew, then the D.A. and their rebooking D.A., then the D.A. Once filed, and, it's usually got to be real strong for a D.A. to file, or, very high profile, since the D.A. is an elected official, then a judge has to determine if the case has sufficient content to take to trial, according to the laws of California. If he finds it's triable, then a jury or judge trial is picked by the Defense, and, you proceed to trial. Depending on the prior cases that most closely resemble yours, that have gone to the appellate divisions, and the Kali Supreme Court, and, the U.S. Supreme Court if the Kali Supreme Court's decision was appealed to a Federal level, only on an issue based in the Constitution. In other words, Bill Locklears' opinion is a restatement of the Kali Supreme Courts' trial decisions on cases in self-defense. I would suggest a look at the actual case law on the subject.. That said, Locklears' position is elected, and therefore dictates that his public statements serve the public interest, which is non-violence.
Locklear's writing on the Kali self-defense law will only become relevant if it's an accurate reporting of a summary of Kali case law on the subject, and, just as with any other case in law, your circumstances will make the result change. General commentaries on law are nice guidelines, but, you need case law to get a really good idea on where you stand.
Dr. S J.D.
Seems to me like a face full of sticky gel might really do a number on the BG.
