A possible scenario in the near future

I have heard it said that carrying these LTL options for civilians is bad idea. Should you ultimately shoot someone while carrying a pepper blaster, you now must convince the AG and possibly a jury that not only were you in danger, but the danger was such that your pepper blaster would not have owrked (subjective, of course). That means that the BG better have had a gun (or you have a great lawyer). If all you have is a firearm, then you don't have to overcome that intermediate hurdle.

That's really just another series of assumptions. The DA could just as easily say "Why weren't you carrying pepper spray? You only had a gun..... did you WANT to shoot someone?" Your answer for not using pepper spray that you had on your person could be a simple "There wasn't time. I carry it to avoid shooting someone if at all possible, this time, it wasn't possible."

Besides that, most situations not involving a BG with a gun will provide an option for pepper spray. Sure, an all out unexpected physical attack may not but most muggings or robberies, and certainly the situation in the OP, will give you time for pepper spray.

Additionally, most situations involving an obvious intentional violation of a restraining order will be sufficient cause for use of pepper spray, in and of themselves. In a situation like the OP, a shot in the face with spray and a hasty retreat in the car on the phone to 911 would NOT be questioned.
 
Last edited:
4:30 a.m.

Its 4:30 a.m. ! If it was me & he was in my yard waiting on me & I'm 58 & a little guy. I would tell him to leave ! If he didn't start leaving he would probably get shot ! :eek: But, I'm not 58 I'm 30 & pretty big so, I would just whip his ass. :D
 
I don't need authority to issue commands. I can issue any command I want. There may not be any authority behind it, but I can certainly issue commands (I issue them at home all the time - nobody listens, but the commands are issued!).

Your point?

Is there perhaps some liability associated with giving certain commands?

The idea is to get the guy to stop doing what he is doing. By authoritatively telling him to get on the ground, you might get him to listen (he may not know that he doesn't have to follow your orders).

I agree that that's the idea, so why tell him to get on the ground if the idea is to get him to stop or go away??

A man with a disparity of force, who has beat you before is apporaching you at 4:30am after (obviously) waiting for you to arrive home. That sounds lilke imminent danger.

Certainly sounds like it has the potential to get that way, but the man has approached you in a "pleading" manner. Does that fulfill the jeopardy requirement? Does the existence of the restraining order do so sufficiently? How much will the answers vary by jurisdiction?

In your scenario (where you give no verbal commands to stop), the witnesses will say that you shot without warning. Which is worse? Shooting after telling the attacker to stop, or shooting without telling the attacker to stop?

Witnesses at 4:30 AM? Hmmmm. Well, if it was a "good shoot" and they were not friends of his, you're in luck!

You apparently missed my comment to Skydiver, in which I agreed with his recommendation to firmly tell the person to stop and that I was prepared to defend myself.

Nor did you address my concern. To answer your question, however, yes, I think it probably would be better to have fired at someone from whom the evidence would show I had been trying to escape than to have the authorities selecting from among my words that I said that he refused to get on the ground when I told him to and I shot him, particularly when I am permitted to respond only with "yes" or "no." Lay opinion.

Seems to me there is no one right answer:...

Probably true. There are probably a lot of wrong ones, however.

If I can get him on the ground at gun point because the first two options are not feasable, I will.

I still do not understand the point of getting him on the ground rather than getting him going in the other direction.

Nor do I know what one would expect to do after he was on the ground. I would want him gone, not lying near my driveway.

And if I have gotten him on the ground, what criminal and/or civil liabilities might I have assumed?

Consider the case of trespass. In some jurisdictions, the property owner or tenant is to ask the trespasser to leave, and if he refuses, the remedy is to call the police. Should he try to restrain the trespasser, the property owner or tenant can be charged criminally, and after the trespasser considers his legal options, "then the fun begins."

Here too, the issue may be jurisdiction-specific, and Pax's recommendation that the OP seek qualified advice is a very good one. Another key thing that may be jurisdiction-specific is whether and/or how the existence of a restraining order may influence the determination of when deadly force may be indicated.

Should you ultimately shoot someone while carrying a pepper blaster, you now must convince the AG and possibly a jury that not only were you in danger, but the danger was such that your pepper blaster would not have worked (subjective, of course). That means that the BG better have had a gun (or you have a great lawyer). If all you have is a firearm, then you don't have to overcome that intermediate hurdle. Just that you were in imminent danger.

I should think one would use the pepper blaster first, and if it did not work, I think that fact would go a long way toward establishing the fact of imminent danger. Lay opinion.
 
Don't forget that the restraining order implicitly binds you from contact also. You do not own the restraining order. IOW, you cannot decide to talk to this guy even if he seems very nice and sincere. A judge has prohibited that.
In Texas a LEO could arrest if he were to see the subject in violation of a RO. If not he would refer the incident to the appropriate court where a Contempt of Court summons, or possibly warrant would be issued for the subject to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. You can always carry a copy of the RO and brandish it menacingly in his face.
 
You can always carry a copy of the RO and brandish it menacingly in his face.

That would require some form of contact with the subject. The best answer, as stated above, is to get in the vehicle, get in motion, and dial 911. Hopefully, you can bug the PD and DA until something is done and not have the RO simply become something that aggravates the subject with the gov't doing nothing (which is all too often the case).

Dropping the subject could be justified, but not necessarily on the facts given here. Disparity of force comes into play as does the subject's prior threats, but if you have an alternate means of protecting yourself (assuming you can get into the car and get moving safely) take it.

One question, though, is whether you are leaving anyone behind that the subject might vent on. Is there family in the home involved in whatever led to this situation? If so, are they a target and have you set up a response plan with them?
 
You are 58 years old, 165 lbs. 5'9".

I must have shrunk a lot. Was this size like at age 8 or 9.


I would get in the car, lock the doors roll up windows, drive to a safe place call 911. I would not shoot him or talk to him at all, just drive away.

A good dog on a leash would help :) hadda throw that in.
 
I would get in the car, lock the doors roll up windows, drive to a safe place call 911. I would not shoot him or talk to him at all, just drive away.

It looks like most of us agree about that. If I were facing the situation he is, I'd give some thought to parking in a place where I couldn't easily be blocked in and could be sure that I'd have the option to drive away.

A good dog on a leash would help. hadda throw that in.

In my opinion there's not much that a good dog on a leash wouldn't help. (Especially my general state of mind; I love dogs.) ;) But even if the OP has a dog, I don't think he's likely to have that dog with him when he's getting home from work at 4:30 AM.
 
To the OP,
Can you get a remote controlled lighting system installed that can be activated as you pull in your driveway. It would allow you to scan the area before getting out of your car.I wouldn't try to do any more than take the guys picture and get the heck outta there. Hopefully, you'll have some one at home to vouch for the inside of the house or an alarm system to let you know if the house has been penetrated.
Best,
Rob
 
Let him get close then pistol whip the heck out of him... He probably deserves it.

Ok, well don't actually do that... but definately don't shoot the guy if you DON'T HAVE TO.
 
response from the op concerning driveway

I do not have a drive way.

I live in a community of townhouses and due to the fact that I get home at an ungodly hour, all the street parking is always taken, leaving me to park in the alley behind the houses.

However, the alley is extremely well lit, but anyone could be hunkered down behind another parked car and not be visible.

Rmocarsky
 
My advice, still, is a can of pepper spray and an immediate exit, leaving no uncertainty. I would be very vocal, I would not respond directly to anything he said.

I would be YELLING (loud enough to wake the neighbors):

"GO AWAY! YOU ARE VIOLATING A RESTRAINING ORDER! DON'T COME ANY CLOSER! I WILL CALL THE POLICE! I HAVE PEPPER SPRAY AND A GUN! I DON'T WANT TO HURT YOU! GO AWAY!"

or something along those lines, but I would only be talking as long as it took me to get in my car without delay, and then I would leave and get on the phone to 911 as soon as I was moving safely.

Assuming the guy appears to be unarmed, I would spray him somewhere around 10 feet if he was approaching slowly. If he popped out closer than that I would spray him immediately and retreat as fast as possible to my car while yelling something similar to the above.

I would NOT under ANY circumstances have a conversation with the guy, or even respond directly to anything he said, from any distance, no way, no how.
 
Is he alone....?

...and how do you know? If he's tweaked enough to be laying in wait for you, he could have 3 of his biggest ugliest like-minded buddies hunkered down waiting for him to distract you enough that they can 'just talk' to you as well, except they only speak full-contact Braille.

Don't engage. Get back in the car, lock doors, drive, 911, 1911. In that order. Or in my case, 1991A1. :D (If I could carry here. Which I can't :mad:)

Stay alert, be safe, you're in the right--stay there!

Just my $1.17 (inflation)
 
I'm guessing that the Restraining Order means you want nothing more to do with him? Time for talking is over? Right? He comes at you at 4:30AM... and threatens you (or you feel threatened)?; #1; drive away, call police. Or, #2; pepper mace him, drop kick to the balls, perhaps an extra kick or two (or three!) for good measure, then drive away and call the police. But don't shoot him unless you honestly think he is going to kill you. He might just be real stupid, and want to talk.
I would run it by your local Police Chief, let him know that you are scared, instead of getting advice from folks on here. No offense meant to anybody, but this guy needs to document, talk with a local authority who can verify that he was in fear and asked for help, and protect him self, both now, and after the fact...
 
Last edited:
"I am the OP.

What are the best means of non-lethal defense available to civilians and the most potent to put 'em down from maybe 10 yards instantly and not endanger yourself of going down beside him due to wind change?

I am serious . . .

I have a real fear that this will probably occur.

What is the BEST most debilitating LEGAL non-lethal crusher available?

BTW . . . I live in Maryland . . .the most Victim-is probably the perp_state in the Country "

My advice: Escape! Get to your car and drive away. Call 911 and ask for an officer to meet you and return with you to the scene. The digital audio recorder idea, or using your cell phone to grab a photo may be all well and good, but don't let acquiring evidence slow you from your primary goal: Escape! I cannot say this to stridently: Do anything you have to do that will keep you from having to shoot.

Once you pull the trigger, you set a series of events into motion that may be, in the long run, worse than you can imagine. I'm old, many times broken, need a cane to walk, and a beating by a street tough could cripple me forever, but I don't know if I would shoot someone over getting my ass whipped. I was in jail once for 4 days. In modern California a woman can accuse you of anything, with no substantiation, and witnesses to the contrary, and if it's on Friday night you don't see a Judge until Tuesday, just to find out no charges are being filed. I just can't think about doing a stretch in prison. I wish more of the "go ahead and shoot" people had spent a few days sleeping on a steel bunk, 10 inches off the floor, with a 1 inch thick foam mattress. Oh yes, the social circle sucks, as does the food. Then there is the whole "spend all you have ever made or will ever make, lose your job and good name, be separated from your family and friends and endure terrible loneliness and depression" thing.


This is pretty much the way I remember it from my time as a cop. If the assailant is not threatening you with lethal force, you may not use lethal force without facing criminal charges. If you pull your gun on him, do not shoot, and there is a witness: you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. If your assailant is armed with anything that can be considered to be a lethal weapon, and you shoot and kill him, you may have a good shot at self defense. If you shoot him and he is not armed with a lethal weapon, your trial will turn around if the victim was presenting "reasonable provocation". "Bare fear" does not, in most cases, provide "reasonable provocation". If he is causing such provocation your fall will be for "voluntary manslaughter". If he was not causing such provocation, and say the jury decides that you just got angry enough from the repeated confrontations that you just went and shot him, then your fall will be for "second degree murder". This is not the end of the dissertation, just the tip.:barf:
 
hand-held stun gun?

I am the OP.

I am not sure of the name of the device, but those hand-held shockers that supposedly down a foe through voltage, what about them?

If your attackers hands are on your flesh, can the shock be transmitted to you?

Rmocarsky
 
rmocarsky ~

Do not even consider a "stun gun." Those are basically worthless, of no value whatsoever. I've been shocked by one many times, voluntarily. It barely hurts and certainly does not incapacitate.

If you are interested in a Taser, get the brand name for sure. A Taser will incapacitate an attacker -- IF -- the hit is solid and everything goes well. It incapacitates the subject not by pain, but by putting a lot of "noise" down the nerves, so that signals cannot get from the brain to the muscles. And it really truly works, under the right circumstances. (And no, you're very unlikely to shock yourself with a Taser. Just doesn't work that way; you can be hands-on with the guy and still not receive a shock yourself.)

However: it isn't a panacea. For a quick overview of the realistic limitations of Tasers for self-defense, see this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364467

One more thing. You are so very adamant about non-lethal force, and obviously you've got a specific and probably heartbreaking situation to deal with. However... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3157626&postcount=23

pax
 
stun guns are up close and personal by direct contact to your attacker.Should the attacker be touching you,the current will not pass to your body.

Stun devices work on high voltage but very low amperage.Amperage is the current that can pass through one person on to the next until it finds a ground at the end.


The voltage produced by stun guns begins to dissipate immediately within musle tissue of a person directly contacted with the current.


If you look it to a stun gun,check out the flashlight stun gun.The light directly in of an attackers eyes can help to your advantage.



Tazers would be the more effective approach.Tazer may have lower voltage but operate on higher wattage.Tazers also attack the muscle and nervous system which makes it more effective then a stun gun.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top