Are Non-Lethal Means More Suitable For Most Situations?

It depends on the type of attack you are facing but my answer would be NO.

I would not respond to someone that is not a threat to my safety or the safety of my family and friends. I will keep my eye on him and be ready to react with lethal force but i will try and avoid it.

I will use the STOP at the top of my lungs along with a very very stern look, that gets their shorts soiled more often than not. If i use my weapons, knives or guns in a self defence situation, i am defending my life.

A criminal that attacks me should not expect to survive. The last thing he will see is my smoking T series.
 
"It has been my expirience and training that most problems one confronts in day to day life will not meet the level required to justify deadly force.

The thing is, once lethal force is needed in defense of you and your's, nothing else will suffice in my opinion." - Biker RN

This.
 
IMHO anyone who carries a gun should also carry pepper spray. It's an easy call to use deadly force when you're coming up with scenarios in your head, but the real world usually bears little resemblance to such a black and white scenario. Plenty of assaults that can get you killed start off as unarmed incidents: strong arm robberies, road rage, etc. You get your head slammed into a car or the ground enough you're still going to die, but using a gun is not justified until way too late in the process.

The problem is that juries take a real dim view of an armed individual shooting an unarmed assailant. Recently in Memphis, TN there was an incident where a drunk guy and a woman got into an argument over parking spots. The woman went into a restaurant and got her husband, a CCW holder, and returned to find the drunk vandalizing their car. Things got heated and the husband pulled his gun. Drunk guy, who was bigger, advanced and dared him to shoot, which he did. Jury convicted, judge gave him 20+ years. It would never have even made the papers if the husband had a $15 can of spray and used it instead of the gun.

Pepper spray is cheap and effective. A lipstick size spray works well and can be carried easier than a spare mag. Martial arts, kubatons, canes & rolls of quarters all work better after an application of spray. And best of all, pepper spray is so ubiquitous that if you have to go before a jury, someone on that jury will carry it, or have a family member who does. Not so with knives, saps, or other devices that will put you in the "thug" category.
 
JollyRoger, on the one hand I agree with your thought process.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of places that limit your concealed carry options to: a handgun (or multiple handguns, except in NM, where you can carry all you want but only one can be concealed).

In Florida, a permit holder can conceal spray, knives, kubotans, stun guns, ASPs, etc.

But a lot of states are much more restrictive.

People might look at you funny, OCing pepper spray - if you can carry it at all where you live.

Most places allow some length of knife, though - although some places limit that to 2", or a leatherman type.

And just about everywhere, a cane or walking stick is legal.

So, while knives may be thuggish, and both knives and sticks count as deadly weapons, they are often more legally available than LTL options.

One would think more states would allow carry of spray by permit-holders....

Yet another reason why, for those who are physically able, a bit of MA training can be useful. I can't always legally carry a weapon, but I always have my hands, feet, head (for butting purposes, as well as thinking), elbows, knees... I even have some idea of how to use sticks and knives.
 
Last edited:
As I've stated here many times before, "non-lethal" or more properly "less lethal" weapons have very limited uses for private citizens and are not an adequate substitute for a lethal weapon.

As has been pointed out, just about any weapon effective enough to have a good chance of stopping an attack will also have the potential to be lethal under the right circumstances. Someone with a respiratory condition could easily die from a dose of pepper spray, someone with a heart or neurological condition could eaisly die from a tazer or stun gun, and just about anyone could be fairly easily killed by an impact weapon. It is for this reason that LEO typically gets specific training as to when such weapons are appropriate and how to use them effectively.

Effectiveness is another issue with "less lethal" weapons. There are three basic ways in which an attack can be stopped: cause enough psychological stress (fear, shame, guilt) to the attacker that he discontinues the attack, cause enough pain or discomfort that the attack is aborted, or impair or disable bodily functions of the attacker to the point that he can no longer continue his course of action. "Less lethal" weapons, by and large, rely on inflicting great deals of pain or discomfort and while that is effective for most people, not everyone experiences or reacts to pain the same way. A person in an altered state of mind and/or under the influence of certain chemicals may not be disuaded by pain and would thus require physical inability to discontinue their actions. The "less lethal" weapons that do physically disable the attacker (tazers, stun guns, impact weapons, and to a much lesser degree pepper spray) are limited to use at very short ranges and require unimpeded contact with the attacker in order to be effective.

Another issue with "less lethal" weapons is that they require just as intensive training, and in some ways more intensive, as lethal weapons in order to be used effectively. Impact weapons require one to come into physical contact with an aggressor so some sort of grappling training is necessary (as well as training in how to use the weapon without killing or seriously injuring someone). Stun guns also require physical contact so they also need grappling training. Tazers require both leads to contact the target in order to work so you need training as to how to effectively deploy the weapon to ensure contact. Pepper spray, being an airbore liquid or vapor, requires training to ensure that the attacker and not yourself or a bystander is the one who gets sprayed.

You also have escalation to think about. While the use of any weapon has the potential to escalate a situation, you can't escalate beyond lethal force. Remember, just because you don't see your attacker with a weapon, that does not mean that he doesn't have one. Seeing a weapon of any sort may cause your attacker to up the ante and bring a lethal weapon to bear. If you've already got a gun in your hand, you don't have to transition to something else in order to employ lethal force should it be necessary.

Also, I'm not so convinced that "less lethal" weapons are that much safer, legally, than lethal ones. Too many people, I think, want to look at themselves through the same lens as they do cops and thus think that every piece of equipment that a cop needs is also a necessity for themselves. What is often forgotten, I think, is that a cop is in a very different situation than a private citizen and has very different responsibilities and if justified to do very different things. A cop is given much more leeway as to when it is appropriate to use force to defend himself/herself or another person than I am. A cop is also generally justified in using force to detain someone while I am not.

Because of this, I can't think of very many situations in which I would be legally justified in using any weapon at all that I wouldn't be justified in bringing a deadly weapon to bear. In my experience, people are ususally very reluctant to pick a fight that they don't believe they can win. Usually, the person who starts the fight either believes himself to be physically bigger or stronger or believes that he has some other advantage (surprise, some sort of weapon, etc.) that will allow him to win. As such, there is very likely to be a disparity of force between you and your attacker and disparity of force greatly increases the chances that your life is in danger.

A beating or any sort of weapon is nothing to be taken lightly, you can easily die from either. Quite frakly, if you can't honestly say that you had reasonable fear that you were in danger of death or severe injury (the condition that must be met for lethal force to be justifiable in most states) then you most likely aren't justified in using any sort of weapon at all. Pepper spray or taze the creepy guy following you or the other driver screaming at you and you'll more than likely find yourself facing charges for assault and battery and possibly assault with a deadly weapon.

Finally, just because a weapon has the capacity to be lethal, that does not mean that it must be employed in such a way. As JohnKSa pointed out, a firearm (and I would also add a knife) can serve very well as a deterrent. Few people want to get shot and even fewer people want to get shot more than once. Also, a firearm can make for a very effective impact weapon if need be (I always thought the underlug of a revolver barrel looked like a particularly fearsome thing to get cracked upside the head with) and I think that the good old fashioned pistol whip is often underrated.

Basically, I think that while "less lethal" weapons do have a place and usefulness, I think it is much more limited than many people realize. I suppose that something like pepper spray or an ASP baton would be a good thing to have if you could not safely use a firearm or lived in a jurisdiction where you couldn't have a gun. Also, I can see pepper spray being particularly useful for dealing with animals (a dose of pepper spray would probably keep your neighbor's pit bull "scruffy" from biting you while at the same time PETA isn't likely to throw paint at you for it
 
Attitude counts for more than you can imagine. An armed man can usually talk his way out of trouble without letting the problem person know he is armed and it is attitude and calm quite confidence coupled with use of brain matter that generally makes the difference.

As always it depends on the situation. Some clown coming into the diner you are eating lunch at starts shooting up the place there is no reasoning with him. Some half drunk hot head at a fender bender may be on a tight hair trigger but you might be able to talk him down. Guns are always a last resort.

The threshold gets lower depending on the prospective victim. A 5' tall 90 pound woman meeting some low life in her living room at dark thirty in the morning can assume correctly that she is in danger and unless her name is Cynthia Rothrock she had better have something more lethal in her hands than a thesaurus and a can of hair spray.
 
Jollyroger: My reasoning is pretty much in line with yours. Some of the scariest scenarios I can think of are the ones that fall into the grey areas such as an attack by multiple UNarmed thugs. The legal consequences of relying on a "disparity of force" defense are probably worse than losing a fight when alone but with a wife or kids to defend....

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
I think it depends upon ones abilities. I am a disabled old man. The agility, quickness and manipulation options really are not there. I figure I get one slim chance to get lucky if my life is in serious jeopardy.
 
This can be debated in a forum like this. And it should be. We're essentially practicing the thinking that we'll employ if confronted by a real world situation. This can't be bad.

But when someone grabs me from behind and tries to wrestle me to the ground in a dark parking lot at night I'll still execute a break away move, draw my weapon and give him 2 center mass unless he is actually running away. I won't wait to see if he is armed with a gun, knife or a field expedient weapon (or not armed at all). I'll not spend a fraction of a second thinking whether to use my fists, knife or gun. I'll use the gun.

That is the plan at least. My state doesn't require me to try to get away. I'm allowed to stand my ground. I've trained and practiced in tactical and static situations. I have a lawyer. I've "war gamed" scenarios.

What more can be done until the situation arises? If it ever does.
 
Citizen: "Judge it went like this:

I pulled out my OC spray and the bad guy laughed at me. So I sprayed him in the eye.

It just slowed him down so I tazered him. He fell down and screamed but then got up and scowled at me.

At that point, he took a step forward so I backed up. But then he went and made a comment about my Mother - so I shot him."

Judge: 'Case dismissed'.
 
The problem with non-lethal methods like Pepper spray, baton, or tasers is their limited range and capacity/ability. With a Taser (not the one that shoots out) you need to be in direct contact with an assailant, which in most cases you really should be trying to get away from them. Pepper pray also has a limited range and can easily miss, or not work well if not aimed correctly. Baton, same thing.

They have their uses sure, but only if you can correctly use them in a high-stress situation. If my life or a loved one is on the line, a firearm is the best tool.
 
When a lethal weapon is presented, then the answer is pretty clear cut. You obviously respond to lethal force with lethal force. I think the original poster is making the case for not "jumping the gun" (pun intended) for every altercation.

I think less lethal/non-lethal weapons are most useful for the grey areas. For example, a thug is threatening to assault you but has not produced a weapon. Maybe a suspicious looking person approaches you despite you telling them to back off. One should always avoid a fight, especially if armed. You have no way of knowing your aggressor's level of skill and whether or not he has backup nearby. Most people would be hard pressed to draw in either situation posted above, much less shoot someone. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe someone would be charged with assault for using a non-lethal/less-lethal weapon in a threatening situation.

I bought my wife a Taser because I feel she might hesitate before shooting someone in a threatening situation. The Taser is classified as non-lethal so I told her not to hesitate if threatened. There is very little likelihood that the Taser would cause death or permenant injury and very little chance of injuring a bystander. There is also very little risk of my wife being charged with a crime for using a Taser against someone since she is about 100 lbs. and 5'4". Unless her assailant is a fairy, there will be a disparity in force. I also got her pepper spray and have nagged her on numerous occasions to carry it in her hand when she is dark parking lots or other risky areas. Better to spray someone with pepper spray rather than lead if they have not clearly demonstrated they intend to attack you.
 
Back
Top