You are probably right about it not happening. I was just stating what the arguement would be if an attorney did decide to prosecute when you had the pepper spray and a gun. It was only meant in the context of a possible legal liability of carrying multiple weapons and choosing one over the other. The statement was not intended to be advice to not carry multiple means of self defense.
The police are already facing issues about using less lethal means. Children, elderly, and handicapped people getting pepper sprayed and tazered make the headlines all the time. The questions are always, "why did the police use that, instead of less lethal means?" The same question can be asked if you decide to shoot instead of pepper spray someone. That does not mean that a DA will prosecute, just that there is the question. And whenever there is a question that is hanging out there that sound reasonable enough, then there is a chance of at least a civil lawsuit.
The police are already facing issues about using less lethal means. Children, elderly, and handicapped people getting pepper sprayed and tazered make the headlines all the time. The questions are always, "why did the police use that, instead of less lethal means?" The same question can be asked if you decide to shoot instead of pepper spray someone. That does not mean that a DA will prosecute, just that there is the question. And whenever there is a question that is hanging out there that sound reasonable enough, then there is a chance of at least a civil lawsuit.