Legal Concerns for Impact Weapons and Lethal Force

W

Webleymkv

New member
So I was watching some of the videos of the aftermath of the "Million MAGA March" online last night and an interesting thought occurred to me. It appeared that quite often when fights broke out people from both sides as well as innocent bystanders were interspersed in close proximity to each other. As I watched this, I began thinking of the possibility of injury to innocent bystanders or people attempting to come to one's aid if a firearm were to be deployed in such a situation. I then began thinking about what else could be used if one found one's self in such a situation. While things like pepper spray and tasers often come to mind, it seems to me that such things would also present significant risk of collateral damage in such a crowded environment. I then began to consider impact weapons such as expandable batons.

Now, I know that batons and such can quite easily be lethal in untrained hands, but suppose the situation met legal standards for lawful use of lethal force. I've heard the arguments about things like bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets potentially opening the door to claims that their use suggests that lethal force was not necessary and I wonder if a similar argument might apply here. Do those familiar with such laws foresee a likelihood that one might be opening themselves up to legal problems if one were carrying a firearm but instead chose to use something like an expandable baton not because it's necessarily less-lethal, but because it creates less risk of collateral damage?
 
Better to stay home than be close to any of those protesters. Forget legal problems... one could be seriously injured or killed for just trying to drive by.
 
Rather than remain home and hide, it would be nice if the cities allowed the police to do their job and move in and stop these riots using any means necessary. As it stands now, these groups noted to cause problems know that LE will do nothing and if they are arrested, some judge lets them off, either do to their political leanings or some stupid law such as bail laws.

As noted, some of these people in a restaurant were not involved in any of the marching groups and were there just to eat. However, even if marching with the family, it is your right and up to you on what do to; hide or go. But if you go, in this day-and-age understand you could be hurt or possibly need to protect yourself.

As for a common person, it is a hard decision. Even in a state where you could be carrying, not a great idea to pull a weapon and open fire into a crowd.

I would carry a pepper spray that shoots out a stream for directed application in the attackers eye(s). However, you would need to check the laws of the jurisdiction you are in to make sure it is legal. Even though I have been in DC more times than I want to admit; I never worried about DC's laws on what was legal or not legal to carry; I legally carried in all states; districts, territories, etc.

My two-cents from the recliner of an old guy safely in Idaho.:D
 
RETG said:
I legally carried in all states; districts, territories, etc.
Click to expand...
You carried legally in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut?

Would you be so kind as to explain how you managed to do that?
 
I've heard the arguments about things like bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets potentially opening the door to claims that their use suggests that lethal force was not necessary and I wonder if a similar argument might apply here.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, so my advice is worth what you pay for it, but I don't see how such an argument can be applied.

The fallacy with such an argument is not understanding what the beanbag/rubber bullets are. Which is compounded by the sloppy use of terms including legal definitions.

They are NOT "non-lethal". They are not "less lethal" (there is no such thing), what they are intended to be is "less LIKELY to be lethal". Here it is important to use ALL those words and not shorten the phrase to "less lethal" which changes the meaning completely.

If it comes out of the barrel of a gun, it is lethal force. This is what the law recognizes. Doesn't matter to the law WHAT the projectile is.

Now you're in a crowd, and things go bad. You have a gun, and a stick (and that's what a baton is, its just a stick). Where does a stick fall in your state's laws about "deadly weapons"???

Anything CAN be a deadly weapon, but not everything is defined in the law as deadly force. Do you think anyone in the legal system will fault you for NOT shooting someone???

You might face charges, even ADW using a stick, but you won't be charged with NOT SHOOTING someone. (and if you are, it should be national news!!)
 
I'm not a lawyer,either. This is not legal advice.
A problem is that what maybe SHOULD be may not be what IS.

That young fellow,Rittenhauer or Rittenhouse...Close enough...

It remains to be seen how his trial will go,and I don't know if it was legit self defense or some degree of manslaughter. Thats what trials are (hopefully) for.

IMO,he has had some degree of social media lynching and the lack of prosecution of some violent elements of "protest" are telling.

My Concealed Carry permit allows me to carry a handgun only concealed.I was told I can still open carry other weapons,such as spray.

But at these events,when there is contact,there is an organized,trained swarm.
Like hyenas. Pretty much,you don't have a chance alone.

Study the case of the 9 news hired security guard in Denver. Note in the sequence of photos when the shooter initiated the draw,and note in the orange pepper spray shot,the slide is back in recoil and ejected brass was in the air. The pepper spray guy is dead. This did not seem a deadly force worthy incident.

You may carry a cane as a medical device,protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Just don't say its for self defense.

You will always be up against a "reasonable level of force" criteria.

By far,your best defense is good judgement. Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you insist "You have a Rigjt to be there,OK. You probably do. You SHOULD be safe. But you assume risk,and life is not fair. You and your impact weapon may end up looking like a popsicle.
 
Webleymkv said:
As I watched this, I began thinking of the possibility of injury to innocent bystanders or people attempting to come to one's aid if a firearm were to be deployed in such a situation. I then began thinking about what else could be used if one found one's self in such a situation. While things like pepper spray and tasers often come to mind, it seems to me that such things would also present significant risk of collateral damage in such a crowded environment. I then began to consider impact weapons such as expandable batons.
Click to expand...
My state has no restrictions on pepper spray. Collapsible batons are prohibited.
 
I fully intend to continue to live my life.
Part of which is “DDSS”. (Don’t Do Stupid *)
That includes situational awareness and behaving as a responsible citizen should)
 
"Even though I have been in DC more times than I want to admit; I never worried about DC's laws on what was legal or not legal to carry; I legally carried in all states; districts, territories, etc."

Likely an active or retired LEO. ;)
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I was pretty much thinking that. Which means the fact that he could carry legally in those places is of no help whatsoever to us mere mortals.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There are loopholes allowing most reserve officers to carry anywhere.
I know two who volunteer only for that reason.
 
If lethal force is justified, lower levels are also justified.
Now, the effectiveness of using force when lethal force is justified is definitely a consideration. If your life is in imminent danger, using a small impact weapon is iffy, as to effectiveness (unless you are in excellent shape and well trained).
 
Not necessarily. There are loopholes allowing most reserve officers to carry anywhere.
I know two who volunteer only for that reason.
Click to expand...
Reserve officers are still officers. That sets them apart from people who have to follow laws.
 
If you are truly in a situation where your life is in danger, and deadly force for self defense is authorized, then it largely doesn’t matter what implement of force you use, technically. Quick example... you stop to help a stranded motorist change a tire. As you jack the car up a guy comes out of the woods with a knife to rob you. The stranded motorist was a setup. You take the tire iron and strike the guy with a knife. When he runs away, or falls unconscious, you immediately stop your defense*. You used deadly force to defend yourself with an impact weapon. By all technical aspects of law, you acted reasonably (or at least we hope the jury feels that way). You just beat someone unconscious with a tire iron, but you used what you had and did what you had to do. There was no pre-planning, you just reacted.

See how that compares to choosing to be present in a riot/civil unrest situation. You also choose to carry an ASP baton or D cell mag light. You try to physically defend property that isn’t yours. In the process you are attacked. The attack is severe so you use your ASP baton, striking someone until they collapse or run away. While technically you did what you had to do, you also made a number of decisions that many may not feel are reasonable to be placed in that situation. While, at least in my state, that isn’t really supposed to matter; the fact remains that it does matter in the court of public opinion. Guess what a jury is?

You have two scenarios above that technically, on their face, are justified self defense scenarios. But anyone here can recognize there is a difference. The first scenario involves a guy who is not out choosing to participate in a high risk situation, is in a seemingly mundane scenario, where he is ambushed and he does what he needs to do to live. The second scenario involves someone who chooses to participate in a high risk scenario, chooses to carry a weapon that is not routinely used by the general public, as a consequence of his choices he is in a scenario where he is in danger, and someone is severely injured as a result. I hope anyone here could see the stark difference in how these two scenarios could be portrayed in court. That’s why most voices here at TFL wisely suggest you avoid bad situations like the Black Plague.

There are a myriad of in betweens, each with different possibilities. Say you aren’t out to be out in civil unrest, but instead passing through to go to work. Or you are shopping with the wife and kids on Sunday afternoon and all is well until a crowd descends on your area and you must use force to leave. There is no answering OPs question in honesty. Each scenario will have its own answer, depending on circumstances and jurisdiction. Even different juries would feel different ways. A common denominator in all of those, in the instance of carrying a collapsing baton, is the use of a weapon not usually used by the public. While maybe not illegal per se, it would be cannon fodder in court. I think a common pocket knife would be more accepted. That’s just my opinion.

*no matter how clear cut justified a self defense scenario is, it ceases to be self defense if the defender continues the attack when they no longer face the threat of injury/death. Many incidents are paraded around as justified, and they really are at first, when the defender became the attacker and went too far.
 
"Not necessarily. There are loopholes allowing most reserve officers to carry anywhere. 
I know two who volunteer only for that reason."TXAZ

AB is correct. If they are reserve officers, there are no "loopholes", only exemption / protection under Federal law (they qualify under the LEO Safety Act of 2004, which was enhanced later under Obama).
__________________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top