Pepper Spray + Gun = Problem?

Both bear and dog specific sprays have a large warning on them saying not to use on human beings, and doing so may be a felony. If it comes to it, it becomes the job of the prosecuting attorney to prove why you should have used a spray expressly forbidden for use on people.
 
Here's my $.02. Worth what ya paid for it.

Use the pepper spray on dogs that are harassing you, but not attacking you.

Use the gun on dogs that are attacking you.

Fits in with what BillCA said above.
 
But the issue goes deeper than that.

If you have the pepper spray, you will also probably have to articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would have concluded that the non-lethal option would not have been adequate. That's why in post 12 I went into a discussion of training that would support a conclusion that pepper spray should not be relied upon to necessarily stop a lethal threat.
Click to expand...

It's called a reasonable belief. Would a reasonable man in your shoes believed that a can of spray seasoning would be sufficient to stop someone from causing him some kind of injury?

Let's take it from your argument's side...

We'll stay with the potential assault over a trivial thing, like our parking lot space scenarios above. This so I don't get accused of stacking the deck (much). ;)

a) Some guy gets out of his car, cursing profanely, red in the face and approaches you as you get out of your car. You're 5'8" and 170 lbs in your boxers. The irate driver is 6'3" and appears to benchpress Buicks daily. His arms are covered with tattoos where his black Harley shirt doesn't cover them. His first "shove" to you slams you painfully into the car. His second one causes that bruising sort of pain on your chest and shoulders. At this point, he's just calling you names.
Lethal Force: Probably not
Pepper Spray: Definitely

b) Same situation, however after shoving you against parked cars a few times, you've tried to back away. Now this guy throws you to the ground and when you look up he's raised his leg to drive a boot-clad foot towards your face.
Lethal Force: Triple-tap candidate
Pepper Spray: Not recommended

It doesn't have to be a man-mountain coming after you where you can claim size disparity. Here is California there can often be subtle "clues" that you're dealing with someone of dubious character. And sometimes you just can't tell until the spam in flying.

c) This time the guy coming out of his car, p---ed off in the spring-loaded position is a Hispanic male, about your own size, short hair and in a t-shirt and jeans. He makes profane threats from the rear of your car about your brains, breeding and bollocks. He starts moving forward...
Lethal Force: No
Pepper Spray: YES
His threats and profane comments are sufficient to raise concern about safety. But as long as no lethal threats are made nor weapons seen. Pepper Spray is good for stopping a fist fight type assault.

d) Same thing as the above. However, when he clenches a fist you can see letters tattooed on his fingers. You can also see a tear-drop tattoo near one eye. When he looks around you see a tattooed number, like 18, on the side of his neck. As he moves in on you he says "I'll kick your ass, b----h". He starts moving forward...
Lethal Force: Recommended
Pepper Spray: Not unless you want to fight too.

This one has more elements of risk. He's unarmed. He's hostile. Yet, he also exhibits gang tattoos. Gang members often tattoo their symbols on the upper sides of their fingers to be visible on a fist. A number or some kind of tattoo visible on the side of the neck (especially aft of 3/9 o'clock) hold a high probability of a gang affiliation. Tear drop tats on the face can have several meanings, but for the citizen, they indicate gang affiliation and/or a prison experience.

Thus, from the citizen's viewpoint, he's now confronted with an irate man who appears gang-affiliated and is threatening a beating. If an average Joe hits you a few times he may be satisfied. But gang members really don't care if you live permanently disabled or disfigured or if you die. You're one of the sheep to be sheared. You're nothing to him.

You can easily argue that, as a gang member, he isn't going to just punch you once or twice and let it go at that. His attack will be vicious and he will make repeated hard blows to the face and head -- potentially life threatening ones. And because he has to maintain his "rep", he can't let an insult like pepper spray go unchallenged. He'll keep going to make contact, inflict what damage he can, the withdraw after "teaching a lesson" to you.
 
BillCA said:
It's called a reasonable belief. Would a reasonable man in your shoes believed that a can of spray seasoning would be sufficient to stop someone from causing him some kind of injury?...
Click to expand...
Actually, if he were just the "man on the street" without demonstrated training, he very well might. After all, the stuff is sold in drug stores and sporting goods shops and a a bunch of other places expressly for self defense. Some of the advertising of some brands I've seen shows extravagant pictures of evil, ugly men brandishing weapons who are crumbling in the aerosol mist of this wondrous product.

I suspect that most people who are reasonable and prudent, but who also haven't been well educated about self defense, have very overly optimistic expectations regarding the effectiveness of pepper spray. And that would include most of the public, and probably most of the folks on the grand jury. And if you're unlucky enough to wind up on trial, it will include some, if not all, of the folks on your jury.

But you're not one of those people. You are a person well educated in self defense issues. You've been taught, and therefore learned, the limitations of pepper spray. You understand how to distinguish between a situation in which pepper spray will be appropriate and a situation in which a threat is likely too great for pepper spray to be relied on.

And I think you're completely misunderstood my argument. I agree that there are situations in which the use of pepper spray is appropriate. I also understand that there are situations in which pepper spray is likely to be inadequate and escalation of force will be necessary to preserve your life.

The thing is that IME many people don't realize the deficiencies of pepper spray. So if you resort to lethal force instead of relying on pepper spray, and assuming it was the proper choice, which it certainly can be, you will need to be able to articulate why you understand that pepper spray could not have been relied upon to stop the attack and how you had reason to know that. You will need to do that because your knowledge is inconsistent with the unfortunate, but IME common, misunderstanding regarding the effectiveness of pepper spray.

You and I both know that pepper spray is not going to stop that 250 pound, 20 year old, Hulk Hogan look alike on meth charging us brandishing a club. However, too many people don't know that. Too many people think that pepper spray will work. So we need to be prepared to show how it is that we know what we know.

It's much like the assailant 20 feet away with a knife. We know how fast he can get to us and kill us with that knife because we've been trained to know that. We also know how much time it's likely to take us to put our gun into play to neutralize the treat. But many people who aren't educated in self defense matters would intuitively believe that the assailant is too far away to be a threat. They'd of course be wrong, so we need to be able to educate them.
 
As I mentioned in another thread, I used to be an armed guard. I had two weapons on my blet. One was a revolver and one was a can of Mace. Some guard also carried a baton. I went through training for gun and chemical weapon carry.

During the classes the instructors emphasized trying to escalate our response. Of course, a gun attack was to be met with a gun response. Even then, we advised not to have any rounds stamped with the word "magnum" on them. With a knife being used as a weapon, if possible, we were told to start with the nonlethal weapons and if they failed go to lethal force. These bits of advice were not only for criminal court, but for civil court as well.

Even if we killed someone and the DA ruled it as justifiable, an ambulance chaser will make it look different. The 19 year old thug that was killed will be made to look like the salt of the earth to a jury. He even helped little old ladies cross the street. If the guard being sued shows he tried nonlethal methods first, he might get to keep his bank account and house.

I don't know if I have helped. I was just trying to remind you that any defensive response might up in court, if not criminal, then civil.
 
Pepper spray is not reliable enough for me to consider using it in defense of my own life or others'. It is not necessarily easy to deploy and use accurately, and there is absolutely no guarantee (not even, really, a reasonable assurance) that it will have the desired effect on your opponent. Frankly, I don't understand the notion of carrying a firearm AND pepper spray, unless I was in an area where I might run across unfriendly (but not terribly dangerous) wildlife.
 
Read post 11, 14, and 19 of this thread. Familiarize yourself with the concept of escalation and disparity of force, and then get back to us.
Click to expand...
Please do not insult my intelligence by patronizing me. I am well aware of those concepts, and stand by my remarks. I will not place my own life at risk by dependence upon a weapon which I consider to be highly unreliable and ineffective.
 
Fiddletown,

You are correct, I did misunderstand your point. And your point is best summed up in this paragraph (emphasis added).

Fiddletown said:
The thing is that IME many people don't realize the deficiencies of pepper spray. So if you resort to lethal force instead of relying on pepper spray, and assuming it was the proper choice, which it certainly can be, you will need to be able to articulate why you understand that pepper spray could not have been relied upon to stop the attack and how you had reason to know that. You will need to do that because your knowledge is inconsistent with the unfortunate, but IME common, misunderstanding regarding the effectiveness of pepper spray.
Click to expand...

The alternative to articulating why pepper spray was not used is to articulate why your believed lethal force was a necessary option -- either through training or simple observation.

lizziedog1 - I was also in the same job back before CA reqiured 4 or 5 different permits. And I had the mace & baton cards. The general rule for Mace/spray use was if you had time to deploy it and sufficient distance from the subject. In closer quarters, the baton was usually faster and just as effective (when used properly). A guy 20 feet away with a wrench would get sprayed. But like our LAPD trainers said, "We're not here to play fair. If he uses his fists or a broken bottle, baptize him or stick him. If he comes at you with a club or a knife, shoot him to the ground."

csmsss - Pepper spray is a fair 1st-line defense if you have time to slide it into your weak hand and have it ready. It can be used to gain time to move away from an assault and/or deter the incident entirely. But PS is not what I would call a "fast deployment" tool.
 
re:lizziedog1

I don't know if I have helped. I was just trying to remind you that any defensive response might up in court, if not criminal, then civil.
Click to expand...

Good point. I have also often heard that a civil suit is likely to follow a shooting. That is one reason that you are not suppose to use reloaded ammo is a SD situation.
 
Quote:
Read post 11, 14, and 19 of this thread. Familiarize yourself with the concept of escalation and disparity of force, and then get back to us.
Click to expand...
Please do not insult my intelligence by patronizing me. I am well aware of those concepts, and stand by my remarks. I will not place my own life at risk by dependence upon a weapon which I consider to be highly unreliable and ineffective.
Click to expand...
If your life is at risk then pepper spray wouldn't be an option, would it? So, tell me again how well you understand the concepts of escalation and disparity of force?

But, let's say, you were being threatened with less than lethal force, and it wasn't a robbery. Say, you took someone's intended parking space by mistake, and now they are trying to punch you in the face.

Ok, then what would you use? You can't carry a police baton, nunchakus, (or a taser, in many states). Since more altercations call for less than lethal force, what, if you don't mind, IS your plan besides pulling a gun? Or do you want to fight them, tear up your nice slacks, bloody your knuckles, be late for dinner, plus other potential untenable consequences possibly including getting your ass kicked.

Because if lethal force is not called for, drawing will likely get you charged with brandishing a firearm in a rude and threatening manner, or whatever the charge would be in your state.

So what are YOUR alternatives to pulling a gun?
 
Last edited:
My brother is a police lieutenant in a major LE agency in Southern CA. He has used OC on hundreds and hundreds of people.

I ask him this question: What percentage of people that you sprayed with OC remained combative?

Here is his response:
"Maybe 5%, but they were at a serious operational disadvantage. And of the 5 percent, there were often other factors like drugs or failure to get a good, direct hit.

And of that same 5 percent, they were generally not aggressing but trying to get away. It (arresting someone) is an entirely different dynamic. As a tool for protection it is highly effective."


Even if used only as a distraction to facilitate your escape, I fail to see a downside. It only takes a second, and it doesn't limit other defensive moves subsequent to deploying the OC.

If you need a gun, you need a gun, But WAY more often, you won't need a gun. What's in your lunchbox? ;)
 
Last edited:
My brother-in-law is a police officer in the suburban Los Angeles, California area, and has been one for almost two decades. He routinely carries both a gun and pepper spray both on and off the job. When I asked him why he carried both, he said that he has found pepper spray useful in three situations: to disable a suspect in a situation where the suspect's own behavior did not justify using lethal force, to do the same in situations where the suspect's behavior justified lethal force but using a gun would have put innocent third parties at risk, and to help distract or disable a suspect in situations where he also used his gun. He also taught my husband/his brother and me how to use pepper spray.

I've only talked with a few police officers and county sheriffs about the stuff, but my BIL's opinion seems widespread among them.
 
Frankly, I don't understand the notion of carrying a firearm AND pepper spray, unless I was in an area where I might run across unfriendly (but not terribly dangerous) wildlife.
Click to expand...

Not every encounter warrants lethal force, morally or legally. Again, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
 
Not every encounter warrants lethal force, morally or legally. Again, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Click to expand...
Interesting, isn't it, how few grasp that concept? I have been carrying pepper spray as long as I have carried a weapon (20 years). I see it as my responsibility to have an alternative, even if only from the standpoint of weapons retention.

If I am armed, I get assaulted, and get in a fight which I lose, I have just put a gun in the hand of my previously unarmed attacker.

The reasons for less-lethal alternatives are endless, and there is no downside to having them available.
 
Wow...so pepper spray is the ONLY non-lethal option?
Click to expand...
CSMSSS, you are the only one I have ever heard suggest such a thing, let alone in this thread. You have rather selective comprehension. The subject matter of the thread, however, is "Pepper Spray + Gun". And it's as good a combo as I have found.

I carry OC, and a defensive/tactical flashlight (a surefire), in addition to a firearm, and an assisted opener folding knife for lethal backup. As a civilian, carrying a large impact weapon would be either illegal, impractical, or just downright strange.

I do have a very large mag-light in my car should that be the right tool for the job, and should I have time to retrieve it, which is doubtful as I could likely retreat in less time.

Yet again, I invite you to share YOUR non-lethal alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Wow...so pepper spray is the ONLY non-lethal option?
Click to expand...

Aside from avoidance or possibly a taser gun it is the only one I know of that does NOT involve me going hand to hand with a belligerent drunk or kid who I am being forced into an altercation with but which does not meet the level of violence for which lethal force would be justified (at least in all the jurisdictions I currently travel in).

I would wager most LEOs would rather avoid rolling around on the ground with someone as well.

Nobody here has said OC is the response to lethal force.

Nobody has said it is 100% effective (hint hint, neither is your handgun).

If you choose to wrestle with some drunk who just might get the upperhand on you and escalate the situation to a whole new level should your gun get grabbed then by all means feel free to do so. OC though is an EFFECTIVE and PROVEN non-lethal alternative to a very large range of non-lethal threats. You may not like that but it is the truth as many many departments will attest to.
 
Thanks, but...

Great replies and I thank all of you. However, my question is about having both pepper spray and a gun on you at the same time from legal point of view. Mainly, if a thug comes at you with a blade, and for whatever reason you shoot and kill the person, will having pepper spray have a legal effect on you.

Could a DA or a civil jury question why the nonlethal option wasn't utilized. It seems illogical, but so does the warning not to use reloaded ammo.

I wonder if someone is better off, in a legal sense, just carrying a gun?
 
The answer is no, legally, morally, and civilly. It's been answered pretty well in this thread. The only possible reason a CCW'r would have pepper spray would be because not all threats are lethal. If your attorney can't sell that to judge or jury, fire him. It's the responsible thing to do, and difficult to misinterpret.

I am curious, though, was there some scenario you imagined where it would be frowned upon? What do you think the reason would be to suspect the motivations of a lawful CCW'r to carry OC spray? I can't think of a single reason why anyone would question it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top