Secondary Non-lethal weapon

G

gvf

Moderator
When CCWing my gun, I keep a very powerful Surefire light in my non-dominant hand. Thiis seems to have several advantages before going nuclear, a burst in the perps eyes will give at least 5 sec to start runnung (say he's got a knife). As well, if purused the light can make a great way to follow perp and keep him in view and if one needed to shoot, great lighting to see what you were doing (I shoot one-handed better than two, so at least I could make the possible choice to just use the non-dominant hand for lighting and shooting with the dominant hand.) If it had to be different than that, just tossing away the flaslight and using 2 hands to shoot is also and available option.

The other secondary weapon I was thinking of was Pepper Spray. It's disadvantage is aiming the stream of liquid accurately at night and with the non-dominant hand, and if you missed the eyes but the perp felt it hit his chest etc. he might be provoked or frightened into an immedaite charge at you, with a knife say, to stop you from squirting his eyes. In other words, it could percepitate a situation where you had less time to flee than with the Surefire - which is easy to aim the beam towards perps eyes.

So, I've been going with my instinct and carry the Surefire as secondary weapon. But I thought I'd ask others, as I'm fairly new to SD training.

Thanks for any feeback
 
Last edited:
I don't carry anything but my gun. I don't see any point in a can of pepper spray. If I am to the point where pepper spray needs to be used, I'm justified in using my gun. If I were a mailman or something I might for aggressive dogs, but for aggressive people, well, that's why I carry a gun.
I also don't carry a light on me. I have a surefire in my truck, by my bed, two downstairs, and one in the basement but don't really feel like carrying this stuff on me all day long. If you have the need to blind the attacker, and have time to pull out a flashlight and shine it in his eyes, you have time and cause to draw and shoot.
I don't see much need for either.
 
I don't carry anything but my gun. I don't see any point in a can of pepper spray. If I am to the point where pepper spray needs to be used, I'm justified in using my gun.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, or what level of actual training you have received, but your opinions are at variance with the laws of most states and with "mainstream doctrine" as taught by a number of reputable, highly regarded trainers.

In very few (if any) jurisdictions will you be able to say that the circumstances that justify the use of a less lethal option such as OC will also justify the use of a firearm.

OC (pepper spray) is a great tool for avoiding/ending physical confrontations that fall below the threshhold of using deadly force. A fistfights with an opponent of equal size doesn't normally allow you to shoot your opponent. But OC can enable you to avoid/end the confrontation while also avoiding the risks posed by blood-borne pathogens (HIV, for example) if your scraped knuckle smashes his lip (or vice versa).
 
I don't know where you live, or what level of actual training you have received, but your opinions are at variance with the laws of most states and with "mainstream doctrine" as taught by a number of reputable, highly regarded trainers.
A fistfights with an opponent of equal size doesn't normally allow you to shoot your opponent
Click to expand...

You need to read up a little bit on the laws. My opinions are not at a variance with the laws, nor are they at a variance with any CIVILIAN training. I'm not a cop. I have no obligation to try to stop an attack against my person where I am in fear for my personal safety without taking a life.
I don't know where YOU live, (or how old you are) but I'm not getting in a fistfight. If I get into a "fistfight" where I was not the aggressor and did not provoke the situation, I have just been ATTACKED. Period. I don't know if that guy's a blackbelt or a sissy. I just know someone tried to cause me physical harm, and with no idea if he would stop when I started bleeding or when I stopped breathing, I have every right to defend myself with force.

But OC can enable you to avoid/end the confrontation while also avoiding the risks posed by blood-borne pathogens (HIV, for example) if your scraped knuckle smashes his lip (or vice versa).
Click to expand...

So can my gun.
 
Last edited:
If I get into a "fistfight" where I was not the aggressor and did not provoke the situation, I have just been ATTACKED. Period. I don't know if that guy's a blackbelt or a sissy. I just know someone tried to cause me physical harm, and with no idea if he would stop when I started bleeding or when I stopped breathing, I have every right to defend myself with force.
Click to expand...

But AFAIK, in most states, if it was not imminent threat of lethal force, and you use lethal force in response, you will be charged with at least manslaughter or smacked in a civil suit. If they were unarmed, you're screwed. Period.

I carry a pocket .45 and Fox Labs OC. The OC is to use to stop someone who is drunk or otherwise aggressive from trying to hit me, as I do not wish to be hit. Lethal force would not be justified. The .45 is to be used if I feel that their use of unlawful lethal force on myself or a third party is imminent, as if they are threatening with a deadly weapon. And that's it.
 
But AFAIK, in most states, if it was not imminent threat of lethal force, and you use lethal force in response, you will be charged with at least manslaughter or smacked in a civil suit. If they were unarmed, you're screwed. Period.
Click to expand...
Definately not true in many states. I can't think of a state off the top of my head that requires your attacker to be armed before you are justified in using deadly force. Most states only require a reasonble belief that you are about to suffer serious injury or death and that the only way to stop said injury is by using deadly force. Also in many states, if you are not charged with a crime (e.g. your shooting is justified), you are protected from civil suits as well. Know your state's law!

IMO, there is no reason to carry LTL. The situation warrants deadly force or does not. If it doesn't, flee. If it does, shoot.
 
But AFAIK, in most states, if it was not imminent threat of lethal force, and you use lethal force in response, you will be charged with at least manslaughter or smacked in a civil suit. If they were unarmed, you're screwed. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't know about where you live, but in my state, that's not true. Period.

First off, I would have tried to avoid this escalating to this point, and I'm mature enough to have tried to walk away. If after my attempt to leave it alone I am still attacked, I have every right to protect myself with lethal force. Read my whole post.

If someone tried to attack me, unarmed or not, I don't know what there intentions are. Plus I have a legal gun on me, what if they were to be able to kick my ass, take my gun, and shoot me? How do I know their intent is to just beat me up instead of beat me to death? You need to look closely at your state laws.

MO state law reads: A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor.

So maybe you are required to fight back, but I'm not, and most states have adopted laws similar to this.
Lurper has taught me this lesson before. Know your state laws.
------
Damn, he also beat me to the answer.
 
Indiana has laws that heavily favor the innocent defending himself. Especially if the perp is on my property. Armed or unarmed perp. I would not live in state that was otherwise.

I am very much with KC and Lurper on this.
 
:D I love Indiana. I highlighted my favorite parts.


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
35-41-3-2 Sec. 2.

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable
force against another person to protect the person or a third person
from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of
unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force,
against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on
the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an
occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable
force against another person if the person reasonably believes that
the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other
person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully
in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the
person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property
the person has authority to protect.
 
That's good stuff, and the way it should be ! :D

I would not live somewhere I could not easily homeschool my children and easily defend myself, my family, and my property.

I have never heard a home invasion (yard invasion, barn invasion, etc) case in Indiana where a homeowner was prosecuted for using force to defend his/her castle

An old women just shot a JBT during a no-knock on the wrong house !!! - no problems.

An off duty cop lit up a perp on his front porch, shooting THRU his front door (I dont know all the details on that one)... - no problems.

I hope my kids and grandkids see an America where we can defend ourselves.
 
Even that bat sh*t crazy dude in the Indy ghetto who shot a home intruder had ZERO legal issues. It was the 2nd time his home had been burglarized in like 3 days. He shot the guy 2 times with a .22lr rifle.

He was however hounded by the press who were trespassing and banging on his door asking him over and over if he was SURE it was self defense (they actually showed this on TV). I'm guessing one of them put their foot in his door or failed to leave when told to, because he knifed one of them...

again NO PROBLEM!

The law stood firm. He could not be put in any legal jeopardy (including civil suits). Too bad the press assumes crazy old black guys in the ghetto are automatically guilty of something.

He really did look crazy... I'm not making that part up. I doubt anyone who saw his interviews (or him yelling crazy stuff at the harassing reporters later) is going to go near his house, let alone break into it.
 
compare that to the vet in NY who shot the home intruder. he was on fox hannity and colmes several times. the perp had a long rap sheet, broke into his house and made it all the way upstairs. since the vet had an unregistered gun (since he had just moved there) he faced MASSIVE legal problems, including jail time.

(i might not have all the facts right, but i'm close)

crazy... the pos da in that county has nothing better to do?
 
Add that to the list of reasons Indiana rocks...

we don't REGISTER firearms.

you don't need a license/permit to buy one.


I do dislike their laws on transportation of firearms. You don't need a permit to buy a gun, but you need to have one if you wish to transport it (even unloaded and locked up in the trunk) unless you are going to/from the store or to/from a gunsmith. They need to add going to/from the range to that list of exceptions. I don't think its safe for people to have guns in their homes and not know how to use them proficiently.
 
I never heard that about transporting. I was always told, when without a permit, keep the ammo and gun seperate and not readily accessible.

I'll look into that.
 
So if an unarmed drunk took a swing at you, you would shoot him, kc?

That sort of situation is why I carry the vile spray. I don't run or fight as well as I used to and I'm not going to shoot someone for attempting to instigate fisticuffs.

You must live in more peaceful surroundings than I. If I shot everyone who took a poke at me the streets would be bloody from here to Alaska and I would spend alltogether too much time in court.
 
oldbillthundercheif,

I didn't hear anyone mention shooting an unarmed drunk, or shooting everyone that took a poke.

Why is that such a common response to people talking about shooting someone in a self defense situation.

When a puke is stopped while trying to inflict serious harm or death on an innocent - it should be commended and celebrated. A legal system that does not hamper that self defense should also be celebrated. Someone willing to make the very difficult decision to defend themself, property and a 3rd person should also be celebrated.
 
oldbillthundercheif said:
If I shot everyone who took a poke at me the streets would be bloody from here to Alaska and I would spend alltogether too much time in court.
Click to expand...

How many times have you shot people with pepper spray?

Sounds like you need to do a better job of avoiding confrontation or find a different bar.

Police need pepper spray because they actually have situations where it is necessary. This is because they put themselves in the middle of confrontations, thats part of the job. You and me however don't have to put ourselves in the middle of confrontations. We have the option of leaving.

I can't think of any situation that the appropriate action wouldn't fall into one of three categories 1) avoid situation 2) leave or 3) defend with lethal force

I am a small person. I don't start fights. If someone taunts me, I ignore them. If someone is drunk and acting up, I leave. If someone comes at me, they are assaulting me unprovoked.
 
I agree with revance.

I'm not saying OC would NEVER EVER be an option, but, I see justification for it even less likely than a gun. I am either seriously threatened, or I am not. If not, I leave. An oc'd punk is likely to quickly pull a gun, and you loose your element of suprise.

I see OC helpful for my wife cause she is uncomfortable carrying a gun while taking care of our 4 (soon to be 5) small children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top