>Mod Warning< Gun Control, Pepper Spray, Self-Defence and Liberals

I agree, a Rapist might use sprays as a device to facilitate a Rape and a method of preventing the victim from identifying him.

 

I wouldn't smoke them; they aren't using a lethal weapon against you. Personally I don't think that i could ever take someone's life over being sprayed with pepper gas; you murder someone you have to live with what you've done for the rest of your life (for those of you who have a conscience that is); much better to have the police arrest them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Either way in my state the use of pepper spray is not a valid reason to kill someone; you'd most likely end up in one of our wonderful state prisons doing 25-to- life.

 

There are individuals who have died as a result of being exposed to chemical agents, such as those found in pepper spray.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/22/how-dangerous-is-pepper-spray

Even the united states department of justice admits that the use of such chemical agents is linked to deaths. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/195739.pdf

You are assuming police officers will simply make an arrest, rather than killing the suspect. Video has demonstrated that police officers readily and willingly deploy lethal force at the slightest provocation, even when it is determined that the situation did not warrant such, and that the police officers did not face a legitimate risk to their safety.

If it comes down to either you killing an assailant in self defense, or police officers killing the assailant because they believed they were threatened, what is the ultimate, meaningful difference in the two?

Where is the evidence of your claim that assault with a chemical agent is not valid enough reason to use lethal force for defense?

 

There is risk involved in anything type of force you use on an individual; the person could have an underlying medical cardiac condition and if you use force against them, it could cause their death. The Eric Garner case is a good example of the use of force without any use of chemical agent and the person nonetheless died. If you are attacked and the assailant is punched in the head/nose by you, he/she die can die from that alone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gle-punch-going-friends-house-play-games.html

The police are trained to deploy lethal force if, in their judgement, it is warranted. In my state, a police/peace officer can only use force one step above what the assailant is using; as an example if you walk up to a police officer and kick him in the shins, he cannot shoot you since that is not grounds to use lethal force on anyone. Contrary to what you believe, police officers will not deploy lethal force at the slightest provocation; just pulling their weapon involves paper work; the use of lethal force involves a lot of paperwork which they try to avoid unless absolutely necessary.

If you use lethal force and it results in the death of the assailant, you'll have to prove it was justifiable in a court of law; likewise the police will have to do the same, however they are trained for situations in the just of force and are more disciplined then civilians.

Here is my evidence:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224081.pdf

https://www.in.gov/ilea/files/websitearticle_for_bb.doc

 

Thus meaning that even the use of chemical agents by an assailant may qualify as legal justification for using deadly force in response and defense.

Video evidence contradicts your claims. Police officers have been found to engage in abusive practices with little to no justification. Individuals have been assaulted and arrested for showing a lack of respect to police officers in a public venue. Suspects have been shot in the back while they were walking away from a police officer, and posing no threat whatsoever. The use of force is rarely in proportion to what the situation would warrant.

This is factually incorrect. Police officers are not more disciplined than private individuals in the use of force. If this was correct, the police officer who killed Eric Garner would never have implemented a choke hold maneuver, which the training manuals specify should not be used under any circumstances. The fact that he was not punished in any meaningful capacity for such a violation simply reinforces this fact.

Refer to page ten of the first citation, regarding the use of force matrix. Deadly force is warranted in response to aggravated physical assault. The legal definition of aggravated assault is the attempt at causing serious bodily injury to another, either purposely, knowingly or recklessly, or assault with a dangerous weapon. Note that there is no requirement for the implement used to be a deadly weapon, or that the injury sustained must be permanent in nature, in order for the standard of aggravated assault to be met.

Page forty two states further that there is no requirement that the suspect be armed to warrant the use of deadly force in response to aggravated assault.

 

Mod Warning- Enough of the bickering.

Thread bans issued for bickering after this post.

 

Yes it is reason enough to shoot through the door. Why would you try to break down my door other than to steal my stuff or do me harm? And if I'm aware that you're in my home I have every right to assume that you intend to do me harm.

 

Most sane States presume someone who breaks into a home at night intends to confront the occupants and do them harm

 

That doesn't mean shooting through a door is acceptable.

 

Is there anything in any state law to suggest they regard such to be the case?

 

Well, my reading of FL state law indicates that I can only use lethal force if they enter an occupied dwelling (and banging on the door does not equal entry, in my opinion). I think waiting with the finger on the trigger and aimed at the door would be the prudent solution, along with telling the criminal that. I really don't care what other states' laws say (at least until I move to them).

 

Which statute of the law of the state of Florida are you referencing? What the law says does not match the presented interpretation.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

The following section, pertaining to home protection, states that the use of deadly force is justified in a situation where an unlawful and forceful entry is being attempted. There is nothing stating that the unlawful entry must have been completed in full before deadly force is justified.

As to whether or not banging on the door amounts to an unlawful and forcible entry, that would depend on just how hard to banging would be. A cordial knock is not in any way similar to one trying to kick a door open.

 

Well, then I'm basing it on myself. I don't feel that I am in reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the bad guy is outside banging on my door. The second the door opens, though, that changes.

Edit: I hadn't read this part closely. I concede the argument:

 

Finger off the trigger, Firearm not aimed at door, call 911, and it would be better to fall back a distance from the door in question and take cover.

I would not announce that I am Armed to potential Home Invader(s)....

 

Why not? Would you let them into your perimeter?

 

I would let them smash in, enter, then respond, it has always worked in the past.

 

I had this actual scenario a few months ago. I live in a very nice neighborhood, considered on of the safest in my city. I conduct my business out of my home. While in my office, during the early afternoon I heard banging at my door and attempts at gaining entry, which in retrospect, I suspect someone was ascertaining if someone was home prior to doing a B&E. In my house I have a gun within easy reach almost anywhere I am. I grabbed a .45, and positioned myself to cover the door, concealing myself from obvious observation if entry was obtained. I learned early in life to always be positive of my target and know where my rounds would hit beyond; I have always operated under the a rule to always be positive of target identification... no guesses. Without knowing what the actual intent or identity of the person trying to gain entry, I wasn't going to engage (for instance, one possibility that ran through my head was LE attempting entry at a mistaken location (I was upstairs initially... an announcement to enter could have been made I didn't hear). Then, I saw a figure pass the side window, heading to the rear of my house; my back door was open to the interior glass door. The individual attempted to gain entry and I was able to see that it was an older teen who was unarmed, I revealed myself, with my gun pointed (with my finger safety engaged ... meaning my finger wasn't on the trigger). The teen, saw me and ran and I tracked the direction and paid attention to details for a description. I then called 911 (I hadn't earlier because I didn't have my phone at hand) and provided a detailed description and direction of his running. The neighborhood police station is only a few blocks from me and either because the closeness or a nearby patrol the individual was apprehended within a couple of minutes. As I later learned while giving a statement, the individual was a rather large 16 year old and as it turns had broken into two houses on my street earlier that day. His abreast appears to have solved a rash of dattime burglaries in my neighborhood. I have alway seen using a firearm against a person as a last resort and in this case was happy not to have blown away a 16 year old. While he would have to do time, he still had an opportunity to learn and have a life.
Every situation is different. I train myself, and others both with tactics and flexibility of action, based on rapid and continual situational threat assessment rather than a programmed response. After this incident, for our force on force simulation training at our training facility, we created an ran several breakin training scenarios using simunition with over a dozen variations. We found mistakes could be made, but we also found training with our creed of continual situational threat assessment and response flexibility minimized mistakes. In a B&E situation, if armed, and that is the key, the defender has the tactical advantage, unless those breaking in have superior force of numbers, speed, and skill (as might be seen with a swat entry team). What seemed to work best in most of our simulations was, if you had time, arm yourself, create distance between you and the entry point, and be unpredictably concealed to those doing entry. Obviously, every situation is different and the more you train, the more likely you have the mental preparation that enables rapid flexible situation assessment and response.
Had I seen the teen was armed, there were still options available rather than use of deadly force on my part.
That all said, in my city there have been forceable entries by individuals with disregard for life. I am prepared for such a scenario and weapons for defense are always available, but each situation requires it's own unique response.

I train both myself and others in force on force encounters; both armed and unarmed. I don't like programmed response, but prefer training to be flexible in my response to a Potential threat. Training to have a programmed response or declaring what you might do in a particular situation limits your defensive capability when things become unpredictable and real life is always unpredictable. I have trained in many martial arts styles. Years ago while working with a club, learning Aikido, I made a comment to my sensei that the knife disarming techniques being taught were choreographed and depended upon programmed responses that would be ineffective in real life, saying an experienced knife fighter would never follow program. I challenged him to prevent an attack by me. While we were setting up and explaining to the rest of the group the challenge for him to defend against me, using a rubber knife coated with marking dye, I immediately stuck him several times. His comment to me was, he wasn't ready... I said precisely, you rarely see a knife attack coming... they aren't prepared scenarios, but more like a lightning prison style attack. You must always be ready, be aware, and be flexible. You can't choreograph attack/responses or mentally program yourself for how you will respond without limiting yourself.
Dr who, you have described your experience with a home invasion and your successful defense. I suspect, if you reflect, you did not make a preprogrammed response, rather, because of you experience, were able to rapidly perform a threat assessment under pressure and determine an effective course of action.

 

Very true and perfectly logical.

 

If he's literally beating down my door then yes, it is acceptable.

 

Mine is one of them.

 

The question is, what are the thugs intentions after they attack some innocent person with pepper spray? The smart assumption is they intend to cause them more harm and possibly death thus justifying the use of deadly force to defend yourself. You are immune from prosecution in many states, here's part of Tennessee's self defense law.

Personally i'm going to "assume" they intend me bodily harm or death and quite prepared to shoot anyone attacking me with pepper spray.

 

In stand your ground states you don't even have to consider retreat.

 

Should you shoot someone who attacks you with a pepper spray - In America, absolutely!

If its OK to shoot children because they look like they might be holding a gun then shooting an adult armed with pepper spray is simply self defence.

What about people who are holding things that might be pepper spray?...what if they are holding a can of deodorant for example? - I still say yes because its better to be safe than sorry.

 

If you have a gun and someone tries to incapacitate you, you have reason to fear their attempt to disarm you.
This gives you reason to fear for your life and/or bodily harm.

 

Pepper spray can kill you if you have COPD or Asthma.