Taser, Pepper Spray?

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

If lethal force is required and administered and the threat stopped, then the evidence will speak for its self, and you will be the only one alive to point that out.

Click to expand...

But can you convince a jury of that? And wouldn't you want to do anything possible to make it easier to convince a court that you weren't just out to kill the guy? Being able to say you used a LTL weapon before you used lethal force could go a long way in places like CA, where the general population isn't so gun friendly. You carry a gun because you want to be prepared for the worst possible scenario: a threat upon your life or the lives of your loved ones. But once you win the fight things don't end; that's when you have to make your case that you had no other choice but to kill the assailant. Wouldn't you want to be prepared for that as well? If you can say "I used OC spray on him in an attempt to deter him, but he continued his assault, so I was forced to resort to lethal force", the jury might be much more inclined to believe that you weren't just looking for an excuse to use your gun.

It's not always going to be as clear-cut as you think it will be. It's not enough to say "I feared for my life", you have to be able to convince a court that a "reasonable" person would have feared for their life in the same situation. You will have to convince them that your life was in immediate and unavoidable danger, and that you had no choice but to shoot.

Plus, even if lethal force isn't called for, what if you can't outrun the guy? What if you can't run period (maybe not because of a physical disability, but perhaps because of your location in a building)? Should you just let the guy pound your face in?

imported post

I voted for OC. None of the above are 100% and they all have the their problems. Stun gun you have to be within anarms distance. Taser's are really expensive and both probes have to stick, andstay stuck,in order to work. OC is cheap and easy to carry. But, it doesn't work on everybody.

imported post

I voted for Taser.

If LTL force is required, it's the best overall choice. It's most like a handgun and if used properly will stop the threat. It ain't no accident that all those police officers are using them. They work.

The problem is that it is really hard to justify carrying both a Taser and a handgun, seems to me. But having a Taser in the car might be just the ticket...

I really like the X26c but it's around $900.

Overall, though, I would much rather Taser somebody and stop a threat than to shoot somebody and stop a threat. YMMV, of course.

imported post

I've personally seen several guys get tazed 4 or 5 times and the taser was not effective for whatever reason.

I've been sprayed with mace and Pepper spray & you can fight thrugh it to attack the person who has sprayed you. Have seen quite a few people that mace & pepper spray failed on.

Personally unless I'm a LEo I'll leave the less than lethal tactics to the LEO's and I'll break contact & find a egress unless deadly force is called for.

Side bar:

Have seen guys tazed in the nut sack & they screamed & dropped like rocks, but the best tazing I've ever seen was when a bad guy turnd while running and got the barb in the eye :what::what: He was Ok, with no eye or vision damage, but woza did he scream and do the funky chicken on the way down.

imported post

CaliforniaCarry wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

If lethal force is required and administered and the threat stopped, then the evidence will speak for its self, and you will be the only one alive to point that out.

Click to expand...

But can you convince a jury of that?......

Click to expand...

Good question. A question that no one has the answer to, but a question that would possibly never be asked if you DON"T stop the threat, as you could very well be DEAD.

There is an old adage, that is still very true, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Each of us is responsible for our own , and our families protection. You decide how you will best do that, I have.

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

CaliforniaCarry wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

If lethal force is required and administered and the threat stopped, then the evidence will speak for its self, and you will be the only one alive to point that out.

Click to expand...

But can you convince a jury of that?......

Click to expand...

Good question. A question that no one has the answer to, but a question that would possibly never be asked if you DON"T stop the threat, as you could very well be DEAD.

There is an old adage, that is still very true, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Each of us is responsible for our own , and our families protection. You decide how you will best do that, I have.

Click to expand...

Here's a new adage, even better than the old one:

Better to do the right thing than have to be judged by twelve.

It is absolutely mandatory for people who wish to use deadly force to do the right thing.

Copping out by saying (now) that you'll be willingto go through thecriminal justice system (then) for any mistakes you may make doesn't cut it too well. It just reveals a tendency toward simplism and, perhaps, irresponsibility.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Here's a new adage, even better than the old one:

Better to do the right thing than have to be judged by twelve.

It is absolutely mandatory for people who wish to use deadly force to do the right thing......

Click to expand...

HankT, I don't know what you consider the "right thing to do", BUT if I see my wife, or another woman being raped or assaulted, the right thing for me to do is stop that rape or assault.

If someone is in my house, heading for my bedroom or that of one of my children, the right thing for me to do is stop that threat.

If I am on the street, in the mall etc.and am approached by a group of undesirables, who threaten me or mine, I will stop that threat.

You do what you have to do and so will I.


No one should ever "wish to use deadly force", but if the threat exists, you need to be ready to.


HankT wrote:

.....Copping out by saying (now) that you'll be willingto go through thecriminal justice system (then) for any mistakes you may make doesn't cut it too well. It just reveals a tendency toward simplism and, perhaps, irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

Not being willing to do what you need to do just reveals a tendency toward simplism and, perhaps irresponsibility.

I remember, some years back, when they came out with a new cancer cure, but then some Bozo in the FDA, wanted to ban this cure because it had a tendency to cause 3 other types of cancer, and he thought that this made it a bad way to go.

What he didn't realize was that the cancer this new medicine cured, was 100% fatal without it, and the other cancers that it MIGHT cause were easily cured or controlled by well established procedures.

Yes if you NEED to use deadly force and use it, you MIGHT end up in court, but at least you WILL be alive to attest to your reason for using deadly force.

Or you can be a do gooder, who doesn't want to decide to use deadly force, WHEN IT IS NEEDED, and never go to court because you are dead, or be like those idiots on Sinfield and go to court because you didn't help when you could. :banghead:


If you are not willing, ready andable to use deadly force, WHEN IT IS NEEDED, then you have no business carrying a gun, and conversely if you are anxious to use deadly force, WHEN IT IS NOT NEEDED, you also have no business carrying a gun.

Another old adage that is a good one;

"The very best safety is the one between your ears." :idea:

imported post

FWIW, I saw this image on a website and it made a lot of sense to me...



Now obviously it's an advertisement for stun guns, but you could substitute a taser as well. The point is that you could make contact anywhere on the body, and the electrical shock is going to do its job. Another benefit to stun guns is that, all though you must be within arms reach to utilize it, pulling one out and sparking it a few times is perfectly legal, and that by itself might deter someone. I know it'd make me think twice lol.

imported post

Probably not worth it, but what about a stungun, mounted on a Picatinny rail.

Something along the lines of an XM26-LSS, or an M-203 for a rifle?

I know it wouldn't hold much charge, but you can bet it might get some attention. :lol:

imported post

http://www.americasecured.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/19875/subcatid/0/id/238266

What about this? It provides the spark and sound to scare someone off, and sounds like it packs a decent punch as well. It's small enough to not look out of place on a belt (especially next to a magazine pouch), or could just be carried in the pocket. Best of all, it also has a flashlight, which can always come in handy.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

http://www.americasecured.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/19875/subcatid/0/id/238266

What about this?  It provides the spark and sound to scare someone off, and sounds like it packs a decent punch as well.  It's small enough to not look out of place on a belt (especially next to a magazine pouch), or could just be carried in the pocket.  Best of all, it also has a flashlight, which can always come in handy.

Click to expand...

Mmm, if I could get that pistol mounted, maybe, but it doesn't do much by itself.

Good find, though.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

http://www.americasecured.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/19875/subcatid/0/id/238266

What about this? It provides the spark and sound to scare someone off, and sounds like it packs a decent punch as well. It's small enough to not look out of place on a belt (especially next to a magazine pouch), or could just be carried in the pocket. Best of all, it also has a flashlight, which can always come in handy.

Click to expand...

I have that......

imported post

I have that......

Click to expand...

Well in that case please let us know how it has worked for you! I may very well be getting one myself as long as I hear good reviews.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

I have that......

Click to expand...

Well in that case please let us know how it has worked for you! I may very well be getting one myself as long as I hear good reviews.

Click to expand...

Lets just say don't let your wilder friends know you bought a stun gun or you might find yourself taking on a bet that you'd shock yourself.



























yes, it hurts alot:celebrate

imported post

My prefered LTL would be pointing my gun at the attacker, if he gives me time I'll even give him a verbal warning. I think that should satisfy any LTL requirements, as it would be his decision to continue with our encounter after that.

imported post

Sitrep wrote:

My prefered LTL would be pointing my gun at the attacker, if he gives me time I'll even give him a verbal warning. I think that should satisfy any LTL requirements, as it would be his decision to continue with our encounter after that.

Click to expand...

I know there are some state laws, and a lot of stupid people in power that would consider that all sorts of unlawful. Unless you're in IMMEDIATE THREAT of life or limb (meaning if you don't shoot him, you're going to die) then pulling your gun out makes YOU the agressor. If a guy obviously larger than you gets pissed about something and starts walking towards you, no weapon in hand, you can't just point your gun at him and say "back off or I'll shoot you."

Lets just say don't let your wilder friends know you bought a stun gun or you might find yourself taking on a bet that you'd shock yourself.

Click to expand...

How much did you make off the bet?? And yeah, for some stupid reason I can see myself wanting to "see how it feels" once, just so I have the confidence that it will stop someone else.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

FWIW, I saw this image on a website and it made a lot of sense to me...

Now obviously it's an advertisement for stun guns, but you could substitute a taser as well. The point is that you could make contact anywhere on the body, and the electrical shock is going to do its job. Another benefit to stun guns is that, all though you must be within arms reach to utilize it, pulling one out and sparking it a few times is perfectly legal, and that by itself might deter someone. I know it'd make me think twice lol.

Click to expand...

Nice visual image, but lets look at it critically.

If the spray works, you shoot the head, but the body follows, If the stun gun works, then the body follows, If the gun works the body follows. So far so good.

Remember that with the spray or the stun gun one of 4 things may happen

1. No effect

2. Partial effect, Makes them mad, Intensifies attack

3. Desired effect

4. Cross-contamination (You get sprayed or stunned)

Three out of 4 are not good results.

With a gun, (big enough to reach the CNS) if you hit the indicated area it will put them down. Remember that statistically 98% of the time the perp will run just seeing the gun, so the odds are in your favor immediately, and then for the other 2% ot the time you have multiple chances to use your weapon, where as with a spray or stun gun your are lucky to get one as they ave very close quarters weapons.

If you truly need to defend yourself, then a gun is the only logical way to go. The others my be "feel good" ways, but not good ways. :what:

imported post

All very good points, and I agree with you. The problem is, in some states (like here in NC), drawing your weapon when you're not in absolute immediate threat of life or limb is illegal. It's even stated that you cannot legally use a firearm to defend yourself from "simple battery"...whatever that means.

I guess the point is, if we're being punched and kicked, we're not allowed to use our gun to stop it...so either we over-power the assailant (not always possible, for some people almost never), take the beating (would you take that option? I wouldn't), or use something BESIDES your side-arm to stop the assailant.

That brings us back to the conversation about less than lethal options. At this point I'm definately leaning towards a stun gun. Chemicals are usually only one or two use devices, often don't stop the attacker immediately or at all, and have a much higher probability of getting into your eyes, too. Tasers that shoot sparky spikes (my terminology) require accuracy, close quarters, and if you miss, you're screwed. I don't like the sound of that either. A stun gun requires me to jab the thing into his side and push a button. If not his side, then his leg, arm, neck, head, foot, etc.

It'd be easy to draw your weapon at anyone who looked like they were going to push you around..they'd definately stop. Of course that'd be similiar to bulldozing your house and rebuilding every time you find a cockroach...

imported post

DreQo wrote:

The problem is, in some states (like here in NC), drawing your weapon when you're not in absolute immediate threat of life or limb is illegal. It's even stated that you cannot legally use a firearm to defend yourself from "simple battery"...whatever that means.

Click to expand...

Something more than touching your purse.

I hope.


DreQo wrote:

I guess the point is, if we're being punched and kicked, we're not allowed to use our gun to stop it...so either we over-power the assailant (not always possible, for some people almost never), take the beating (would you take that option? I wouldn't), or use something BESIDES your side-arm to stop the assailant.

Click to expand...

Well, the threshold is usually if you are reasonably in fear of your life or severe bodily injury. If some guy just punches you out but you are not reasonably in fear of your life nor of severe bodily injury, there's no need to pull out the gun. Simple.

The problem with pulling out the gun for every dang little offence or perceived offense is that once out it has a much higher likelihood of being used. Lethal force is generally a bad thing. People bleed and everything. It should be used with restraint and discrimination. If one is going to shoot someone they really out to be fully justified in doing it. That's why LTL devices are good. Very hard to kill someone with one. Dang near impossible.




DreQo wrote:

That brings us back to the conversation about less than lethal options. At this point I'm definately leaning towards a stun gun. Chemicals are usually only one or two use devices, often don't stop the attacker immediately or at all, and have a much higher probability of getting into your eyes, too. Tasers that shoot sparky spikes (my terminology) require accuracy, close quarters, and if you miss, you're screwed. I don't like the sound of that either. A stun gun requires me to jab the thing into his side and push a button. If not his side, then his leg, arm, neck, head, foot, etc.

Click to expand...

All the options have detriments. But all the options have benefits. Pick the one you are most effective with.But theycan be the perfect tool in some situations, that's for sure. I'm really liking the Taser X26 right now. I'm really consideringgetting one. If it's good enough for tens ofthousands of LEOs it should be good for me.




DreQo wrote:

It'd be easy to draw your weapon at anyone who looked like they were going to push you around..they'd definately stop...

Click to expand...

Yeah, for some people, unfortunately, it's too easy to pull and/or brandish the gun for some reason. Sometimes that reason forpullingcould be justifiable--in reality and/or in the eyes of the applicable law. Sometimes it's just poor training or goof with a gun-edness. If it's the latter, trouble follows.

imported post

Ya know, hank, except for the purse comment, your responses were legitimate and informed. Keep that up..