bad to carry other weapons along with your firearm?

imported post

I know there are quite a few people on the forum who carry stuff like mace, tasers, knives, and extending batons along with their sidearm.

What if (God forbid) someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat and fired. If the criminal lives, couldn't lawyers bring charges against the man saying "he had a (insert non lethal weapon, mace, baton etc) on him at the time and could have stopped the threat without having to shoot this person" ?

imported post

mdguy90 wrote:

I know there are quite a few people on the forum who carry stuff like mace, tasers, knives, and extending batons along with their sidearm.

What if (God forbid) someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat and fired. If the criminal lives, couldn't lawyers bring charges against the man saying "he had a (insert non lethal weapon, mace, baton etc) on him at the time and could have stopped the threat without having to shoot this person" ?

Click to expand...

If someone is armed with the sort of weaponry as you mentioned, and he/she is faced with a situation in which they have made the dicision that leathal force (drawing a firing a gun) was necessary to stop the threat, it is in all probability that the perpetrator was armed with a firearm as well. The other tools for SD would not have been sufficient.

However, if the perp has not displayed a weapon and he is shot, who ever shot him is going to have some splainin' to do. The other tools of SD Should have been used first.

But this all depends on the situation and how it unfolds. Mase doesn't always effect a perp, and a tazer may not be able to penetrate winter clothing.

imported post

mdguy90 wrote:

I know there are quite a few people on the forum who carry stuff like mace, tasers, knives, and extending batons along with their sidearm.

What if (God forbid) someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat and fired. If the criminal lives, couldn't lawyers bring charges against the man saying "he had a (insert non lethal weapon, mace, baton etc) on him at the time and could have stopped the threat without having to shoot this person" ?

Click to expand...

Extending batons, (Last I heard) were illegal to possess by any non-leo. Im not sure about tasers. I doubt any court would uphold an argument like:

"he had a (insert non lethal weapon, mace, baton etc) on him at the time and could have stopped the threat without having to shoot this person"

Click to expand...

Seeing as how the castle doctrine and "Stand your ground" laws have passed in numerous places around country.

I carry an automatic knife with me, but only for a secondary defense choice (if my pistol gets jammed, out of ammo, etc). If I have a pistol, that is going to be my first defense.

imported post

First the phrase non-lethal force is definitely outdated and was poorly utilized.

The current form, less lethal force. is more correct in that it recognizes that all use of force has deadly potential - even pepper spray.

Non LEOs (in Va.) are not allowed to escalate use of force. We can use equal force but not greater than. Please do not flame me with exceptions or definitions i.e. age disparity et al.

mdguy90's OP ask a question and inadvertantly provided some insight as to where he was coming from and provided the answer. You be the judge, I'll be the lawyer - pro bono

First - lawyers don't bring charges, prosecutors do. A lawyer might file a suit but that is civil not criminal charges.

Second - Response must always be in proportion to threat. We all need to be right all of the time. Anything you don't understand here?

Third - lawyers/prosecutors have manufactured emotional evidence just a few (sarcasim) times in the past - deadly hollow point bullets designed to kill, cop killer bullets, black automatic assault pistol with range finding laser, etc., etc., etc.

Fourth - If "someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat" the case is closed.
"Had" implies no choice, threat stopped, use of force stopped. Next.

Yata hey

imported post

Tucker6900 wrote:

Extending batons, (Last I heard) were illegal to possess by any non-leo. Im not sure about tasers.

Click to expand...

Penalty Flag - Citation?

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

Tucker6900 wrote:

Extending batons, (Last I heard) were illegal to possess by any non-leo. Im not sure about tasers.

Click to expand...

Penalty Flag - Citation?

Click to expand...

He did cite, by stating he heard the information. That statement makes it clear that he can't verify, and welcomes anyone else to. I have also heard that batons are rather restricted.

imported post

va § 18.2-308(A) Not legal for concealed carry, possessing them is not illegal.


N. As used in this article:
(snip)
"Spring stick" means a spring-loaded metal stick activated by pushing a button which rapidly and forcefully telescopes the weapon to several times its original length.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Yata hey

imported post

mdguy90 wrote:

I know there are quite a few people on the forum who carry stuff like mace, tasers, knives, and extending batons along with their sidearm.

What if (God forbid) someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat and fired. If the criminal lives, couldn't lawyers bring charges against the man saying "he had a (insert non lethal weapon, mace, baton etc) on him at the time and could have stopped the threat without having to shoot this person" ?

Click to expand...

I think it is possible that this scenario could arise.

I carry a sidearm as a defensive weapon. I always carry a pocket knife for daily utility use, but it is not of a type or make that would make it an ideal SD weapon, but rather only a last ditch weapon. I carry pepper spray in certain situations primarily for dogs. That's it. The rest of it I don't see ever using. I am certainly not going to get into the sort of close combat a baton involves while armed with a firearm as that is just asking for a gun grab. Taser, may work, may kill the guy, may not go through his leather jacket, may just pi$$ off the meth-head, just too many issues.

I guess it comes down to this. I have been in situations involving lethal weapons. I have taken them away and have wielded them on a few occasions (no I never killed anyone). I have never had a firearm with me in those situations but I certainly wish I had. If I can't walk away then I need lethal force and I need sufficient lethal force to end the threat NOW. Right now. I am not Streetfighter. I do not want to test how much I remember from martial arts. That does not mean that I would never use LTL force, but rather that my life experiences are that either I can walk away with no weapons needed or I'm gonna wish I had a gun so why carry a bunch of stuff I don't need or that will give me a false sense of security.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

First the phrase non-lethal force is definitely outdated and was poorly utilized.

The current form, less lethal force. is more correct in that it recognizes that all use of force has deadly potential - even pepper spray.

Non LEOs (in Va.) are not allowed to escalate use of force.  We can use equal force but not greater than.  Please do not flame me with exceptions or definitions i.e. age disparity et al.

mdguy90's OP ask a question and inadvertantly provided some insight as to where he was coming from and provided the answer.  You be the judge, I'll be the lawyer - pro bono

First - lawyers don't bring charges, prosecutors do.  A lawyer might file a suit but that is civil not criminal charges.

Second - Response must always be in proportion to threat.  We all need to be right all of the time.  Anything you don't understand here?

Third - lawyers/prosecutors have manufactured emotional evidence just a few (sarcasim) times in the past - deadly hollow point bullets designed to kill, cop killer bullets, black automatic assault pistol with range finding laser, etc., etc., etc. 

Fourth - If "someone had to draw their gun to stop a threat" the case is closed.
"Had" implies no choice, threat stopped, use of force stopped.  Next.

       Yata hey

Click to expand...

Sorry for the poor use of words, not the most legally educated

imported post

mdguy90 wrote:

Sorry for the poor use of words, not the most legally educated

Click to expand...

Please do not apologize - I was only clarifying the situation.

No one of us knows everything, especially me.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Please do not flame me with exceptions or definitions i.e. age disparity et al.

Click to expand...

Damn! Good thing you said that! I was ready to jump on you!

Expandable batons are legal if not concealed. I was working security for the Eastern Associated Coal strike in WV in the early 90's and a WV State Trooper tried to arrest me for possessing one.

I told him that I was an official photographer documenting felonious attacks by miners on private property and that I used the baton as a monopod for my camera. He said,"You better be able to prove that to me right now or you're going to jail!"

I took my video camera out of the bag and asked his "permission" to extend the baton. When given permission I took the baton out of its holder and removed the top cap to expose the male end of a screw, extended the baton and screwed my camera onto it.

"See! It's a really sturdy monopod! Check it out!" He looked at it and said "That's a good idea! My wife's a birdwatcher. She'll like this setup!"

He let me go and later that night, I continued to brain miners with my "monopod"...

imported post

Personally, I favor OC spray in addition to a firearm. One problem with carrying a firearm alone is that your options become

1. deadly force
   
   your physical prowess
   
   acceptance of your fate

If your ninju-tactikarate-jutsu is not very good and you can't run very fast, but a real threat does not rise to the level of justifying deadly force, what then?

The thing about the OP is that deadly force may not always be justified in a self-defense situation.

My own reading of self-defense law in several places I've lived is that the simple a$$-whuppin' (and many similar indignities) does not, in and of itself, necessarily justify deadly force. Firearms are always deadly force. "I was in fear for my life" is not a magical Get Out Of Jail Free incantation. I could be wrong, but that's my reading.

I don't feel the need to prescribe what everyone else should do, but I think that the question above is worth thinking about. OC is certainly not the only option, nor is it any more foolproof than any other, but for several reasons it is the one I prefer.

regards,

GR

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

Personally, I favor OC spray in addition to a firearm. One problem with carrying a firearm alone is that your options become

1. deadly force
   
   your physical prowess
   
   acceptance of your fate

If your ninju-tactikarate-jutsu is not very good and you can't run very fast, but a real threat does not rise to the level of justifying deadly force, what then?

The thing about the OP is that deadly force may not always be justified in a self-defense situation.

My own reading of self-defense law in several places I've lived is that the simple a$$-whuppin' (and many similar indignities) does not, in and of itself, necessarily justify deadly force. Firearms are always deadly force. "I was in fear for my life" is not a magical Get Out Of Jail Free incantation. I could be wrong, but that's my reading.

I don't feel the need to prescribe what everyone else should do, but I think that the question above is worth thinking about. OC is certainly not the only option, nor is it any more foolproof than any other, but for several reasons it is the one I prefer.

regards,

GR

Click to expand...

No sir, my options include
Avoidance/awareness of problems
Defusing or de-escalation
My mouth - talk, apologize - what ever it takes
My feet - leave - walk away
And my body language when forced to offer a defense.

And we may also consider disparagence of force - age, size, numbers, sex as they are all factors. Consider that the VAC does include the wording "to prevent an act that could result in death or serious bodily injury to oneself or to another" (6VAC15-45-800. Use of deadly force.) Not the best specfic cite but an example of the wording.

My last ditch reaction, presuming time, is to draw my weapon and come to a low ready position. IMO this is not brandishing but I might be called upon to defend my actions. I understand that. Point of fact without details - I have done just that on one previous occasion, called LE immediately and suffered no consequences.

There is no guaranteed free pass card even when states have "stand your ground" and civil protection laws. There is always personal risk exposure.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot (10 September 2008 Wednesday 10:22) replies:

No sir, my options include
Avoidance/awareness of problems
Defusing or de-escalation
My mouth - talk, apologize - what ever it takes
My feet - leave - walk away
And my body language when forced to offer a defense.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Avoidance of any need for force at all is the best option. The list of options you give could probably be expanded still more. But my point was that something had to fill the space between deadly force and no force. No force is preferable, but that may not be an option.

And we may also consider disparagence of force - age, size, numbers, sex as they are all factors ...

Click to expand...

Of course. All of these can lead to a justification of deadly force. But there will still be situations where some degree force is justified but deadly force is not. What then to do?

There is no guaranteed free pass card even when states have "stand your ground" and civil protection laws. There is always personal risk exposure.

Click to expand...

No argument at all. But still, we tolerate the inconvenience of carrying, whether open or concealed. <rhetorical>Why?</rhetorical>

regards,

GR

imported post

<rhetorical> It beats the option, doesn't it? </rhetorical>

Yata hey

imported post

I carry a knife, sometimes a baton, pepper spray and the good ole 1911 with hydrashock rounds.

If i don't have to kill someone, even someone who is intending to do me harm, I won't.

Case and point, I was at a party (not drinking), I didn't know a lot of people, was on a date, and stepped outside to smoke. While I was out there apparently I rub a drunk guy the wrong way. I tried to apologize and walk inside to get my date and leave, that's when five guys formed a semi-circle between and the house. I had my BUG on me then, (.380 commander), I was in close proximity to five intoxicated chest thumping drunks, no way I was pulling out my gun. I was on their property, and if I would've pulled my gun, I would've had to shoot someone. Instead I grabbed a beer bottle that was close to me and clubbed the guy who was closest to me and my exit and ran like hell, leaving my date in the house, and no we never dated again.

imported post

RIAShooter wrote:

I carry a knife, sometimes a baton, pepper spray and the good ole 1911 with hydrashock rounds.

If i don't have to kill someone, even someone who is intending to do me harm, I won't.

Case and point, I was at a party (not drinking), I didn't know a lot of people, was on a date, and stepped outside to smoke. While I was out there apparently I rub a drunk guy the wrong way. I tried to apologize and walk inside to get my date and leave, that's when five guys formed a semi-circle between and the house. I had my BUG on me then, (.380 commander), I was in close proximity to five intoxicated chest thumping drunks, no way I was pulling out my gun. I was on their property, and if I would've pulled my gun, I would've had to shoot someone. Instead I grabbed a beer bottle that was close to me and clubbed the guy who was closest to me and my exit and ran like hell, leaving my date in the house, and no we never dated again.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the point/moral of that story is and of course I wasn't there. Have to wonder though what happened to the date that was abandoned to the fate of all of those drunks.

Never heard of a .380 commander either - do you have a picture?

Yata hey

imported post

Let me propose a different perspective on this. I'm thinking that the OP question really comes down to a disparity of force issue. Even in NY force can be met with equal force. So if he has a gun and you have a gun LTL isn't an issue. If he does NOT have a gun and you have a gun and LTL means available and you go for the gun you may have a disparity of force issue. If he does not have a gun and you do NOT have LTL means available so you draw your sidearm you may still have a disparity of force issue.

But aren't certain physical traits or training in a similar category to LTL devices? What about someone who has a black belt in a combat martial arts? Or someone who is 6'2"-6'3", 210-220 solid compared to an average American male at 5'9-5'10 at about 175? Or a veteran with combat training and experience? For people with such disparities with the general public don't they run the same risk in court? The prosecutor says, "Well you are 6'+, 220 lbs, work out regularly, practiced martial arts and this poor, poor 17 year old boy you shot from 20 feet away just because he took out a pocket knife and yelled at you was only 5'9" and 165 lbs. Why would a man of your size and ability be afraid of a little guy like that?"

imported post

deepdiver (10 September 2008 Wednesday 22:26) asks:

But aren't certain physical traits or training in a similar category to LTL devices? What about someone who has a black belt in a combat martial arts? Or someone who is 6'2"-6'3", 210-220 solid compared to an average American male at 5'9-5'10 at about 175? Or a veteran with combat training and experience? For people with such disparities with the general public don't they run the same risk in court?

Click to expand...

This probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I think this is also the point at which, in many cases, it becomes a jury question.

It is true that both statutory and case law can specify things like disparity of force, duty to retreat and similar general principles, and that these principles will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But if any particular situation proceeds far enough in the system, it becomes a question for the so-called "trier of fact" -- the jury.

My education and experience with such things is admittedly limited, but every self-defense statute or significant court opinion I've seen has defined justification in terms of reasonable belief, reasonable necessity, a reasonable person, or like terms. What is "reasonable" ? In any particular case, it means whatever the jury decides it means.

This is the reason that what Grapeshot refers to above (8 September 2008 Monday 10:06) as "manufactured emotional evidence" (and I have no argument with that term) gets used. It's the attorney's function and duty in our system to argue their case as forcefully as the court will permit. If there is a permissible argument -- and "permissible" can be loosely defined -- regarding disparity of force or anything else that favors their side's case, an attorney will use it. Under our adversarial system, they should use it.

IMHO it is our job as potential defendants to give the other side as little material to work with as possible. They can always manufacture some, but our attorney should be able to deflect a BS argument it if they are competent.

It is both a legal and (for most people) a moral principle that as little force as reasonably necessary should be used in self-defense. Coming back to the OP, I think that if legal carry of a non-firearm weapon allows someone more options and more ability to adjust the level of force to the "reasonable" minimum, then that weapon is a Good Thing. Can't help as to what "reasonable" will mean in any particular case; we're all on our own for that one.

regards,

GR

imported post

IMHO - that is why an OCd handgun is the ultimate less lethal force - no one is injured in the least and no overt action is required.

48 ounces (1911) of prevention sure beats a ton of cure.

Yata hey