ed2276
Regular Member
When I was going through the Reserve Police Officer Academy in California in the 80's, one of the subjects we were taught was the continuum of force; probably more commonly known as the appropriate level of force to be used depending on the threat faced at the time.
The basic premise was that one does not use deadly force to counter a non-deadly threat. That is, it is not justifiable to shoot someone who is merely poking you in the chest with his finger, or taking swings at you with his fist. For this reason, cops carry a variety of weapons to match the level of threat they are facing; from non-lethal (pepper spray) to less-than-lethal (baton or tazer) to lethal (firearm).
I was just reading an account on the actual use of firearms for self-defense here on the forums, in which someone wrote that he came across a group of individuals beating a security guard with their fists. This individual pulled his firearm and advanced on the group, calling them off the guard. Fortunately, they listened (I'm sure the laser beam from the weapon to their foreheads had much to do with that) and backed off. But, what if one or two of the thugs had advanced, empty-handed, on the hero? Left with only a deadly force option, had he used such force in the face of the unarmed threat, would the shooting have been justified, or would the level of force (deadly) when faced with and unarmed threat (punches) land our hero in hot water?
My question is: how many here, who carry handguns, have that as their only means of protection? Do you also carry a knife, pepper spray, mini-flashlight (with which to blind the threat), tazer, etc., as well as a handgun to give you options along the continuum of force?
The basic premise was that one does not use deadly force to counter a non-deadly threat. That is, it is not justifiable to shoot someone who is merely poking you in the chest with his finger, or taking swings at you with his fist. For this reason, cops carry a variety of weapons to match the level of threat they are facing; from non-lethal (pepper spray) to less-than-lethal (baton or tazer) to lethal (firearm).
I was just reading an account on the actual use of firearms for self-defense here on the forums, in which someone wrote that he came across a group of individuals beating a security guard with their fists. This individual pulled his firearm and advanced on the group, calling them off the guard. Fortunately, they listened (I'm sure the laser beam from the weapon to their foreheads had much to do with that) and backed off. But, what if one or two of the thugs had advanced, empty-handed, on the hero? Left with only a deadly force option, had he used such force in the face of the unarmed threat, would the shooting have been justified, or would the level of force (deadly) when faced with and unarmed threat (punches) land our hero in hot water?
My question is: how many here, who carry handguns, have that as their only means of protection? Do you also carry a knife, pepper spray, mini-flashlight (with which to blind the threat), tazer, etc., as well as a handgun to give you options along the continuum of force?
Last edited: