a bystander; 2) you pepper a bystander. So you get sued for pepper spraying a bystander, so what?
They have to show damages. OK, you get to pay for EMS to wash their eyes and a few grand for
emotional upset. Compare that to putting a bullet in an innocent bystander who then runs up
a $500,000 ICU bill, loses his ability to support his family, and wants more money than you can
earn in your lifetime-- plus all the insurance money you have with your renter's or home owner's insurance.
Be practical. There is no comparison to your legal risk when choosing a non-lethal response.
To use and paraphrase your words, it may be high time people learned to be polite in public, sounds good.
But it isn't my job or your job (unless you are an LEO) to teach others that lesson at the point of a gun.
With the explanation that I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that you can not retaliate.
You can defend, not retaliate. Those are two entirely different things. It isn't your job
to teach someone a lesson. Call the cops and make the assault complaint.
Let me say that unless I was there, it's hard to decide how to react. I will say that pepper spray works very well...let me explain.
I have commented many times about people buying pepper spray getting an extra canister to experiment a bit. One should always know how the product being carried works.
I say this because you may very well get some back in the face...can you handle it, or will you become a better victim?
I always do this with new purchases, and I have tried them all.
Just recently I purchased two 4oz cans of pepper spray, not for self-defense, but rather to assist me in training my new pup not to dig. He's in a contest with the dog next door to see who is the best digger on the fence line.
Well, I waited until he was away from the newest hole...I sprayed the 'fog' all over the bottom of the fence and in the dirt. It worked for a short time. My Rhodesian (4 mos) came back to the fence and quickly left shaking his head. It only kept him away for the day...oh well.
In the process, a bit of wind caused a meeting of the pepper fog and my face...whoa, that stuff will take your breath away. Effective in a Wally World waiting line? I think SO.
All the subsections describe is where the use of force is presumed to be reasonable. That means if someone is committing one of those offenses against you when you use force the LEOs, prosecutors, and courts are to operate, until proven otherwise, that you are in the right. The absence of simple assault in the statute as cited only means that until things get sorted out you are considered to be a bad guy too.
So in the absence of the factors that would give us the presumption of reasonableness we revert to the basic 9.31 (a)
So what we have now is a situation where the LEO invovled and the prosecutors get to assess based on their knowledge and experience if your actions were reasonable. If they think you were unreasonable, the question will ultimately go to jury for their opinion. If they believe you were reasonable (as in this case) you get to walk.Quote:
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
And this is exactly how people behaving badly learn what society will tolerate and what it won’t. It’s not my job, it’s everyone’s job, Including those on jury’s, if it ever gets that far.
I didn’t get my shooting skills from the NYPD so if I did shoot, I tend to fling the lead to the intended area, not everywhere but.
really want to trust their freedom to "it all depends," and the 20/20 hindsight of others?
The issue related to "reasonableness" not discussed yet is "immediately necessary to."
Pulling the gun after the punch may or may not have been immediately necessary to stop a
second punch. "We 'wasn't' der."
What concerns me very much is the number of participants who seem to think a retaliatory punch is OK.
Now, of course I'm going to defend myself. I'm not going to stand there and let a complete stranger beat on me. So my involvement in what caused the guy to hit me in the first place is what's going to determine whether the police see me as a completely innocent guy defending myself, or whether my actions are part of what caused a "mutual combat" situation. In a case of "mutual combat" you're not going to be able to claim self defense. And that's where this frenzied mob scene at the check-out lane can really put a person in a bad situation. You have no reliable idea what the witnesses are going to see, or say.
In the end... Why people who believe they are prudent and responsible ccw permit holders continue to put themselves in situations like this is beyond me. Because the evidence would seem to be a little contradictory. Going to a Black Friday event to save a few bucks is a clear violation of "The Rule of 3 Stupids." If you willingly put yourself in a situation where stupid people are swarming all around you doing stupid things, you can't act surprised when a "no-win" bad situation pops up out of nowhere.
Ladies & gentsmen: a question, what would the law be if pou pulled the pistol to use as a modified club and whopped him him with it's side, but never actually pointed the muzzle at him? Especially if you were about 150 # and he was over 230? This factor alone could lead to a great reducton of a facial reconstruction.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Someone else pointed out that pointing a gun would not be considered assault with a deadly
weapon. Now, what I don't know is if whacking someone with it would be considered assault
with a deadly weapon the same way using a flashlight might be so construed. I think probably
And as for your scenario, I would in that specific prefer an upper cut with the steel contacting
the lower jaw. More chance of it going unnoticed and unblocked by a larger adversary.
Oral surgeons do get expensive though.
Good question Mr. La Mancha, coffee?
Wait... wait.... I have to stop laughing long enough to be able to type.....
the image of the guy "hiding behind the refrigerator and then running off" ..... LMAO .... guess that spot in the line wasn't so important after all. ......
no complaintant. .... no charges.... simple as that.
Someone has to have felt "threatened" and / or "in fear of their life" ..... but if they're gone and can't say ..... hey, they're gone.
BUT, in the course of talking to witnesses they could determine that a crime was committed, even
if the victim is nowhere to be found. The absence of the victim doesn't mean no crime happened.
If 20 people are saying they saw someone point a gun at an innocent who then ran off, a crime
was committed. I would guess, but don't know, that the witness statements could add up
to probable cause for an arrest and charge. Just my guess, IANAL.