Non-Lethal weapons

da b8.

>>32490733
No. You want go at lethal force with nothing less than lethal force.

Why would you carry something you aren't trained in?

>>32490750
What about non lethal force?

What if you have to chase after someone who steals from you to citizens arrest them?

>>32490793
>I don't carry it much

Because it's better than fisticuffs hurr durr, why the fuck not?

File: 1476625673571.jpg (245KB, 701x800px)

245KB, 701x800px

>>32490733
That's not how violence works.
If, at any point, you are justified to use non-lethal force, you are legally justified to use lethal force. Using non-lethal force is trading away a non-trivial percentage of your chances of surviving the encounter so that your opponent might survive.

So you have an opponent that you deemed was about to inflict serious or mortal bodily harm upon you, and you want to give them a second chance? Violence is not a game. It is not a spectrum. It is a yes or no. Are you willing to kill your attacker, or would you rather be a victim?

>>32490733
>I also have an ASP
Bull Fucking SHIT, PICS NAO.

>Do you guys carry non lethal weapondry?
Fuck no, the shitheel trying to fuck my shit up won't give me a break so why the fuck would I give him one.

>>32490809
>What if you have to chase after someone who steals from you to citizens arrest them?
Stop LARPing, chase the fucker down and hold him at gunpoint, provided your locality hasn't made provisions against that. A taser will just ruin your day, FFS a cop was terminated and the department was sued because a nigger humpty-dumptied himself when he got tazed.

If you can resolve a situation without killing someone, that's the way to go. Most people on here won't admit it, but they're really itching for any chance or excuse to kill someone. Don't be like that. However, an assailant with a gun can only be handled with a gun, so there is very much a reason to carry lethal force.

>>32490834

This.

>>32490809
Then just don't shoot him

>>32490839
>ASP

police baton

>>32490834
but it seems like there are some situations where you wouldn't want to draw. I mean some violence isn't that bad until it's escalated and then after it comes to that you can pull out your handgun

In my state you basically have to be running away to use lethal force so basically if you chase somebody who stole your property and then they fight back (unarmed at least) and then you shooot them, they might consider you the aggressor because you chased them and didn't deescalate

>>32490846
I am all for lethal force but i am talking about carrying a non-lethal because it seems like it would be nice to have the option in some situations.

>like if someone shoves you and instead of walking away you stand your ground

because i don't have stand your ground unless i'm in a dwelling here. Also the court will decide if you "reasonibly believe you're in danger of death or serious bodily harm" Is non lethal rules of engagement the same? What if you see some people in a fight and you break it up then someone turns on you and you have to shoot?

>>32490913
>but it seems like there are some situations where you wouldn't want to draw. I mean some violence isn't that bad until it's escalated and then after it comes to that you can pull out your handgun

There is no point where "non-lethal" force is a choice before lethal. The decision to use force is one that should never be taken lightly, and should the decision ever be made (heaven forbid) then it must be made with the unwavering conviction to execute it without any hesitation. One could even argue that pulling out a baton or pepper spray when carrying a gun is deliberately escalating the situation to the point where you have no choice but to draw it. I'm not a fan of the guy, but Malcolm X summed it up rather neatly

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hands on you, send him to the cemetery."

>>32491106
Gross generalizations like that are just intellectual laziness. Sometimes you just run into a drunk dude outside a bar who wants to pick a fight with someone, anyone. If you can neutralize him with pepper spray or a taser, you should. Him being a drunk douchebag doesn't warrant a death sentence.

But I should make it clear that you should only practice that kind of restraint if you know that you have enough control over the situation. Otherwise, use the gun.

>>32491106

but there are some situations where, in my state. You can legally use non lethal force but it's illegal to use deadly force.

>>32491239
>A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

>>32490834
>If, at any point, you are justified to use non-lethal force, you are legally justified to use lethal force
Full retard. That is totally dependent on state law. My state has situations where you can use force but not lethal force.

>>32491168
I tend to ignore loudmouths looking for fights, better to just keep walking, but if some random guy jumps me without warning, I'm not taking the time to ask him about his life story, I'm going to neutralize my attacker. Maybe the guy had a bad day, drank too much, and decided to take out his frustrations on a random passerby, but all that says to me is that he made a series of really bad decisions that put him into a really bad situation. My personal safety is more valuable to me than his.

>>32491239
Then pepper spray and run like hell, if the person gives chase then I'd say that implies a pretty clear intent on his behalf.

The best thing to do in any situation, is just keep walking. but think about the baton thing, I mean read this out loud.

"Well, the guy was being really aggressive, so I pulled out my baton to defend myself, and while I was beating him with this collapsible steel club, he managed to get it away from me, so I pulled out my gun to defend myself..."

You're a guy with a gun, beating someone, with a club... It just sounds excessive.

I'd rather follow these three steps
1) disengage
2) if assailant persists, draw weapon into a ready stance, pointed at the ground, and announce your intent to use lethal force if he doesn't disengage.
3) if they still decide they want to attack you, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I mean, if a person is unable to ignore loud mouths, or keep enough cool to defuse a confrontation before it starts, they really shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. Right?

>>32491410
>he managed to get it away from me, so I pulled out my gun to defend myself..."

but that would be retarded to say because as soon as he managed to get away from you, you are no longer in danger unless he "got way from you" for a second and then pulled a weapon and then came back to try and hurt you more

>>32491544
You missed the "it" in there, "it" being your baton.

Pepper spray in particular is good for possibly stopping a situation from escalating into something that requires lethal force. It's nice to have an option that falls between harsh language and shooting them in the face.

Going hands on is a less attractive option for me because, even though I've got two years and counting of BJJ, every fight I get into has a gun involved -- and the moment they go for it in a struggle, it escalates into something requiring lethal force.

Batons (ASP, etc.) are going to be considered lethal force unless you're a) trained in their use; and b) can articulate how the strikes you used were in line with your training and calculated to be nonlethal. Even then it's going to be a crapshoot. If you fail at convincing the police/DA/a jury, it's no different than hitting them with a baseball bat (bludgeon -> agg assault/ADW/attempt murder). I wouldn't bother.

Knives are a good supplement to a gun IMO, but they also fall under lethal force.

Tasers and stun guns are a waste of time IMO. Most of the commercial variants require you to jam it into the assailant. Because you have to be at contact distance (the most dangerous to you), pepper spray is the superior option in my mind. Furthermore, the carry of tasers/stun guns is sometimes regulated. A state I used to live in even required a CCW permit to carry one. Pepper spray can be carried just about anywhere -- even college campuses.

None of the less-than-lethal options are a substitute for lethal force should it be required. If it is required and they're all you've got, do your best to use them to gain control over the assailant's gun/knife/bludgeon/etc., but pepper spraying some dude who has a gun on you is probably going to end with you being shot.

Also, to the citizen's arrest guy: enjoy being sued and possibly jailed. Read the statutes very carefully. Also look at what level of force is permitted for recovery of property (hint: it probably isn't what you think it is).

>>32491664
This guy gets it.

File: img0136.jpg (62KB, 1000x702px)

62KB, 1000x702px

>>32490834
>>32491106

You're wrong. Very wrong.

Every state in the country allows for non-lethal self defense. If you meet the general requirements of self-defense, you may respond to any sort of force with "reasonable force." In meeting lethal force, it is reasonable (and almost always explicitly provided for) that you may respond with lethal force of your own. In meeting non-lethal force, you may respond with non-lethal force.

You are not legally justified in shooting the dude who punched you in the face at a bar. You are, however, legally justified in defending yourself with reasonable force. That may include fighting back or using something like pepper spray, neither of which has a substantial likelihood of causing death or serious bodily harm (which, paraphrased, is the statutory definition of lethal force).

t. A drunk, practicing criminal defense attorney.