I would like to discuss and learn more about the law regarding self defense and the use of force in confrontations. There is much talk about such stuff but usually, most of the discussions and articles I see about such stuff has to do with guns and if you use a gun in self defense. I am interested in discussing issues of self defense and force that don't involve guns. For instance, if you incapacitate a perpetrator with your bare hands. It's very important to know about when you can resort to such action and how to avoid getting in trouble if you do take such action.
The law concering self defense and use of force without guns
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
frank raud
Master of Arts
The law will be different from country to country, or possibly from state to state, so it is hard to make blanket statements about what is "acceptable" under the law. Following is Canada's criminal justice code on self defense, your country or state's version may differ.
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if (a) he uses the force (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
Preventing assault
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
Extent of justification
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if (a) he uses the force (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
Preventing assault
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
Extent of justification
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
Last edited:
Well even with all the stuff you posted, the law itself is very shady in some areas. For instance, where it says that a defender is justified in using force to a certain extent but no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or repetition of it. Now, when you incapacitate an attacker so that they're no longer a threat, if you continue to beat on them after they're down and no longer capable of attacking than that is no longer a case of self defense and you will get in trouble. You cannot beat an attacker after they're no longer a threat and that's quite cut and dry. Now, lets say you're faced with an attacker and you land just one punch and it hurts the attacker really badly to the point where they have to be hospitalized or even if you manage to kill an attacker with one punch which sometimes does happen. My concern is, could that be considered excessive? The courts might say that you used excessive force with just that one punch because you hurt the attacker much more than was necessary and much more than was needed to stop the assault. They might say you should've pulled your punch. Personally I think that's ridiculous but I've heard of stuff like that.
Consult with a qualified defense attorney in your state that is familiar with self-defense issues. Many offer consults for very reasonable rates, plus it gives you a relationship should your self-defense needs change in the future.
frank raud
Master of Arts
Both Carol and myself have suggested that you check your local laws for the most relevant information to yourself. Most self defense is based around a "reasonable man" concept. Is it reasonable to expect that you could kill a man with one punch? Was your intention to kill?
Please explain how you think anyone could be expected to pull a punch. Is there some limit of force you are aware of that is safe to hit someone with, to go beyond that amount is excessive? In your scenario, a reasonable man has done whatever is necessary to avoid a fight(that could be a long drawn out process, or it could be as simple as a flinch or a block of an incoming blow),he strikes once to defend himself. Has he become the aggressor? No. Is he kicking the spine of a downed opponent? No. Is the attacker still a potential threat? Probably, unless your one punch miraclously killed him.
You've heard of stuff like that? Was it from the cousin of a brother of a friend of yours who went to school with the uncle of the guy it happened to, or was it in the newspaper, where someone was charged with 2nd degree murder for defending himself with his hands?
The general principle, in the US, is quite simple. You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.
Sounds simple. Let's look at the words.
Cases of one punch kills, or freak incidents where a guy falls and hits his head on a rock tie into one other principle: You take your victim as you find them. Unknown to anyone, the guy has a dissecting aorta, and your punch is the final straw... You might be charged with some class of homicide. Same thing if he falls and hits his head.
Oh... yeah... Charges. Depending on what happens, you may do everything "right" in defending yourself, but may still find yourself arrested. Especially if you kill someone. That's when you go back to that local attorney you consulted, as was advised by Carol and frank raud, and you hire him. Unless you've learned of a better attorney to hire. Then you hire that guy.
Sounds simple. Let's look at the words.
- Force: any means of imposing your will on someone. That includes simply being there (usually for cops or security more so than a private individual -- but it can apply if that private citizen involves themselves in someone else's problem) or saying no, up to any means of causing grievous bodily harm or death. Lethal force ain't limited to guns; it includes knives, baseball bats, choke holds, punches to the throat, throws on hard concrete... anything that is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.
- Necessary: Key issues here are Intent, Means, Opportunity, and the oft neglected Preclusion.
[*=1]Intent: Did the attacker intend to do you harm? Assuming a decent self defense scenario, this is often a given. But you have to take it into account, because if they lacked the intent to do you harm, you can't do anything to them without becoming an assailant yourself. And it applies in a Monkey Dance -- because in some cases, the last thing the players actually want is to fight. They're just putting on a show for their friends and the crowd.
[*=1]Means: An actual capability to do harm. Weapons, including unarmed weapons like fists and feet. Again -- most self defense situations, this is generally a given. They've shown a weapon, or they've grabbed you... but you need to be able to articulate how they were going to carry out their intent to do you harm. You can't shoot someone 15 yards away who says he's going to shoot you if he doesn't have a gun and you have no reason to believe he has one.
[*=1]Opportunity: Are they in a position to do what they threaten? Someone threatening to choke you to death from a couple hundred yards away lacks the opportunity to carry out their threat (unless, of course, they're Darth Vader). Yep, again, in a good self defense situation, this is given.
[*=1]Preclusion: Your use of force was the only option available to you that would likely have ended the situation safely. Especially important in lethal force. Stand your ground laws shift this a little -- but you still have to be able to say that you were in the right and didn't create the situation. - Reasonable: Would that mythical creature, the reasonable person, conclude that your force was appropriate and proportional to the threat presented? Can you show why you needed to hit, kick, lock, or shoot that person -- and that other options wouldn't have been likely to resolve the situation effectively? (Yeah, some overlap here with preclusion.) You can write books about reasonableness -- but generally speaking, if the force you use is about the same or a little more than was being threatened or used, you're likely to be in the right neighborhood. You can likely punch someone who's grabbing you -- but need to explain more if you shoot them. If they get a weapon, you're almost certainly OK (assuming you were in the right in the first place) getting one of your own. But if you shoot someone waving a Nerf sword?
- Safely resolve: What's your role? My job as a cop means that "safely resolve" typically means subdue and arrest. For a private individual, your role in self defense is to escape and get help -- not effect an arrest. Generally, "safely resolve" means get out of there without any more injury than you sustained in the initial attack. Not get even with the bad guy.
Cases of one punch kills, or freak incidents where a guy falls and hits his head on a rock tie into one other principle: You take your victim as you find them. Unknown to anyone, the guy has a dissecting aorta, and your punch is the final straw... You might be charged with some class of homicide. Same thing if he falls and hits his head.
Oh... yeah... Charges. Depending on what happens, you may do everything "right" in defending yourself, but may still find yourself arrested. Especially if you kill someone. That's when you go back to that local attorney you consulted, as was advised by Carol and frank raud, and you hire him. Unless you've learned of a better attorney to hire. Then you hire that guy.
A couple other places you can look for guidance. Rory Miller has addressed these issues in several of his books. So has Mark MacYoung. And several others that I don't feel like digging up at the moment -- though Massad Ayoob springs to mind.
punisher73
Senior Master
As others have said, talk to a LOCAL attorney who knows how that county's DA/PA interprets and looks at the law.
Another thing to consider is that the concept of "self-defense" is a legal defense for the charge of assault/battery. Chances are great that you will still have to go to court to answer for the charge based on other witness statements etc. Police agencies do NOT have legal immunity. Only the Prosecutor/District Attorney does. This means that the police will take the report and turn over a warrant request to the Pros. Office for them to review and decide if it was self-defense or not. The police may or may not arrest you on the spot, it depends on their dept. policy and how much discretion they have. Some places/officers just arrest both parties and submit the report to let the PA/DA sort it out.
You can "google" your own state's laws regarding self-defense and get a general idea what it has. Some states have a "stand your ground" clause and others still have a "duty to retreat" clause in it. If your state has a "duty to retreat", then you must show that you attempted to leave the situation in someway, or why you couldn't safely leave and did not do anything to cause the situation to turn violent. For example, two people getting into a verbal argument at a bar and both parties are calling each other names and throwing threats back and forth. One person pushes the other and that person then punches the guy out and claims "self-defense" because the other guy pushed him. NOT going to fly as "self-defense" because both parties were willing participants and neither made an attempt to leave or de-escalate.
Another thing to consider is that the concept of "self-defense" is a legal defense for the charge of assault/battery. Chances are great that you will still have to go to court to answer for the charge based on other witness statements etc. Police agencies do NOT have legal immunity. Only the Prosecutor/District Attorney does. This means that the police will take the report and turn over a warrant request to the Pros. Office for them to review and decide if it was self-defense or not. The police may or may not arrest you on the spot, it depends on their dept. policy and how much discretion they have. Some places/officers just arrest both parties and submit the report to let the PA/DA sort it out.
You can "google" your own state's laws regarding self-defense and get a general idea what it has. Some states have a "stand your ground" clause and others still have a "duty to retreat" clause in it. If your state has a "duty to retreat", then you must show that you attempted to leave the situation in someway, or why you couldn't safely leave and did not do anything to cause the situation to turn violent. For example, two people getting into a verbal argument at a bar and both parties are calling each other names and throwing threats back and forth. One person pushes the other and that person then punches the guy out and claims "self-defense" because the other guy pushed him. NOT going to fly as "self-defense" because both parties were willing participants and neither made an attempt to leave or de-escalate.
One of my good friends is a SWAT team officer in Colorado. Here is what he had to say on the subject:
My understanding is that in self-defense, or defense of another, a person is allowed to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish that defense. Once the threat has stopped, been eliminated or removed, the use of force must stop, except for that force necessary to maintain custody or control of a suspect if they're being held for law enforcement.
So you and Jackie are out at dinner, a person beings assaulting you or someone nearby. If you perceive there is imminent danger to the "victim", you may use the minimum force to stop that assault..it can be just your walking up and telling them to stop, that the police are on the way, all the way up to a strike that could kill them, depending on your skill, their skill, any weapons they might have,etc. Once the attack stops, such as they run away, they're on the ground, or you have them in a control hold, you cannot continue to beat them. You can use the minimum force to keep them there if the police are on the way, or you can just let them go...
My understanding is that in self-defense, or defense of another, a person is allowed to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish that defense. Once the threat has stopped, been eliminated or removed, the use of force must stop, except for that force necessary to maintain custody or control of a suspect if they're being held for law enforcement.
So you and Jackie are out at dinner, a person beings assaulting you or someone nearby. If you perceive there is imminent danger to the "victim", you may use the minimum force to stop that assault..it can be just your walking up and telling them to stop, that the police are on the way, all the way up to a strike that could kill them, depending on your skill, their skill, any weapons they might have,etc. Once the attack stops, such as they run away, they're on the ground, or you have them in a control hold, you cannot continue to beat them. You can use the minimum force to keep them there if the police are on the way, or you can just let them go...
DavidMoreland
Yellow Belt
Your friend is right and we have to think about thesituation from practical aspect and don't become a superhero in the abovesituation and one need to avoid gun during self defense because it may alsoharm you so its better to take the help of cops in uncontrollable situations.
chinto
Senior Master
in many states including the one i live in, have the "Reasonable Man" doctrin. this refers to what a "reasonable man would think was ok in that situation. that said some states have "duty to retreat" laws, resulting in some of them passing "stand your ground" laws... so the answer is contact an attorney about your state and country's laws! not doing so could result in prison time because of ignorance of some law or technicalities!!
lklawson
Grandmaster
^ THIS!
Legally speaking, Deadly Force is Deadly Force, regardless of how it is applied.
However, the truth is that political correctness and social "sensibilities" make the use of Deadly Force, when applied by some weapons, more unpalatable and vulnerable to suspicion and scrutiny than others. Using a firearm often falls in this category these days. Everyone remember the hysteria over 'chucks a few decades ago? Yeah, like that.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
From the rec.martial-arts Newbie's Guide to Self Defense:
------------------------------
Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum
In the words of Jim Keating:
Leave out one or more of these factors and you lose. Have
these aspects present and provable and it's much more likely
that you'll win."
[Elements of Legitimate Self Defense]
As noted above, it's canonical that there are four elements of
legitimate Self Defense.
Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure.
Sometimes this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun. It can
also mean "Disparity of Force." Disparity of Force in this context is
when there is a large enough difference between the attacker and the
attacked that raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized
as Deadly Force. The typical examples are a group attack, though
unarmed, against a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a
300 pound enraged linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned
grandmother.
Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability
to inflict grievous harm. However, Opportunity is more often linked
to physical proximity. If the attacker is not within range to perform
the attack then there is no threat. An attacker with a knife 30 feet
away is no attacker at all. On the other hand, an attacker with a
firearm 30 feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily
harm. An attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability"
for the attack to be credible.
Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"
would believe, based on what information is available at the time,
that the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.
Threats by the aggressor of some future attack do not satisfy Imminent
Jeopardy while threats or actions that indicate an immediate intention
do.
Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either
exhausted or were not viable. Some places have a Duty to Retreat law
or legal precedent. Essentially these address the same issue.
Legally and morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other
methods to stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force. This does
not mean that the individual must first "try, fail, discard, and then
try another" to eliminate all other option. Many options are
eliminated by immediacy of the threat. As an example, one simply does
not have time to call the police and report a burglar when an
aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.
[The Force Continuum]
The Force Continuum is a concept of escalating Force responses to
match the level of threat or appropriate response. The primary
audience for the Force Continuum is Law Enforcement, Security, or
others who may have to respond to complex force justification
situations. Its application to civilian Self Defense in our ever
more litigious society is somewhat obvious.
The Force Continuum is generally represented by six "levels" with non-
verbal "presence" on one end of the scale and lethal responses at the
other end.
Level 1: Presence
Hostile (or criminal) activity is deterred simply by being seen.
Criminals usually don't want witnesses and may cease simply by being
observed. This may be facilitated by adopting an "Authoritative" or
"Assertive," but not aggressive, posture or bearing.
Level 2: Verbal Commands
Assertive, well selected, commands to "stop" or "move away" can
sometimes be sufficient though Verbal Commands can range up through
shouting. Presence and Verbal Commands are most often used in
conjunction with each other and, together, offer the lowest level of
"force" response possible. The Verbal Commands level is also the
appropriate level to attempt verbal de-escalation.
Level 3: Restraint
This level includes holds, locks, controls, and restraint devices such
as "come-along" holds, "submission" holds, and hand-cuffs. Sometimes
this level is referred to as "Soft Hands" meaning that the hands are
not formed as fists for the purpose of striking to cause permanent
damage.
Level 4: Non-Lethal Weapons
This level is meant to include devices that are generally considered
"non-lethal" such as pepper spray, and other chemical agents, and
electronic stun devices.
Level 5: Impact Weapons
Sometimes called "Hard Hands" to imply the use of fists to inflict
more serious, but not necessarily lethal, injury, this level is
intended to represent temporary physical incapacitation. It includes
use of impact weapons such as batons and fists with the goal of
"injuring to stop" but not killing. For most Law Enforcement this
means that high vulnerability targets such as the head are off limits.
Arms, legs, joints, and nerves and "pressure points" are generally the
targets of choice.
Level 6: Deadly Force
This level is universally known as "Deadly Force." As the name
indicates, it includes all methods generally accepted to be deadly.
This includes firearms, knives, and blunt instruments targeted at the
head. This level may also legally include choke holds inclusive of
both "strangulation" chokes as well as the infamous "sleeper"
blood-choke.
Then intention of the Force Continuum is to lay out an escalation of
force appropriate to the situation. To quote one Internet author:
"'Never shoot what you can baton; never baton what you can spray;
never spray what you can punch; never punch what you can walk away
from.' Less is best."
-Sly, _The psychology of self defense and the force continuum_
Sometimes it can be difficult to know where you are at on the Force
Continuum, to understand what level of response is appropriate.
Again, let me quote, this time from North Carolina Wesleyan College
chart intended for Law Enforcement Officers:
THE CONTINUUM OF FORCE
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]Suspect's Resistance Level:[/TD]
[TD]Officer's Level:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1. Suspect presence[/TD]
[TD]1. Interview stance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2. Verbal resistance[/TD]
[TD]2. Verbal commands[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3. Passive resistance[/TD]
[TD]3. Passive techniques (handcuffs)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4. Defensive resistance[/TD]
[TD]4. Chemical agents[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5. Active physical resistance[/TD]
[TD]5. Physical tactics/impact weapons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6. Firearms/deadly force[/TD]
[TD]6. Firearms/deadly force[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect03.htm
------------------------------
Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum
In the words of Jim Keating:
"To have a defensible self-defense case you need several
factors in your favor. They are simple and they must be
present or you are going to jail for a long time. These
factors are this:
factors in your favor. They are simple and they must be
present or you are going to jail for a long time. These
factors are this:
[*=1]Opportunity
[*=1]Imminent Jeopardy
[*=1]Ability
[*=1]Preclusion
Leave out one or more of these factors and you lose. Have
these aspects present and provable and it's much more likely
that you'll win."
[Elements of Legitimate Self Defense]
As noted above, it's canonical that there are four elements of
legitimate Self Defense.
Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure.
Sometimes this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun. It can
also mean "Disparity of Force." Disparity of Force in this context is
when there is a large enough difference between the attacker and the
attacked that raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized
as Deadly Force. The typical examples are a group attack, though
unarmed, against a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a
300 pound enraged linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned
grandmother.
Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability
to inflict grievous harm. However, Opportunity is more often linked
to physical proximity. If the attacker is not within range to perform
the attack then there is no threat. An attacker with a knife 30 feet
away is no attacker at all. On the other hand, an attacker with a
firearm 30 feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily
harm. An attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability"
for the attack to be credible.
Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"
would believe, based on what information is available at the time,
that the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.
Threats by the aggressor of some future attack do not satisfy Imminent
Jeopardy while threats or actions that indicate an immediate intention
do.
Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either
exhausted or were not viable. Some places have a Duty to Retreat law
or legal precedent. Essentially these address the same issue.
Legally and morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other
methods to stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force. This does
not mean that the individual must first "try, fail, discard, and then
try another" to eliminate all other option. Many options are
eliminated by immediacy of the threat. As an example, one simply does
not have time to call the police and report a burglar when an
aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.
[The Force Continuum]
The Force Continuum is a concept of escalating Force responses to
match the level of threat or appropriate response. The primary
audience for the Force Continuum is Law Enforcement, Security, or
others who may have to respond to complex force justification
situations. Its application to civilian Self Defense in our ever
more litigious society is somewhat obvious.
The Force Continuum is generally represented by six "levels" with non-
verbal "presence" on one end of the scale and lethal responses at the
other end.
Level 1: Presence
Hostile (or criminal) activity is deterred simply by being seen.
Criminals usually don't want witnesses and may cease simply by being
observed. This may be facilitated by adopting an "Authoritative" or
"Assertive," but not aggressive, posture or bearing.
Level 2: Verbal Commands
Assertive, well selected, commands to "stop" or "move away" can
sometimes be sufficient though Verbal Commands can range up through
shouting. Presence and Verbal Commands are most often used in
conjunction with each other and, together, offer the lowest level of
"force" response possible. The Verbal Commands level is also the
appropriate level to attempt verbal de-escalation.
Level 3: Restraint
This level includes holds, locks, controls, and restraint devices such
as "come-along" holds, "submission" holds, and hand-cuffs. Sometimes
this level is referred to as "Soft Hands" meaning that the hands are
not formed as fists for the purpose of striking to cause permanent
damage.
Level 4: Non-Lethal Weapons
This level is meant to include devices that are generally considered
"non-lethal" such as pepper spray, and other chemical agents, and
electronic stun devices.
Level 5: Impact Weapons
Sometimes called "Hard Hands" to imply the use of fists to inflict
more serious, but not necessarily lethal, injury, this level is
intended to represent temporary physical incapacitation. It includes
use of impact weapons such as batons and fists with the goal of
"injuring to stop" but not killing. For most Law Enforcement this
means that high vulnerability targets such as the head are off limits.
Arms, legs, joints, and nerves and "pressure points" are generally the
targets of choice.
Level 6: Deadly Force
This level is universally known as "Deadly Force." As the name
indicates, it includes all methods generally accepted to be deadly.
This includes firearms, knives, and blunt instruments targeted at the
head. This level may also legally include choke holds inclusive of
both "strangulation" chokes as well as the infamous "sleeper"
blood-choke.
Then intention of the Force Continuum is to lay out an escalation of
force appropriate to the situation. To quote one Internet author:
"'Never shoot what you can baton; never baton what you can spray;
never spray what you can punch; never punch what you can walk away
from.' Less is best."
-Sly, _The psychology of self defense and the force continuum_
Sometimes it can be difficult to know where you are at on the Force
Continuum, to understand what level of response is appropriate.
Again, let me quote, this time from North Carolina Wesleyan College
chart intended for Law Enforcement Officers:
THE CONTINUUM OF FORCE
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]Suspect's Resistance Level:[/TD]
[TD]Officer's Level:[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1. Suspect presence[/TD]
[TD]1. Interview stance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2. Verbal resistance[/TD]
[TD]2. Verbal commands[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3. Passive resistance[/TD]
[TD]3. Passive techniques (handcuffs)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4. Defensive resistance[/TD]
[TD]4. Chemical agents[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5. Active physical resistance[/TD]
[TD]5. Physical tactics/impact weapons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6. Firearms/deadly force[/TD]
[TD]6. Firearms/deadly force[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect03.htm
lklawson
Grandmaster
------------------------------
Subject: 11 - Guns And Other Weapons
This is a subject that makes people nervous. People often have strong
opinions on the subject of weapons in general and firearms in
particular.
The basic power of a weapon, whether used in Self Defense or in
unjustified attack, is that it is a "Force Multiplier." This means
that by using a weapon a person is able to increase the potential
damage they may inflict. By using a weapon a smaller person can
"elevate" their damage potential to that of a much larger unarmed
person, or even exceed it.
It has been said, "God made man. Sam Colt made him equal." Sam Colt
invented a popular pistol; the Single Action Army revolver, which, in
its various iterations, is equated with the essential "Cowboy Gun."
What you need to understand is that a weapon can "even the odds" in a
"Disparity of Force" situation (see Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the
Force Continuum).
[Is a Weapon Appropriate For You?]
Before you decide to use any weapon as a Self Defense tool, you need
to understand the requirements for and consequences of using that
weapon, legal, moral, and ethical. Even if completely legally
justified, could you bring yourself to actually use a weapon in Self
Defense knowing that it could kill or permanently maim another person,
even though that person is an attacker? If you can, is that weapon
legal to own? Are there any restrictions on how, where and when you
can carry it? Is it a practical weapon for you?
As far as firearms in particular; Whatever your political views about
gun ownership, you will also need some basic familiarity with firearms
if this is knowledge you don't already have. We live in the 21st
century, not the 15th, and anyone who wants to know about how to
defend themselves against real-life threats is going to have to know
how to deal with firearms - handguns at a minimum, rifle and shotgun
if you can. Most martial arts schools will not address this, or
address it in a way that will more than likely get you killed, so get
this information from people who know what they are talking about: go
to a local pistol range, and ask about introductory classes (usually
they will have something like a day or half day beginners class for
$50-$100, and well worth it). No point in trying to defend yourself
against a weapon you don't understand.
[Won't It Just Be Taken Away and Used Against You?]
The short answer is "no."
On the subject of Self Defense and Weapons, firearms in particular, I
regularly see claims that "Statistics show a weapon will most likely
just be taken away and used against you." I have yet to ever actually
see the alleged source statistic or study for this claim. I've asked,
point blank, for the source when I've seen it stated but have never
been given one. Yet, though they can not produce a source for the
claim, propagators of this myth categorically refuse to retract the
statement. This is because they want the statement to be true even if
they have no proof of it, even though there are valid, peer reviewed,
studies and countless anecdotal evidence which contradict the
statement. When pushed for evidence, they can not even come up with
anecdotal stories to support their claims. The claim is false.
There are no studies that show a weapon used for Self Defense,
particularly firearms, will just be taken away and used against the
defender.
The long answer is that in order for a weapon to be a deterrent to an
attacker, the attacker must believe, first, that the weapon is capable
of injuring him, and second, that the person with the weapon will
actually use it. Though there are many cases where simply showing or
brandishing a weapon has scared away attackers, this is not a sure
route to follow. If you present a weapon for Self Defense you must be
prepared to use it. If you are not prepared to use it and the attacker
calls your bluff, then surely the otherwise unjustified fears of "the
weapon will only be taken away and used against you" will be fulfilled!
[Training]
Self Defense weapons tend to be simple to operate, deploy, and
understand. When it comes right down to it, knowing how to operate a
firearm or a knife is a great deal less complicated than knowing how
to operate a car. For this reason many people choose to carry weapons
for Self Defense without seeking any training in their use. This is a
strategy that can and has worked quite successfully for many who, in
an emergency, used a weapon for Self Defense for which they had no
training whatsoever. However, that aside, you should seek training
from a competent instructor for whatever weapons you select to carry
for Self Defense. Though most weapons used for Self Defense are
comparatively easy to use, a competent instructor will be able to show
you the best ways to employ the weapon for maximum Self Defense effect,
how to avoid common mistakes which could lower your chance of
successful Self Defense or even place you or innocent bystanders at
risk, and teach you how to best integrate your selected weapons into a
coherent Self Defense Strategy.
[The Right Tool for the Job]
If you've concluded that you will carry a weapon for Self Defense, the
next step is to decide exactly what weapon or weapons. There are a
number of tools designed for Self Defense, from Firearms to "Personal
Alarms." Take a little bit of time to identify your options,
requirements, and restrictions to decide what weapons are appropriate.
Things that you should consider are:
- Can you physically use the weapon; is it too heavy or too bulky for
you to effectively use?
- Can you obtain competent instruction for the weapon?
- Can you take weapon with you where you need to go?
- Are there legal restrictions on where or when you can carry the
weapon?
- Are you emotionally prepared to carry and use the weapon?
- Can you obtain the weapon; is it legal to own, can you afford to
purchase and maintain the weapon?
[Is the Weapon Legal]
Particularly in reference to firearms, but also for knives, batons,
and "Less Lethal" devices, you must know if it is legal for you to
possess the weapon. In the Unites States, it's legal in most places
for an adult (someone 18 years or older) to own and store a firearm in
their home. However, this is not so for all places. There are many
places, such as Washington D.C. or New York, where it is effectively
illegal for an adult citizen in good standing to own and store a
firearm in the home. Internationally, this is even less of a
certainty. Many developed nations have significant restrictions on
ownership and storage of firearms and indeed any "weapon." The
answer is, of course, to check with your local authorities before you
purchase.
The same is true of carrying a weapon on your person. In most places
it is not legal for a person conceal upon his or her person a weapon
for the express purpose of Self Defense. This is most particularly
true of firearms but also to some degree or another can extend to
generally any other device that can be considered a weapon. Knives
and Batons are the primary targets however items such as Pepper Spray
are also often included. In the U.S. one may usually carry a folding,
locking blade knife at or below 4 inches in length in a pants pocket
(generally considered "concealed"). Again, this is not a hard, fast
rule. Knives are "banned" in many specific places. Further,
internationally, the common knife suffers nearly as much as the
firearm. Locking blade, folding knives are essentially banned from
personal carry in Great Britain. Any knife is banned within certain
designated confines of the Airline industry. The answer is, again,
check with your local authorities before carrying a knife. Further,
it is your responsibility to know what designated areas are "no carry
zones" and to simply not carry in those areas.
This general rule applies to any weapon. Check first with your local
authorities to determine legality, restrictions, and/or training and
licensing requirements.
[Legal and Moral Ramifications]
This is not a short topic, nor can a simple Guide of this type do the
subject justice. Briefly however, if you choose to carry a weapon for
Self Defense you will have certain legal and moral obligations of
appropriate use. There may be restrictions on when you can even let
someone accidentally catch a glimpse of your weapon to say nothing of
when you can actually deploy it. There are obligations for safe carry
to prevent accidental deployment or discharge. If you ever do have to
deploy or use your weapon in Self Defense there almost certainly will
be legal consequences, perhaps only that the police wish to question
you but potentially as serious as arrest and charges of a crime. But
most importantly to the topic, you will have an obligation to ensure
that your carry or use of a weapon does not needlessly or recklessly
endanger or injure an innocent third party. You will be, and _should_
be held to a higher standard because of the enhanced capacity for harm
your weapon provides.
["Less Lethal" Weapons]
Less Lethal, or sometimes "Less than Lethal" weapons describe a class
of weapons designed to incapacitate an attacker or remove his desire
to be aggressive. The three most popular items in this category are
Pepper Sprays, Stun Guns, and Personal Alarms.
[Pepper Spray]
Pepper Sprays are made from a naturally occurring chemical in Cayenne
peppers called oleoresin capsicum or OC. OC is different from Tear
Gas or mace, which are irritants, in that OC is an Inflammatory
Agent; it causes inflammation and swelling in affected areas. This
can include the eye's, skin, and bronchiole areas of the lungs. The
effects can include temporary blindness, tearing, swelling of
affected areas, difficulty breathing or constricted breathing, and
pain and irritation of the skin. These effects are temporary and
will usually last from ten minutes to one hour. The effects are non-
lethal on the vast majority of the population however, some people
can have adverse reactions due to medical conditions such as Asthma,
severe allergic reactions or due to other factors.
Commercial Pepper Spray contains between 10% and 20% OC however, raw
OC percentages should not be the determining factor in your purchase.
How "hot" an OC/Pepper Spray is rated in Scoville Heat Units or SHU.
SHU can vary from product to product and is not necessarily directly
related to OC percentage. Check the product literature for SHU
rating. The higher the SHU rating, the more effective Pepper Spray,
generally. 2 million SHU seems to be about the average starting
range for Self Defense products.
You should also know that not everyone is equally affected by Pepper
Sprays. Some people seem to have greater tolerance to its effects
than others though most experts agree that the vast majority of
people are strongly affected by OC.
Like other weapons, using Pepper Spray has some advantages and
disadvantages unique to it and competent instruction should be sought.
To encourage you to seek competent instruction, one example of a
common mistake is to simply try to "hose down" the target; i.e.
depressing the trigger switch until the can is empty. Experts tell
me that this will actually dilute the amount of OC that is deposited
upon the target with the carrier material and that Pepper Spray
should be dispersed in brief, half-second, bursts.
Finally, you should know that Pepper Spray degrades over time. Most
have a shelf-life of one to two years. You should plan on replacing
your spray periodically, even if you have not used it.
[Stun Guns]
Stun Guns are electronic devices which use pulsing or alternating
electric shocks to incapacitate and cause pain. Manufacturers of
Stun Guns often make a lot of claims about exactly what they do and
how they work, using impressive and scientific sounding claims
including frequency and Megahertz or making claims about tuning the
device to specific sympathetic nervous system targets and the like.
These claims, though they may or may not be true, are largely
unsupported by independent research. At the basics, Stun Guns work by
pulsing electric current which causes muscles to contract. These
contractions are very strong and can potentially "tire" the affected
muscles with fatigue. The frequency at which the pulses operate can
also often make the affected muscles seem to be "locked." Finally,
these pulses cause a great deal of pain. This appears to be the
primary effect.
There are two general form factors of Stun Guns. The first, and most
common, is the traditional "brick." Ranging from the size of a small
cell phone (which they are sometimes shaped to resemble) up to about
that of a red brick, these are "contact" devices. The electric
contacts, which look like probes or metal nubs, must be in contact
with the target in order for the electric current to effect the
target. This necessitates close contact with a potential attacker.
The second, and best known, is the "gun" type. These devices use a
charge of compressed gas to propel barbed darts over a distance into
the target. These darts are attached to the device, which still
provides the electrical power, by trailing wire. This allows a safer
distance between potential attackers and you. However, as with any
projectile type weapon, it is still possible to miss the target.
Further, these devices suffer from a very low "ammunition" capacity;
often "one shot."
Not all Stun Guns are created equal. Some have lower voltages or
other limitations due to either design weaknesses or specific design
reductions. Stun Guns marketed to Police usually have higher ratings
on voltage and other specification. The undisputed leader in Stun Gun
technology is held by "Taser." This is the brand name that most
Police seem to carry.
Stun Guns do most of their "work" with high voltage but very low
amperage. The amperage used in Stun Guns is far below the amperage
level generally needed to kill a person, thus Stun Guns are generally
considered safe and non-lethal. However, some people may still have
adverse reactions to being shocked with a Stun Gun based on any number
of medical pre-conditions such as a weak heart or reduced cardio
capacity because of over stimulation due to drugs.
You should know that not everyone is affected equally by Stun Guns.
Some people seem to be able to shake off the effects or, depending on
the area of the target's body affected, may be able to simply ignore
the effects. This in combination with the varying quality of products
can make the use of Stun Guns, as with Pepper Spray, somewhat chancy
though, again, experts generally agree that Stun Guns are usually
effective across most of the population.
Two facts that has always bothered me abut Stun Guns are, first, the
misnomer of "Stun Gun." These electronic devices usually do not
"stun" people. Though they're usually perceived to be just like
Captain Kirk's Phaser set to "STUN" by most people, they are not.
There is no painless slipping into sleep. Secondly I am bothered by
the fact that criminals do not seem to use these to any significant
degree (if at all). If "Stun Guns" are so effective at incapacitating
determined, even violent, resistance, why do not muggers and related
criminals use them with regularity and frequency? Some of these
devices cost as little as $20 and are easily as accessible as
firearms, which criminals seem to much prefer to "Stun Guns."
Most Stun Guns do not wear out however batteries can become weak and
spent cartridges of "dart" style Stun Guns will need replaced. The
manufacturer will sell replacement cartridges and most "brick" style
Stun Guns have a second set of probes that you can use to ensure the
device is functioning by hitting the test button and watching
electricity arc from probe to probe.
For a more detailed description of how Stun Guns work,
howstuffworks.com has a good description:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun1.htm
[Personal Alarms]
Sometimes called "Screamers," Personal Alarms emit a loud noise such
as a siren, horn, or electronic screech when triggered. The desired
effect is to call unwanted attention to an attack and frighten the
attacker away.
The drawbacks of a Personal Alarm are first, that, much like most auto
alarms today, they might be simply ignored by potential assistance,
second, that you may be in an area in which no potential assistance is
available to come to your aid, and third, that the attacker may be
undeterred by the possibility of being caught or having aid arrive.
However, as part of an over all plan of resistance and self reliance,
i.e., in conjunction with a more conventional weapon for Self
Defense, a Personal Alarm to call attention to the situation as you
are employing other methods of defense is probably a worthwhile idea.
Despite this, you must weigh the disadvantages of one more piece of
gear to carry with you and learn to operate under stress against the
potential advantages of having a gadget do the yelling for you.
Most Personal Alarms on the market today are electronic and thus
require batteries. You should test both the batteries and the alarm
periodically to ensure that both are sound.
[Kopo Sticks, Self Defense Keychains, and Tactical Flashlights]
At the risk of having to enumerate every Self Defense weapon in
existence I have decided to include a brief overview of few of the
more common Self Defense tools people carry. The apparent motivation
for carrying these are that they are less lethal, more legal, or less
obviously a weapon than items such as knives, firearms, or Pepper
Spray.
Kubotan, Yawara, and Kopo sticks are essentially really short sticks.
Usually between 6 and 8 inches long and 1 to 1.5 inches thick and made
of hardwood, metal, or high-impact plastic, these are easy to conceal
and transport. These sticks are intended to be primarily held in a
fist and to act as a combination fist-load and striking implement,
either from a hammer fist, or a "top-fist" strike. Some have loops of
cord to thread through your fingers to prevent slipping or loss during
use while others have aggressive spikes designed to protrude from
between fingers or points at the ends of the sticks.
A variation of these "really short sticks" for our modern world is to
join them to a keychain. Thus, if you have your keys, you have your
Self Defense tool. It also gives the added advantage of being able to
use the keys as a flail while grasping the stick.
Like all other weapons, possession or carry of these "really short
sticks" is sometimes banned or restricted. Check your local
ordinances.
A new variation of the "really short stick" is the marriage of modern,
high-intensity, flashlight technology with the "really short stick"
form factor. While not a new idea to use a flashlight as a bludgeon,
technology has advanced to the point where brightness equal to or
exceeding a traditional 3 D Cell torch is now available in a device 6
inches or less long and as little as 1 inch in diameter. Not all
Tactical Flashlights are created equal. Light output ranges from
about 20 or 30 sight dazzling lumens, as an educated "minimum" for
Self Defense purposes, up to over a retina bleaching 120 lumens. The
advantages should be obvious. Not only can you still employ the
"really short stick" techniques but you can also temporarily blind
your assailant, all in an innocuous "it's just a flashlight, sir"
package. Surefire is generally considered the leader in this highly
competitive market but other manufacturers include Streamlight and
Inova. Prices for the top quality models range from about $50 at the
low end to well over $100 or more. Tactical Flashlights usually use
either a high-intensity Xenon bulb, which typically burns quite hot,
or a high-intensity LED (Light Emitting Diode) "bulb," sometimes
several in an array configuration. Xenon bulb lights are typically
less expensive but will use batteries much faster and will burn out
the bulbs while LED's are effectively "life time bulbs."
Most Tactical Flashlights have momentary "on" buttons on the tail-cap
and are designed to use two 123A type Lithium batteries.
It is possible to purchase Tactical Flashlights from Chinese
manufacturers at extremely inexpensive prices, sometimes as little as
$10 or $15. These tend to have lower light output than the high-
priced competition, though often still within the "Self Defense"
lumens range and often are missing features available with their
higher priced brethren. Further, quality on these low-priced bargains
can sometimes be hit or miss. However, you sometimes can get a useful
Tactical Flashlight from bargain sources if the fates come together.
If you purchase one of these bargains from e-bay or the like, examine
it carefully first and put it through its paces before you decide to
depend on it.
Some quick links on use of "really short sticks" and Tactical
Flashlights:
http://www.donrearic.com/koppostick.html
http://www.donrearic.com/yawara.html
http://www.4-site.co.uk/goshin/kubohtm.htm
http://www.yawara.com/YawaraStick.html
http://www.themartialist.com/1203/pocketstrike.htm
http://www.themartialist.com/nightcuttersd.htm
[Improvised Weapons]
A brief word about improvised weapons: These are non-weapon items in
your environment impressed into service as make-shift weapons. This
can be anything from the obvious such as a Kitchen Knife to the in-
obvious such as a telephone used as a bludgeon. Keep your wits about
you and note what items are nearby that you may use as emergency
weapons. Ashtrays, bottles of any sort, glasses, burning, irritating,
boiling chemicals or liquids, and any other creative "outside the box"
items could be used. Many improvised weapons will fall into the
category of "bludgeons" and will require some room to swing and a bit
of strength. Others could be instant slashing or stabbing weapons
such as a sharp pencil or ball point pen. Whatever the case you
should know that Improvised Weapons invariably are poor seconds to
tools designed for the specific purpose of being weapons. Yet,
Improvised Weapons can offer an advantage over being bare handed. To
paraphrase Rex Applegate, a famous Military unarmed and "Combatives"
trainer from bygone days, "The reason you're fighting unarmed is
because you were foolish enough to be caught without a weapon." Find
a weapon.
[Keeping Them Safe From "The Wrong Hands"]
A reasonable concern for most people is how to prevent unauthorized
people, usually children, from accessing Self Defense tools. Usually
this is exclusively, but erroneously, applied to firearm. Yes, you
should take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized people from
accessing firearms. But you should extend this concept to all
dangerous items and tools about your home. For most items such as
poisons, caustic chemicals, razor blades, kitchen knives, electrical
outlets and appliances, and medicines this is a multi-faceted approach
of access prevention by placing the items out of reach or behind
minimally locking doors such as those using Safety First's (tm)
"Child Proof Latch" along with demystification and training to avoid
dangerous items.
This is generally sufficient for all dangerous items, including
firearms. Nevertheless, some people feel, or are required by law, to
keep firearms in a more secure condition.
You should be aware that any device that restricts access to a Self
Defense tool, firearm or otherwise, is going to make it more time
consuming and difficult for even authorized users, such as yourself,
to access the tool during high stress such as in a Home Invasion. If
you intend to use an access restricting device to store your Self
Defense tools while at home you should adapt your training to include
the extra time and difficulties you will experience necessitated by
the extra step of gaining access through the device.
The two most common access control devices for firearms are Trigger
Locks and Gun Safes. Trigger locks are, by far, the least expensive.
They are typically either a hard plastic or cast metal clam shell that
clamps over the trigger guard of a firearm and prevents the operation
of the trigger itself. Most do not prevent the articulation of other
portions of the firearm such as the slide, bolt, safety, external
hammers, magazine release, etc. Further, trigger locks are typically
either unlocked with a small key similar to that of a padlock or a
small combination dial like that on brief cases. Both of these have
proven extremely difficult to operate under high stress and are,
frankly, poor choices for securing firearms intended for in-home
Defense. Gun safes, on the other hand are typically much more
expensive but also much more secure. They range in size from a large
shoe box size intended to house only one or two handguns to
refrigerator sized safes to custom installed "walk-in" rooms. Gun
safes, like padlocks, are unlocked via key or combination. There are
a number of safes being marketed now with a push-button combination
entry. The idea is that you position your fingers over the four or
five buttons corresponding to your fingers and quickly "type" in the
combination to gain quick access. The push-button entry safes have
shown themselves to be easier to operate under stress than either the
key lock or traditional combination style safes.
[Justifiable Use of Weapons]
The use of any clearly identifiable weapon, whether "Less Lethal,"
Improvised, or traditional will be subject to the laws and ethics
surrounding such items. Before you carry any weapon for Self Defense,
familiarize yourself with the laws dealing with Justifiable Force in
your area and Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum.
------------------------------
Subject: 11 - Guns And Other Weapons
This is a subject that makes people nervous. People often have strong
opinions on the subject of weapons in general and firearms in
particular.
The basic power of a weapon, whether used in Self Defense or in
unjustified attack, is that it is a "Force Multiplier." This means
that by using a weapon a person is able to increase the potential
damage they may inflict. By using a weapon a smaller person can
"elevate" their damage potential to that of a much larger unarmed
person, or even exceed it.
It has been said, "God made man. Sam Colt made him equal." Sam Colt
invented a popular pistol; the Single Action Army revolver, which, in
its various iterations, is equated with the essential "Cowboy Gun."
What you need to understand is that a weapon can "even the odds" in a
"Disparity of Force" situation (see Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the
Force Continuum).
[Is a Weapon Appropriate For You?]
Before you decide to use any weapon as a Self Defense tool, you need
to understand the requirements for and consequences of using that
weapon, legal, moral, and ethical. Even if completely legally
justified, could you bring yourself to actually use a weapon in Self
Defense knowing that it could kill or permanently maim another person,
even though that person is an attacker? If you can, is that weapon
legal to own? Are there any restrictions on how, where and when you
can carry it? Is it a practical weapon for you?
As far as firearms in particular; Whatever your political views about
gun ownership, you will also need some basic familiarity with firearms
if this is knowledge you don't already have. We live in the 21st
century, not the 15th, and anyone who wants to know about how to
defend themselves against real-life threats is going to have to know
how to deal with firearms - handguns at a minimum, rifle and shotgun
if you can. Most martial arts schools will not address this, or
address it in a way that will more than likely get you killed, so get
this information from people who know what they are talking about: go
to a local pistol range, and ask about introductory classes (usually
they will have something like a day or half day beginners class for
$50-$100, and well worth it). No point in trying to defend yourself
against a weapon you don't understand.
[Won't It Just Be Taken Away and Used Against You?]
The short answer is "no."
On the subject of Self Defense and Weapons, firearms in particular, I
regularly see claims that "Statistics show a weapon will most likely
just be taken away and used against you." I have yet to ever actually
see the alleged source statistic or study for this claim. I've asked,
point blank, for the source when I've seen it stated but have never
been given one. Yet, though they can not produce a source for the
claim, propagators of this myth categorically refuse to retract the
statement. This is because they want the statement to be true even if
they have no proof of it, even though there are valid, peer reviewed,
studies and countless anecdotal evidence which contradict the
statement. When pushed for evidence, they can not even come up with
anecdotal stories to support their claims. The claim is false.
There are no studies that show a weapon used for Self Defense,
particularly firearms, will just be taken away and used against the
defender.
The long answer is that in order for a weapon to be a deterrent to an
attacker, the attacker must believe, first, that the weapon is capable
of injuring him, and second, that the person with the weapon will
actually use it. Though there are many cases where simply showing or
brandishing a weapon has scared away attackers, this is not a sure
route to follow. If you present a weapon for Self Defense you must be
prepared to use it. If you are not prepared to use it and the attacker
calls your bluff, then surely the otherwise unjustified fears of "the
weapon will only be taken away and used against you" will be fulfilled!
[Training]
Self Defense weapons tend to be simple to operate, deploy, and
understand. When it comes right down to it, knowing how to operate a
firearm or a knife is a great deal less complicated than knowing how
to operate a car. For this reason many people choose to carry weapons
for Self Defense without seeking any training in their use. This is a
strategy that can and has worked quite successfully for many who, in
an emergency, used a weapon for Self Defense for which they had no
training whatsoever. However, that aside, you should seek training
from a competent instructor for whatever weapons you select to carry
for Self Defense. Though most weapons used for Self Defense are
comparatively easy to use, a competent instructor will be able to show
you the best ways to employ the weapon for maximum Self Defense effect,
how to avoid common mistakes which could lower your chance of
successful Self Defense or even place you or innocent bystanders at
risk, and teach you how to best integrate your selected weapons into a
coherent Self Defense Strategy.
[The Right Tool for the Job]
If you've concluded that you will carry a weapon for Self Defense, the
next step is to decide exactly what weapon or weapons. There are a
number of tools designed for Self Defense, from Firearms to "Personal
Alarms." Take a little bit of time to identify your options,
requirements, and restrictions to decide what weapons are appropriate.
Things that you should consider are:
- Can you physically use the weapon; is it too heavy or too bulky for
you to effectively use?
- Can you obtain competent instruction for the weapon?
- Can you take weapon with you where you need to go?
- Are there legal restrictions on where or when you can carry the
weapon?
- Are you emotionally prepared to carry and use the weapon?
- Can you obtain the weapon; is it legal to own, can you afford to
purchase and maintain the weapon?
[Is the Weapon Legal]
Particularly in reference to firearms, but also for knives, batons,
and "Less Lethal" devices, you must know if it is legal for you to
possess the weapon. In the Unites States, it's legal in most places
for an adult (someone 18 years or older) to own and store a firearm in
their home. However, this is not so for all places. There are many
places, such as Washington D.C. or New York, where it is effectively
illegal for an adult citizen in good standing to own and store a
firearm in the home. Internationally, this is even less of a
certainty. Many developed nations have significant restrictions on
ownership and storage of firearms and indeed any "weapon." The
answer is, of course, to check with your local authorities before you
purchase.
The same is true of carrying a weapon on your person. In most places
it is not legal for a person conceal upon his or her person a weapon
for the express purpose of Self Defense. This is most particularly
true of firearms but also to some degree or another can extend to
generally any other device that can be considered a weapon. Knives
and Batons are the primary targets however items such as Pepper Spray
are also often included. In the U.S. one may usually carry a folding,
locking blade knife at or below 4 inches in length in a pants pocket
(generally considered "concealed"). Again, this is not a hard, fast
rule. Knives are "banned" in many specific places. Further,
internationally, the common knife suffers nearly as much as the
firearm. Locking blade, folding knives are essentially banned from
personal carry in Great Britain. Any knife is banned within certain
designated confines of the Airline industry. The answer is, again,
check with your local authorities before carrying a knife. Further,
it is your responsibility to know what designated areas are "no carry
zones" and to simply not carry in those areas.
This general rule applies to any weapon. Check first with your local
authorities to determine legality, restrictions, and/or training and
licensing requirements.
[Legal and Moral Ramifications]
This is not a short topic, nor can a simple Guide of this type do the
subject justice. Briefly however, if you choose to carry a weapon for
Self Defense you will have certain legal and moral obligations of
appropriate use. There may be restrictions on when you can even let
someone accidentally catch a glimpse of your weapon to say nothing of
when you can actually deploy it. There are obligations for safe carry
to prevent accidental deployment or discharge. If you ever do have to
deploy or use your weapon in Self Defense there almost certainly will
be legal consequences, perhaps only that the police wish to question
you but potentially as serious as arrest and charges of a crime. But
most importantly to the topic, you will have an obligation to ensure
that your carry or use of a weapon does not needlessly or recklessly
endanger or injure an innocent third party. You will be, and _should_
be held to a higher standard because of the enhanced capacity for harm
your weapon provides.
["Less Lethal" Weapons]
Less Lethal, or sometimes "Less than Lethal" weapons describe a class
of weapons designed to incapacitate an attacker or remove his desire
to be aggressive. The three most popular items in this category are
Pepper Sprays, Stun Guns, and Personal Alarms.
[Pepper Spray]
Pepper Sprays are made from a naturally occurring chemical in Cayenne
peppers called oleoresin capsicum or OC. OC is different from Tear
Gas or mace, which are irritants, in that OC is an Inflammatory
Agent; it causes inflammation and swelling in affected areas. This
can include the eye's, skin, and bronchiole areas of the lungs. The
effects can include temporary blindness, tearing, swelling of
affected areas, difficulty breathing or constricted breathing, and
pain and irritation of the skin. These effects are temporary and
will usually last from ten minutes to one hour. The effects are non-
lethal on the vast majority of the population however, some people
can have adverse reactions due to medical conditions such as Asthma,
severe allergic reactions or due to other factors.
Commercial Pepper Spray contains between 10% and 20% OC however, raw
OC percentages should not be the determining factor in your purchase.
How "hot" an OC/Pepper Spray is rated in Scoville Heat Units or SHU.
SHU can vary from product to product and is not necessarily directly
related to OC percentage. Check the product literature for SHU
rating. The higher the SHU rating, the more effective Pepper Spray,
generally. 2 million SHU seems to be about the average starting
range for Self Defense products.
You should also know that not everyone is equally affected by Pepper
Sprays. Some people seem to have greater tolerance to its effects
than others though most experts agree that the vast majority of
people are strongly affected by OC.
Like other weapons, using Pepper Spray has some advantages and
disadvantages unique to it and competent instruction should be sought.
To encourage you to seek competent instruction, one example of a
common mistake is to simply try to "hose down" the target; i.e.
depressing the trigger switch until the can is empty. Experts tell
me that this will actually dilute the amount of OC that is deposited
upon the target with the carrier material and that Pepper Spray
should be dispersed in brief, half-second, bursts.
Finally, you should know that Pepper Spray degrades over time. Most
have a shelf-life of one to two years. You should plan on replacing
your spray periodically, even if you have not used it.
[Stun Guns]
Stun Guns are electronic devices which use pulsing or alternating
electric shocks to incapacitate and cause pain. Manufacturers of
Stun Guns often make a lot of claims about exactly what they do and
how they work, using impressive and scientific sounding claims
including frequency and Megahertz or making claims about tuning the
device to specific sympathetic nervous system targets and the like.
These claims, though they may or may not be true, are largely
unsupported by independent research. At the basics, Stun Guns work by
pulsing electric current which causes muscles to contract. These
contractions are very strong and can potentially "tire" the affected
muscles with fatigue. The frequency at which the pulses operate can
also often make the affected muscles seem to be "locked." Finally,
these pulses cause a great deal of pain. This appears to be the
primary effect.
There are two general form factors of Stun Guns. The first, and most
common, is the traditional "brick." Ranging from the size of a small
cell phone (which they are sometimes shaped to resemble) up to about
that of a red brick, these are "contact" devices. The electric
contacts, which look like probes or metal nubs, must be in contact
with the target in order for the electric current to effect the
target. This necessitates close contact with a potential attacker.
The second, and best known, is the "gun" type. These devices use a
charge of compressed gas to propel barbed darts over a distance into
the target. These darts are attached to the device, which still
provides the electrical power, by trailing wire. This allows a safer
distance between potential attackers and you. However, as with any
projectile type weapon, it is still possible to miss the target.
Further, these devices suffer from a very low "ammunition" capacity;
often "one shot."
Not all Stun Guns are created equal. Some have lower voltages or
other limitations due to either design weaknesses or specific design
reductions. Stun Guns marketed to Police usually have higher ratings
on voltage and other specification. The undisputed leader in Stun Gun
technology is held by "Taser." This is the brand name that most
Police seem to carry.
Stun Guns do most of their "work" with high voltage but very low
amperage. The amperage used in Stun Guns is far below the amperage
level generally needed to kill a person, thus Stun Guns are generally
considered safe and non-lethal. However, some people may still have
adverse reactions to being shocked with a Stun Gun based on any number
of medical pre-conditions such as a weak heart or reduced cardio
capacity because of over stimulation due to drugs.
You should know that not everyone is affected equally by Stun Guns.
Some people seem to be able to shake off the effects or, depending on
the area of the target's body affected, may be able to simply ignore
the effects. This in combination with the varying quality of products
can make the use of Stun Guns, as with Pepper Spray, somewhat chancy
though, again, experts generally agree that Stun Guns are usually
effective across most of the population.
Two facts that has always bothered me abut Stun Guns are, first, the
misnomer of "Stun Gun." These electronic devices usually do not
"stun" people. Though they're usually perceived to be just like
Captain Kirk's Phaser set to "STUN" by most people, they are not.
There is no painless slipping into sleep. Secondly I am bothered by
the fact that criminals do not seem to use these to any significant
degree (if at all). If "Stun Guns" are so effective at incapacitating
determined, even violent, resistance, why do not muggers and related
criminals use them with regularity and frequency? Some of these
devices cost as little as $20 and are easily as accessible as
firearms, which criminals seem to much prefer to "Stun Guns."
Most Stun Guns do not wear out however batteries can become weak and
spent cartridges of "dart" style Stun Guns will need replaced. The
manufacturer will sell replacement cartridges and most "brick" style
Stun Guns have a second set of probes that you can use to ensure the
device is functioning by hitting the test button and watching
electricity arc from probe to probe.
For a more detailed description of how Stun Guns work,
howstuffworks.com has a good description:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun1.htm
[Personal Alarms]
Sometimes called "Screamers," Personal Alarms emit a loud noise such
as a siren, horn, or electronic screech when triggered. The desired
effect is to call unwanted attention to an attack and frighten the
attacker away.
The drawbacks of a Personal Alarm are first, that, much like most auto
alarms today, they might be simply ignored by potential assistance,
second, that you may be in an area in which no potential assistance is
available to come to your aid, and third, that the attacker may be
undeterred by the possibility of being caught or having aid arrive.
However, as part of an over all plan of resistance and self reliance,
i.e., in conjunction with a more conventional weapon for Self
Defense, a Personal Alarm to call attention to the situation as you
are employing other methods of defense is probably a worthwhile idea.
Despite this, you must weigh the disadvantages of one more piece of
gear to carry with you and learn to operate under stress against the
potential advantages of having a gadget do the yelling for you.
Most Personal Alarms on the market today are electronic and thus
require batteries. You should test both the batteries and the alarm
periodically to ensure that both are sound.
[Kopo Sticks, Self Defense Keychains, and Tactical Flashlights]
At the risk of having to enumerate every Self Defense weapon in
existence I have decided to include a brief overview of few of the
more common Self Defense tools people carry. The apparent motivation
for carrying these are that they are less lethal, more legal, or less
obviously a weapon than items such as knives, firearms, or Pepper
Spray.
Kubotan, Yawara, and Kopo sticks are essentially really short sticks.
Usually between 6 and 8 inches long and 1 to 1.5 inches thick and made
of hardwood, metal, or high-impact plastic, these are easy to conceal
and transport. These sticks are intended to be primarily held in a
fist and to act as a combination fist-load and striking implement,
either from a hammer fist, or a "top-fist" strike. Some have loops of
cord to thread through your fingers to prevent slipping or loss during
use while others have aggressive spikes designed to protrude from
between fingers or points at the ends of the sticks.
A variation of these "really short sticks" for our modern world is to
join them to a keychain. Thus, if you have your keys, you have your
Self Defense tool. It also gives the added advantage of being able to
use the keys as a flail while grasping the stick.
Like all other weapons, possession or carry of these "really short
sticks" is sometimes banned or restricted. Check your local
ordinances.
A new variation of the "really short stick" is the marriage of modern,
high-intensity, flashlight technology with the "really short stick"
form factor. While not a new idea to use a flashlight as a bludgeon,
technology has advanced to the point where brightness equal to or
exceeding a traditional 3 D Cell torch is now available in a device 6
inches or less long and as little as 1 inch in diameter. Not all
Tactical Flashlights are created equal. Light output ranges from
about 20 or 30 sight dazzling lumens, as an educated "minimum" for
Self Defense purposes, up to over a retina bleaching 120 lumens. The
advantages should be obvious. Not only can you still employ the
"really short stick" techniques but you can also temporarily blind
your assailant, all in an innocuous "it's just a flashlight, sir"
package. Surefire is generally considered the leader in this highly
competitive market but other manufacturers include Streamlight and
Inova. Prices for the top quality models range from about $50 at the
low end to well over $100 or more. Tactical Flashlights usually use
either a high-intensity Xenon bulb, which typically burns quite hot,
or a high-intensity LED (Light Emitting Diode) "bulb," sometimes
several in an array configuration. Xenon bulb lights are typically
less expensive but will use batteries much faster and will burn out
the bulbs while LED's are effectively "life time bulbs."
Most Tactical Flashlights have momentary "on" buttons on the tail-cap
and are designed to use two 123A type Lithium batteries.
It is possible to purchase Tactical Flashlights from Chinese
manufacturers at extremely inexpensive prices, sometimes as little as
$10 or $15. These tend to have lower light output than the high-
priced competition, though often still within the "Self Defense"
lumens range and often are missing features available with their
higher priced brethren. Further, quality on these low-priced bargains
can sometimes be hit or miss. However, you sometimes can get a useful
Tactical Flashlight from bargain sources if the fates come together.
If you purchase one of these bargains from e-bay or the like, examine
it carefully first and put it through its paces before you decide to
depend on it.
Some quick links on use of "really short sticks" and Tactical
Flashlights:
http://www.donrearic.com/koppostick.html
http://www.donrearic.com/yawara.html
http://www.4-site.co.uk/goshin/kubohtm.htm
http://www.yawara.com/YawaraStick.html
http://www.themartialist.com/1203/pocketstrike.htm
http://www.themartialist.com/nightcuttersd.htm
[Improvised Weapons]
A brief word about improvised weapons: These are non-weapon items in
your environment impressed into service as make-shift weapons. This
can be anything from the obvious such as a Kitchen Knife to the in-
obvious such as a telephone used as a bludgeon. Keep your wits about
you and note what items are nearby that you may use as emergency
weapons. Ashtrays, bottles of any sort, glasses, burning, irritating,
boiling chemicals or liquids, and any other creative "outside the box"
items could be used. Many improvised weapons will fall into the
category of "bludgeons" and will require some room to swing and a bit
of strength. Others could be instant slashing or stabbing weapons
such as a sharp pencil or ball point pen. Whatever the case you
should know that Improvised Weapons invariably are poor seconds to
tools designed for the specific purpose of being weapons. Yet,
Improvised Weapons can offer an advantage over being bare handed. To
paraphrase Rex Applegate, a famous Military unarmed and "Combatives"
trainer from bygone days, "The reason you're fighting unarmed is
because you were foolish enough to be caught without a weapon." Find
a weapon.
[Keeping Them Safe From "The Wrong Hands"]
A reasonable concern for most people is how to prevent unauthorized
people, usually children, from accessing Self Defense tools. Usually
this is exclusively, but erroneously, applied to firearm. Yes, you
should take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized people from
accessing firearms. But you should extend this concept to all
dangerous items and tools about your home. For most items such as
poisons, caustic chemicals, razor blades, kitchen knives, electrical
outlets and appliances, and medicines this is a multi-faceted approach
of access prevention by placing the items out of reach or behind
minimally locking doors such as those using Safety First's (tm)
"Child Proof Latch" along with demystification and training to avoid
dangerous items.
This is generally sufficient for all dangerous items, including
firearms. Nevertheless, some people feel, or are required by law, to
keep firearms in a more secure condition.
You should be aware that any device that restricts access to a Self
Defense tool, firearm or otherwise, is going to make it more time
consuming and difficult for even authorized users, such as yourself,
to access the tool during high stress such as in a Home Invasion. If
you intend to use an access restricting device to store your Self
Defense tools while at home you should adapt your training to include
the extra time and difficulties you will experience necessitated by
the extra step of gaining access through the device.
The two most common access control devices for firearms are Trigger
Locks and Gun Safes. Trigger locks are, by far, the least expensive.
They are typically either a hard plastic or cast metal clam shell that
clamps over the trigger guard of a firearm and prevents the operation
of the trigger itself. Most do not prevent the articulation of other
portions of the firearm such as the slide, bolt, safety, external
hammers, magazine release, etc. Further, trigger locks are typically
either unlocked with a small key similar to that of a padlock or a
small combination dial like that on brief cases. Both of these have
proven extremely difficult to operate under high stress and are,
frankly, poor choices for securing firearms intended for in-home
Defense. Gun safes, on the other hand are typically much more
expensive but also much more secure. They range in size from a large
shoe box size intended to house only one or two handguns to
refrigerator sized safes to custom installed "walk-in" rooms. Gun
safes, like padlocks, are unlocked via key or combination. There are
a number of safes being marketed now with a push-button combination
entry. The idea is that you position your fingers over the four or
five buttons corresponding to your fingers and quickly "type" in the
combination to gain quick access. The push-button entry safes have
shown themselves to be easier to operate under stress than either the
key lock or traditional combination style safes.
[Justifiable Use of Weapons]
The use of any clearly identifiable weapon, whether "Less Lethal,"
Improvised, or traditional will be subject to the laws and ethics
surrounding such items. Before you carry any weapon for Self Defense,
familiarize yourself with the laws dealing with Justifiable Force in
your area and Subject: 10 - Deadly Force and the Force Continuum.
------------------------------
AIKIKENJITSU
Green Belt
Well, I researched once long ago for my state of Washington. May not remember all, but in essence, some states let's you hold your ground and fight, the house intruder and some states say you have to keep backing up until you're out of your own house, which I don't like.
Each state is different when it comes using force. Some states demand that you keep backing up until you are pushed out of your home. I don't believe in that.
Can you use lethal force? In Washington State, the short answer is NO. If you beat him to death, that might be construed as too much force. So long as the force is not more than is necessary in order to expel the intruder from your home. If you beat him to a pulp in your own home, you might be the one going to jail. I know, not fair, but each state has its own rules.
At least in Washington state, I don't have to keep backing up till I'm out of my own home.
I
Kind of a moot point. This thread was from nine years ago. I suspect the putative intruder has died of old age by now, so beating them is unnecessary.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
This sounds right. There is no duty to retreat in Washington State, but you can't just kill a person if you don't believe you are in imminent danger.
Wing Woo Gar
Grandmaster
In California there is something called legal presumption when defending oneself in the home. If the perpetrators forcibly enter the home, the legal presumption is that they entered with intent to commit rape, robbery, murder, or mayhem. All of which are defensible with lethal force. There is no requirement to retreat when one is inside their own home. This presumption must first be overcome before the home defender can even be charged with a crime. This legal presumption does not apply if the intruder was a ever a cohabitant of the defender. None of this would protect one from civil suit by the intruder, or their relatives in the case of a deceased intruder.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Sounds good to me. I am certainly no expert on this.
In Washington State, per this guy (who seems credible), "Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another"."
