JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
There is NO way to KNOW the disparity in force until after the incident. How do you KNOW what the other person is capable of doing or their intent?

Real simple "less then lethal" does not mean it can not seriously injure or kill someone. So if you are going to use them they should only be used under the same situations where lethal would be appropriate. So IF you feel threatened enough to use "LTL" the threat would be enough to justify lethal force.

If I am attacked I will assume that they mean to kill me or seriously injure me which will change my life or lively hood. I have no reason to believe that ANYONE that would attack me would have other plans. So I will respond appropriately.

But that is where the continuum of force comes in. Verbal commands, expose firearm and continue with verbal commands, draw/aim and continue with verbal commands, finally more verbal commands followed by lethal force.
Not entirely disagreeing with you but learning more, not all of this makes sense to me to say that LTL force = the same conditions as lethal force. I don't want to get stuck in a predetermined mindset that assumes all attacks are equal just because I'm being attacked. I'm not saying that its easy to tell someone couldn't change your life when attacking but all things are not equal. If this is true then LTL devices are worthless marketing. I'm willing to learn more but might need to visualize some scenarios and don't want to hijack the OP's thread.... (unless its relevant or he doesn't care)
 
I think LTL stuff is great for LEO since they deal with situation no civilian should face and also a good option for those that want protection but don't want to use firearms.

Do a search for "civilian use of less then lethal force" and you will get tons of hit. A LTL device IS a weapon. The ONLY time is appropriate to use a weapon is when you are in fear of your life. That means you have one choice of a weapon, I know I will not be taking the best one I can get.

Again if the steps of verbal commands along with showing, then drawing followed by aiming is not stopping an attack it can be very well assumed the attacker is not just trying to come give you a hug. IF you are legitimately trying to defend yourself because you are in "fear of your life/livelihood" what do you want to use?
 
I think LTL stuff is great for LEO since they deal with situation no civilian should face and also a good option for those that want protection but don't want to use firearms.

Do a search for "civilian use of less then lethal force" and you will get tons of hit. A LTL device IS a weapon. The ONLY time is appropriate to use a weapon is when you are in fear of your life. That means you have one choice of a weapon, I know I will not be taking the best one I can get.

Again if the steps of verbal commands along with showing, then drawing followed by aiming is not stopping an attack it can be very well assumed the attacker is not just trying to come give you a hug. IF you are legitimately trying to defend yourself because you are in "fear of your life/livelihood" what do you want to use?
I guess I'd have to study case law on the use of LTL force specific to pepper spray but in the mean time the question I have is if the use of LTL (OC spray) force is legally considered the same as deadly force (firearm) when physical force is justified?

I agree with you comments about verbal commands and the continuum of force... but the grey area between physical force and lethal force (justified) is huge.
 
I guess I'd have to study case law on the use of LTL force specific to pepper spray but in the mean time the question I have is if the use of LTL (OC spray) force is legally considered the same as deadly force (firearm) when physical force is justified?

I agree with you comments about verbal commands and the continuum of force... but the grey area between physical force and lethal force (justified) is huge.

I don't know about the case law, but ORS has this :

161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

161.015 General definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Dangerous weapon" means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(2) "Deadly weapon" means any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
 
161.209 supports my thoughts that using LTL force is not the same requirement as using lethal force. The "reasonably" clause is wide open for interpretation by a jury of peers that are most likely not all gun owners....
 
161.209 supports my thoughts that using LTL force is not the same requirement as using lethal force. The "reasonably" clause is wide open for interpretation by a jury of peers that are most likely not all gun owners....

Well, besides the fact there is 161.219 that further restricts use of deadly force, I would say there is little difference if solely looking at ORS. Both deadly and other force are subject to necessity, and the amount of force permissible is dictated by the situation. Btw, a lot of people here disagree on the meaning of 161.219, I cited http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921809843P2d966_11765 before for clarification.
 
Both deadly and other force are subject to necessity, and the amount of force permissible is dictated by the situation.
I think the key here is for the victim to understand and identify the difference between assault and aggravated assault. When does assault turn into aggravated assault?

I have never heard of a case where the victim was required to take a beating before using lethal force or be found guilty of murder, but there are plenty of cases where the victim was convicted for using lethal force when it wasn't required... the takeaway here is do everything you can to not use lethal force be it verbal commands, pepper spray, or presentation of a weapon.

In regards to the OP's question based on his story he did what a reasonable person would have done and would have been in his favor if it escalated to deadly force. There is no reason to assume anything less than permanent injury from a threatening attacker when already injured from the car accident situation.
 
To shoot or not to shoot...when threatened with imminent physical threat, or to protect your loved ones, you may be justified. But let's flesh this out just a bit...you are pretty badly hurt, your children perhaps crying, this guy yelling at you, and a crowd gathering around your car.

I don't know about you, but at the range on IDPA practice night, just drawing and shooting at the sound of a buzzer can cause a bullet to miss unintentionally. Given the scenario above, shooting while injured, with a cluttered (with innocents) background could cause grave unintended results.

Glad you didn't have to shoot. And to draw and not shoot? To brandish? Not so sure that's a good idea either.
 
Lets look at the word "brandishing" since it keeps coming up, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish

1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner


In self defense you are not "brandishing" a weapon when you expose or draw your firearm. You are taking the steps necessary in order to defend yourself. You are escalating the level of force as needed to stop the attack.

To draw and not shoot is a WONDERFUL idea. If the escalation to drawing your weapon is what stops the attack that was the correct level of response. Of course you are not going to shot, if drawing has stopped the attack, if you do then you will find yourself in some trouble.

Again I am not sure why exposing or even drawing your firearm is a bad idea. I think a LOT of these people who have been in actual situations might disagree, http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx Obviously it has to be in the right situation where you believe you may have to use it. You can't just pull a gun because someone made you mad in the store, that would be brandishing.
 
In self defense you are not "brandishing" a weapon when you expose or draw your firearm. You are taking the steps necessary in order to defend yourself. You are escalating the level of force as needed to stop the attack.

Here is an article I refer to that covers this. What I like about this article is it covers the use of escalation to reaching for, or drawing like Nwcid describes. I think its page 15/16
http://web.archive.org/web/20120522232945/http://www.safeism.com/pdfs/SNContacts.pdf

(ps: if you like the article its a good one to save as a pdf as the original web address is no longer available)
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top