It is apparent that the liberal snowflakes have discovered pepper spray as an ambush weapon. Just about anything can cause them to assault an unsuspecting individual with pepper spray. It's a smart tactic on their part, mostly less than lethal force which may enable them to get away with the crime. However, sooner or later in the process, some of them may get their brains blown out. I think this is what the left wants, after all, the only thing you lose is another useful idiot, one easily replaced. In my state a response to such an attack by lethal force is technically legal. However, in my research this opinion is not universal. It now seems that libs are so unhinged that any act or symbol may set them off. The big question is do you smoke them or not? Morally I don't have a problem with their ticket getting punched. This big question is legality. Your thoughts. Mod Warning in this thread
The use of pepper spray and other chemical agents may be regarded as less than lethal, but in practice this is hardly a set standard. Numerous deaths have been attributed to exposure to such chemical agents for one reason or another, making it potentially just as lethal as being shot with a firearm.
You're absolutely right. Try pepper spraying a cop and you'll almost surely get shot in the process. However, in this day and age, the cop might even be at risk for prosecution.
There is, and that if a leftist assaults a person with pepper spray in an unprovoked attack then said leftist is liable to get his brains blown out the back side of his head. After all it seems that the left is getting increasing unhinged and that just about anything including something as innocuous as wearing a hat might set them off.
It's a non issue for Australians since they voluntarily neutered themselves as a people. Disarmed, they are now permanently a nation of serfs. So, no worries.
The point to the above, is that the liberal democratic party in the united states, the party that claims itself to be one of tolerance, is demonstrating greater and greater levels of violence and intolerance against others who share dissenting ideas and values. Fire bombings, looting, random assaults with deadly force, destruction of private property, and countless other criminal acts are being utilized as primary responses without what a rational person would conclude is just cause. A great many of these acts could be accurately counted as acts of domestic terrorism within the united states.
Poor Aussies. But getting spayed makes for a better pet. But back to the OP. Polar bear hunting and knock out game were a tactic that the left has used for years. Of course you need a banger or would be banger for this. With pepper spray, some of the snowflakes are in the game.
If you are going to use lethal force against a person, you are going to have to have a reasonable belief that you are in danger of death or serious physical injury. (Pepper spray does not cause "serious physical injury".) So I would doubt that merely being pepper sprayed would justify the use of deadly physical force. However, if the use of the spray were a part of a more protracted attack, it would be reasonable to believe that you were in danger of serious physical injury or death. So, as is often the case, it is the "totality of the circumstances" and "reasonableness" that really decides whether or not deadly physical force is justified. My two cents, but this is an area I have a lot of experience in.
Great so you can expound upon it. In my state, I have a lot of leeway, but some of it would depend upon the jurisdiction and circumstances. In other states, like NY, you might be in trouble. All I have to say is that I was in fear of my life and that goes a long way. A pepper spray attack can be either a felony or a misdemeanor. With a felonious assault, I'm completely in the clear. Intent of the assailant will come into play. Of course if my big Alsatian is present, he might decide the issue before I could.
Excellent response. Pepper spray is used by LEO to control a situation/subject. You have no idea of what the assailant's intent is after you are sprayed.
Yes, it is also going to depend on the state laws of the given state. My comments were meant to be taken in a general sense, but generally, you would need to articulate a reasonable belief that you were in danger of serious physical injury or death. I am always armed, and I wouldn't hesitate to use my weapon if I thought those circumstances existed. In a mob situation, if I felt like I was going to become the victim of a sustained attack, I'd be shooting.
So, this is what America has come to...the battle of the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) pepper sprays! Use stronger nitrogen powered, large size 'cone' pepper spray for long distance shooting. Bear spray is very powerful and long distance but it is not legal for human consumption. Class 4 lasers are used as weapons and can blind a person from 50 yards or more so they can't get close for pepper spray. Although the lasers may cause cornea damage...so I am not recommending it. Tactical flashlight can also blind. Once blinded give them the gas. The fascist dems will read this and do the same, so the fastest to the draw wins! In many states like NJ, NY you have to use small capacity, watered down spray to be legal. If someone with a respiratory condition gets gassed they can die. Here is the bottom line from Jim Grover...if you don't want to go someplace without a gun, then don't go there with a gun. You are just looking for a gunfight if you do.
The use of pepper spray, and other similar chemical agents, has resulted in numerous recorded deaths.
Interestingly, approved bear spray isn't as "hot" (in the pepper sense) as human spray (human spray is typically 10% OC, bear spray 1-2% OC (OC being the the capsicum which is what makes peppers hot). Bears have much more sensitive noses than we do, and human strength pepper is unnecessary and harmful. Don't use bear spray for self-defense, not because it's too powerful, but because it's too weak.
Yes, and you understood it in its entirety. You had no substantive response, however, and therefore replied with inanity.
Ambushing someone with the intent to incapacitate them, whether with pepper spray or a blunt object or whatnot, immediately creates a reasonable fear of bodily harm or death. Assuming no safe means to retreat, you have the right to use deadly force in self-defense.
That's true and common sense. The big HOWEVER is the jurisdiction. Lets face it, cops are being prosecuted for shooting armed criminals. I see the tactics of using pepper spray continuing with the eventual conclusion of some moron getting his ticket punched in the process. For me, my training and inclination is more than likely to stick a snub up the guys nose.
Don't know Jim Grover but because of the nature of the world we live in, I don't want to go anywhere with out a gun....does that mean I should always stay home or should I just always be prepared for the worst but hope for the best?
You're right -- it -will- continue until someone gets shot. Hopefully the shooter is not charged or is acquitted, as a conviction for this will only result in more instances where a moron with pepper spray gets shot. - - - Updated - - - Funny how gun-related violent crime is -so- bad that's you're a fool to oppose more gun control, but not so bad that you have any need to carry a gun.
I try to avoid dangerous areas with bad people. The more urban liberals, the more dangerous an area is. If I happened to be armed with a concealed handgun at the time a criminal pepper sprayed me in order to further assault, or rob me or my family, I would have every right to shoot them. Unless the person was much weaker than me, I'd most likely pull the weapon and convince the thug to stand down. Then shoot only if I had to. I have been in an Army CS gas chamber before, and remained calm during the time. In my opinion, ALL carjackers and home invasion artists should be killed on the spot, or executed later. ALL
I researched it a few years ago for an argument on a backpacking site. It makes sense when you think about it.