You can’t be serious. Yes, of course there are situations where pepper spraying a person is appropriate but shooting them is not.
Jesus.
Would you describe such a scenario, please?
I’m interested in whether you disagree with the first part of my proposition, that it is not acceptable to pepper-spray someone who isn’t actually causing or threatening imminent harm; or the second, that it is acceptable to defend oneself in such circumstances with other weapons.
I don’t buy your false dilemma. No one is discussing a situation where anyone has pepper sprayed someone not causing or threatening harm.
And that is independent from whether or not it is acceptable to defend oneself with different weapons in a situation where someone is causing or threatening imminent harm.
Sorry, badly phrased there. To be clear, do you agree or disagree with,
1,
and 2,
If you disagree with 1, you’re saying that you can pepper-spray someone who isn’t an imminent threat to you.
If you disagree with 2, you’re saying that you can’t defend yourself by whatever means necessary under actual attack.
Excuse me, you’re the one who says there’s an important difference between the scenarios of defending oneself with pepper-spray, and defending oneself with gun or other means.
I’m saying there is no moral difference–no dilemma.
I believe using pepper spray when a target has committed assault or threatened harm is appropriate. Nobody in this thread has discussed pepper spraying someone due to a hunch, or a personal history.
No, they are not the same terms. I believe the law in most states requires you to actually fear for your life to use proportional response (i.e. a gun or a knife) in response. So no, simply saying “committed an assault or unmistakably threatening harm” is not substantial enough to justify the use of lethal force. Which pepper spray is not.
Saying that if I disagree with your premise 2 means that I am “saying that you can’t defend yourself by whatever means necessary under actual attack” is untrue. You’re providing for a very vague definition of threat in your premise, and a very specific definition in your conclusion. Pepper spray is a low level response, escalating response includes lethal force.
Bob just broke up with his larger and stronger girlfriend Carol at the food mart. Carol’s not liking it, and she grabs Bob’s left arm. “Let go!” he says. “You’re bruising me!” It hurts.
Carol refuses to let go. “You’re not going anywhere until we finish this conversation.” She yanks on his arm again.
Bob looks down at his waist. He can easily reach his pepper spray, or his revolver. He shrugs. “Eeny, meenie, miney, moe. . . .”
Trick question. Being a guy, he can’t use either against a woman without being arrested and likely sent to prison. He can’t afford to defend himself by so much as pushing her away unless she’s armed with a lethal weapon and actively trying to kill him, and even that’s only if he regards prison as better than death since that’s where he’s likely to go, regardless of the provocation.
She on the other hand can shoot him out of hand, and not only not be punished but most likely the cops will arrest him not her, unless the local laws give them no choice at all in the matter.
Yes they have, that was the whole point of the elevator story. I’m sure you’ll again claim that threatening someone with a weapon isn’t the same as “using” it, but you’d be wrong. Again.
This is pretty much correct. You can use your pepper spray any time that, if the situation was reversed, I could punch you in the face. So, a direct threat. Having previously committed assault isn’t valid, if the threat has now gone.
No, it isn’t, any more than punching you in the face would be a low level response. It’s a less dangerous response than shooting you, obviously, but it’s still a violent response, and one that’s not proportionate in all cases.
Thanks for being the first to provide an actual example, anyway.
To my thinking, neither weapon is remotely appropriate in that scenario (nor would it be with genders or sizes rearranged).
Are you really saying that’s a time for pepper spray? A person you know grabbing your arm for a moment, demanding to talk?
And in a public place, I note.
Not to defend the grabber in the scene, but–yikes. This is not a really extreme circumstance. Probably most people have had moments like this with friends or family.
I don’t think pepper spray’s justified in that example, but do you really think Bob would be equally culpable if he chose to take out his gun and shoot his gf, rather than pepper spray her? The damage would be the same and the charge would be the same? There’s no way you can possibly believe that and still be intelligent enough to type words on a screen.
But then Steophan thinks that a women cowering while holding a spray is assault, and Der Trihs is being Der Trihs, so who knows what you actually think.
No, I think it’s brandishing a weapon, a different crime to assault. It becomes assault when someone us directly threatened with the weapon (or without a weapon, for that matter).
Once more: please quote us the relevant statute.
Perhaps it’s not pepper-spray appropriate; I was sleepy when I wrote it. Add some details, then. Carol says, “I’m gonna fuck you up,” and Bob has reason to believe that, while Carol can’t kill him before a mall cop intervenes, she’ll be able to land a few good punches.
The underlying point, however, is legally uncontroversial. A self-defense defense in court requires the use of proportional force. If you can stop an attack with pepper spray, but you choose a gun instead, you cannot successfully plead self-defense.
You keep saying this over and over like it’s true, but you’re utterly incapable of finding anything legally to demonstrate that holding pepper spray in your hand and pulling the trigger are identical actions under the law. So, once more, put up, or shut the fuck up with this ridiculous line of reasoning.
No one in the elevator story has ever even mentioned actually engaging the pepper spray, just holding it in a defensive way. For fuck’s sake.
I already quoted you relevant laws in 50 states that differentiate between possessing pepper spray and engaging the trigger. “Hold in your hand” does not equal “engage the trigger”. In order to use pepper spray on someone, it actually has to come flying out the front and onto the target person. To claim that simply holding it in your hand is equal to using it is stupid.
So as long as someone has punched me in the face, but is only on the back swing of pulling his fist away from me, we can’t be really sure that person plans to punch me another time, or whether he has only “previously assaulted” me. Got it.
Did I say it was proportionate in all cases? Do you see how you try and say that it’s not a low level response, and then say yes it’s a lower level response than using a gun, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place?
For an example, I’d say Troppus’s story about jogging and being chased is a pretty good one. One that, for the record, Steophan agreed that the level of reaction was appropriate to the threat.
However, here it is once again for the reading impaired.
CALIFORNIA: Legal with restrictions.
Subject to certain restrictions, Section 12403.7 of the Penal Code provides “any person may purchase, possess or use tear gas and tear gas weapons for the projection or release of tear gas if the tear gas and tear gas weapons are used solely for self-defense purposes”
See how the law differentiates between purchasing, possessing, and using for the projection or release of tear gas? How “using” is followed by “the projection or release of tear gas” and not “to deter an attack”? Will you stop pretending that holding it in your hand is the same as using it?
Here’s the relevant law from Colorado. Knowingly placing someone in a position where they fear injury. It’s a misdemeanor unless done with a deadly weapon, in which case it’s a felony.
This particular state’s law used, where it’s called menacing rather than brandishing, because it’s the first link from this wiki page.
I’m pretty sure being blinded counts as a serious injury.
It’s not as serious as using a gun, but it’s the same type of crime. Keep your weapons hidden, do not threaten people with them. The only reason one has a weapon in their hand is because they are willing to use it. If I see someone doing that, I quite reasonably consider them as a threat - and the law agrees with me.
No-one’s questioning your right to possess pepper spray. I suggest you actually read my posts, you know, the ones where I repeatedly say that it’s fine to carry pepper spray, and to use it if threatened.
Holding it in your fist is using it. People here have admitted as much, saying they are attempting to deter people from, among other things, talking to them. That’s not a legitimate use of a weapon. Sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s the law, and I very much doubt it will be changed soon.
If someone has assaulted you, they are a threat until such point as they make it clear they’re not, such as by running away, or by crawling around on the floor blinded. If they run, you may not follow and attack them. If you pepper spray them, as you would have every right to do in this situation, and they are no longer a threat, you may not use further violence.
No, you’ve been saying that, because it’s a “defensive weapon”, using it is not a violent act. Or at least, that’s what I’ve understood you to be saying, but that’s false.
Perhaps you also read my example, where I was assaulted, and would have had no opportunity to legitimately respond? I was punched by someone I’d not seen, then the (obviously drunk/drugged) guy ran away, and collapsed. If the same had happened to you, except it has been a grope not a punch, you would likewise have not been able to use your weapon - and if you had, as he ran away, it would have been illegal.
No, that says the weapons are for the projection or release of tear gas, and the use is solely for self-defence purposes. That supports precisely what I’ve been saying.
I can break it down for you if necessary, but in the other thread you claimed to be more than capable of reading, so hopefully you can do it for yourself.
Thanks for the cite. Do you have one that applies to the case in question?
Cowering away from someone clutching pepper spray to your chest is not putting them in a position where they fear injury, at least not for any reasonable person.
Of course, if you have a cite of someone convicting of menacing for cowering away from someone clutching pepper spray to his or her chest, then that’s a different story, and would establish your allegation. Do you have such a cite?
Regards,
Shodan
I think you should ask a police officer if holding pepper spray close to your body is the same as waving a gun around. I’m certain we have a few here, maybe you’d like to get an answer from them.
So let’s clear this up. If you come home to your wife, and say “Honey, I was in the elevator today and some lady used her pepper spray on me!” would she be wrong or right to assume she discharged it at you?
And again, we differ on the definition of the word “use”. You’re assuming that holding it in your hand is the law’s definition of using a weapon. Your own cite says that in order to be guilty of menacing, a person must place “another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury”. I believe you would be very hard pressed to convince a law enforcement officer that holding a pepper spray to your chest and not aimed at anyone put you in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
No, it’s still not. Again, you have to be able to demonstrate that you intend to place the other person in serious bodily injury. Holding it in a defensive way close to your body is not a menacing gesture.
“…DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MERE LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNLESS THE WEAPON IS USED TO PLACE OR ATTEMPT TO PLACE ANOTHER PERSON IN FEAR OF IMMINENT SERIOUS BODILY INJURY”
Holding it to your chest does not place, nor attempt to place, another person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm.
Ok. Nobody’s advocating using further violence on a person you’ve pepper sprayed, so I’m unsure why you feel the need to defend this point.
I never said it’s not a violent act. You’ve put those words entirely in my mouth. I’ve said it was not designed to be an offensive weapon, such as a gun or a knife, but a defensive one which permits a person time to run away from an assailant.
I did respond to your example. I said it was a cool story with absolutely no relevance, given the fact that not a single woman here has discussed running after someone to pepper spray them.
I’m just about done here. You should step back and listen to the alarmingly bullshit claims you’re making in this thread for a moment. You might be content to tell stories about guys who hit you and ran away and pretend for a minute that’s what we’re actually discussing here, but you’re wrong. We are discussing men who go after women and don’t take “leave me alone” for an answer. Your story is irrelevant and doesn’t demonstrate jack shit besides “Hey I got hit by a stranger once! I totally understaaaand!”. You’re making a lot of assumptions to prove your point, namely that “holding” = “using” = “threatening” = “menacing” which is a whole bunch of BS that I don’t think anyone but you and Der Trihs buy.
So, I’m out.