Steophan, by this point it seems like you’d be tired of twisting my words to suit your martyr agenda. Again: other runners, hikers, and bike riders who are also carrying pepper spray stop and chat, say hi, ask directions, and generally share camaraderie without giving pepper spray a single thought. It’s a tool. See below:
The presence of facial tattoos, mullets, and Crocs also discourage small talk. Are those weapons in your world too?
Ah, then your beef is with the people who perceive the presence of pepper spray as a threat. Because my *intended use *is a dog deterrent and a back-up plan if I’m physically assaulted. If my sole intent was to discourage small talk, I could carry a rubber chicken, a live weasel, or copies of the Watchtower. But I suppose you consider those weapons, too, since each could serve to repel unwanted advances from strangers.
Frankly your tenacious grip on the weakest argument in an exhausting thread is a little nuts. *Actual *crime is scarier than a non-lethal crime deterrent. You get that, right?
Yes, it is an act of violence. The law also has considerations for the seriousness of that violence. Pepper spray, as a legal defensive weapon, meant to incapacitate, is viewed lower on the rung of weapon-related violent threats.
Though I hate to once again labor the word “overreaction” in this thread, it’s a bit of an overreaction to be that alarmed at the mere sight of spray, which when referencing Troppus’ case, was worn in an acceptable manner for someone out running. That’s a generic carrying case, not one drawn and pulled on me, specifically (elevator)-- the motivation is what separates the two, and makes the latter more offensive (from my perspective).
This is aside from what I wrote, but yes, you can’t just go around inadvertently spraying people. I wouldn’t draw that conclusion from any reasonable response offered in this thread. If there is reasonable cause, yes, I advocate using it. If there isn’t, no. If the assault is actually taking place, it’s arguable that its too late-- you have to make a judgement call and be mindful of the consequences, both good and bad.
Ultimately, I’m not an expert, which is why a judge/jury will better decide, as based on context.
In answer to the first question, I’d honestly say use your discretion-- not all threats are equal, and neither do they require the same response. In MD, trying to draw a direct parallel with something more lethal, such as a gun, will carry greater legal ramifications, because as I said before, the law relates lethality with seriousness, when it comes to violence (for obvious reasons). You’d almost certainly be better off mistakenly spraying someone in the face, as opposed to shooting them in the face.
As to your second question, yes-- I’m sure law enforcement protocol deals with this all the time, as they can have access to both options, when facing the same threat. Ultimately, though, it doesn’t really help or counter the overall point I was expressing. To save effort, if the idea serves a point you’re trying to make, it’s better to just state it.
No, she’s saying because it’s a defensive weapon, holding it is not a violent act. The subject in the original scenario did not use the pepper spray. The words keep changing, like when “grabbing” became “touching”… :dubious:
I agree. I am not at all alarmed by the sight of carried (as opposed to brandished) pepper spray. Nor by other personal weapons. I think people have a right to armed self-defense, which obviously entails the right and expectation of carrying weapons in the course of ordinary activities.
I imagine you would be better off, in terms of the legal consequences you’d be facing for your crime, yes.
But I’m saying the judgment itself would not be less wrong; either way, you’ve attacked someone, with a weapon, who was not a threat to you.
No, it’s a threat of violence. There’s no reason to have a weapon in your hand, in public, unless you intend to use it. Anyone who sees you with it can reasonably assume you’re a threat. That’s how the law works on these things, which is why it makes sense to carry it in your pocket.
Oh, and if you actually read my posts, I’ve repeatedly said that defending oneself against grabbing is fine, but one needs to determine whether a situation is actually a threat. Touching isn’t, excepting sexual assault.
There is no way any court would see cowering in the corner while holding pepper spray as an assault. It wouldn’t even get as far as court. You’re being ridiculous.
I think you’ve lost me a bit, here. Your original scenario assumed spraying was a defensible position, and you tried to establish a parallel with more lethal weapons. You then asked if there were acceptable cases to use one (spray), and not the other (gun), in order to establish a dichotomy. If you’re now saying an innocent person is being attacked, this differs from the two former questions, and has already been addressed.
The law isn’t that absolute-- at most, it says you can be held liable, which makes absolute sense. Otherwise, it’s left to interpretation, by those better versed in the law, or appointed to discern the context of the offense.
So I should assume that the hundreds of rifle and pistol toting patrons at the local gun shows are posing a “reasonable threat” to my safety? The public parking lot is 2 blocks from the convention center, and nearly everyone in attendance walks the sidewalks and crosses two streets with a rifle across his or her shoulder, clutched at waist level, or held across the breast. Sometimes two at a time. Pistols are also held in the hand, sometimes holstered but just as often not.
Thanks for the info, I can’t wait for the next gun show. I’ll pepper spray the lot of 'em.
So basically Steophan and Solosam want women to keep their pepper spray tucked away where chances are they can’t use it until they’ve already been attacked. Nice plan, guys. I guess a few more assaulted women is a small price to pay to spare your feelings.
So a threat is the same as an act? Because I addressed “violent act(s).”
And don’t tell me how the law works in my state and how it applies to me. You are not factually correct with your blanket generalization.
Oh, and if you actually read my posts you would answer why you altered the word “grabbing” into “touching.” (see Post 508) I’ve drawn your attention to it twice now. I can accept it’s a typo, but you don’t seem to want to talk about it.
Precisely the question. So far my google-fu has been unable to turn up any cases, whether I google pepper spray and threat, pepper spray and brandish, or pepper spray and menace. Steophan appears to have invented an entirely novel legal theory. (I also added the word “criminal” to see if it’d get results–no dice). The only results that show up involve actual, not Steophan-style, use of the pepper spray.
By contrast, it’s trivially easy to pull up examples of similar crimes with knives, guns, baseball bats, and fists.
Steophan, you’ve been asked several times and as far as I can tell have declined to answer: if your legal theory is correct, how do you account for your inability to find a single case in which it’s been applied?
I was referring to work relationships in specific and casual relationships in general. You are referring to people in a more than casual relationship.
In general, men don’t change, so if he is beating the crap out of her, he would most likely have exibited signs of violence in the early stages of a relationship. Frankly, I’m tired of pathetic people that stay in a relationship where one partner has hit the other. The only sane course of action is to leave the day violence occurs. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Ladies, you can’t make men change- deal with it. Either use a bat on the thug’s head the next time he hits you, or get out and go to the police, but stop being the eternal victim and stop whining.
It’s much, much more complicated than that, especially when kids or shared property are involved. (That goes for either male or female DV victims). Attitudes like yours just encourage people to keep quiet about what’s happening and blame themselves; they don’t actually help at all.
And violence is definitely not always there from the beginning.
Which would you rather see - victims of abuse getting out of abusive relationships or victims of abuse staying in abusive relationships? Because your attitude only encourages the latter, not the former. Telling someone they’re an eternal victim who should stop whining doesn’t cause that person to suddenly come to their senses, slap their forehead, gather up their children and pets, and GTFO. It causes them to feel shame, helplessness, and hopelessness. It reinforces their abuser’s repeated statements that no one else wants them, that they can’t take care of themselves, and that they don’t deserve a healthy relationship.
The fact that you value your need to condemn those who’ve been injured by violence over their need for the support necessary to escape that violence does not make you a righteous man. It makes you . . . [checks forum] . . . ahem . . . misguided at best.
I doubt that the abusive partner waits till after children arrive to become violent, so yes, leave at the first instance of violence. It won’t stop, and you can’t change someone’s fundamental character, no matter how much you think you can.
If the violence is a “surprise”, it’s probably because they didn’t wait long enough to really get to know each other before moving in together and having children.
But I’m not going to waste any more time on a thread about men being creepy talking to a man who’s claiming to know more about domestic violence on women* than female victims themselves.
*Just FTR, this is because it was only female victims Doggo was addressing.
Hey, face it: men are creepier than women! Or more accurately, of all the creepy people I’ve known, way more were men than women. No doubt if I were a women, the odds would be even higher.
I can’t remember ever worrying or modifying my behavior to avoid being considered a creep, but I bet I’d have behaved similarly to what Disposable Hero described above.
There’s definitely a double standard. The use of stats to justify worrying more about men than women is just the kind of thing that would be considered sexism if applied to women. But, men usually get the breaks so we don’t expect too much grieving on this score. Also, people go way over the top regarding anything that threatens children – I think we’re genetically programmed to do that, and have come to expect it. So, I don’t expect it to be treated the same way as other kinds of sexism.