Less than lethal options

[meadeam]

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this topic...

I am wondering about less than lethal options for carry weapons. On the ccw badge thread, schmieg pointed out that an older individual is less able to either flee or sustain an attack, and so may be justified in using deadly force sooner than a younger person would be. I am somewhere between old and young, and still quite fit, athletic, and able to run fast. I would imagine the court would expect me to run or take a beating before using deadly force.

I am not going to fist-fight someone while armed with a handgun (or ever, if I can help it). I am certainly not above running if I am alone, but I'd prefer to be running from a somewhat disabled attacker. Do any of you carry a non-deadly type weapon as well as a firearm?

[Tweed Ring]

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this topic...

I am wondering about less than lethal options for carry weapons. On the ccw badge thread, schmieg pointed out that an older individual is less able to either flee or sustain an attack, and so may be justified in using deadly force sooner than a younger person would be. I am somewhere between old and young, and still quite fit, athletic, and able to run fast. I would imagine the court would expect me to run or take a beating before using deadly force.

I am not going to fist-fight someone while armed with a handgun (or ever, if I can help it). I am certainly not above running if I am alone, but I'd prefer to be running from a somewhat disabled attacker. Do any of you carry a non-deadly type weapon as well as a firearm?

The best reason not to resort to fisticuffs when armed with a handgun, is that every such confrontation is an armed confrontation. Opponent could grab your weapon in the struggle.

Non-lethal options are limited to small impact/control devices, e.g. Kubaton/Persuader, chemical sprays, etc. The best weapon is, I believe, situational awareness, and the ability to find a safe exit and to use same.

[jose45]

Definitely situational awareness is your best,first defense.If it's less than lethal why bother? If running is an option try to always have someone along that is slower than you.Remember,you don't have to outrun the bear just..............just kidding.

ETA: I always carry a good cutting tool.Always handy in any situation and in places that being armed is not an option.

[djthomas]

Non-lethal options are limited to small impact/control devices, e.g. Kubaton/Persuader, chemical sprays, etc.

I'm not a fan of sprays because they take some time to be effective and if the wind is blowing the wrong way in most cases you will contaminate yourself as well. IMHO the best less lethal weapon is a good quality baton like an ASP. With proper training a baton can be extremely effective. Trouble there is a baton can be considered a deadly weapon and with that comes all of the usual legal issues surrounding concealed carry. Furthermore pretty much every city that has any kind of a "carrying prohibited weapons" statute (and many of them do) includes batons in the list of prohibited weapons.

I believe that keychain gadgets like Kubaton Persuaders are nifty little toys but are very difficult to use effectively in the heat of battle, particularly without extensive training and practice. These, too, could attract unwanted police attention during an otherwise routine encounter such as a traffic stop. If I absolutely had to have something on my keychain I would probably go with a sturdy keychain flashlight - at least there would be a plausible lawful use for that. I would stay away from models like the Defender that are designed and marketed for use as weapons.

The best weapon is, I believe, situational awareness, and the ability to find a safe exit and to use same.

This.

[BobK]

Please also note there is a potential legal downside to having one or more non-lethal alternatives available.

A person opens himself up to the risk of having how he used force second-guessed. Assume a person is in a situation where deadly force is clearly justified. If all you had was a gun, then that is all you had. However, if you had a taser, for example, but you shot the guy, now a jury has the chance to argue whether you should have used a taser instead of shooting him.

[meadeam]

I agree with everyone's comments on situational awareness. Indeed, is has served me well all these years of being unarmed. I have not been in a fight since grade school, and I have always managed to get gone when things go wrong.

I think a sharp tool and a flashlight are on my list. The instructor had some good ones at my CCDW class, but they were pretty expensive, and I wanted to shop around a bit.

I'd like my wife to have something. She is very aware, and doesn't take risks or go places she shouldn't. I'd like her to have a weapon though, and I don't think she will carry a handgun. She is going to a ladies self-defense class this month. Perhaps the instructor will give her some ideas.

Please also note there is a potential legal downside to having one or more non-lethal alternatives available.

A person opens himself up to the risk of having how he used force second-guessed. Assume a person is in a situation where deadly force is clearly justified. If all you had was a gun, then that is all you had. However, if you had a taser, for example, but you shot the guy, now a jury has the chance to argue whether you should have used a taser instead of shooting him.

Hmm. Yeah, good point.

[Tweed Ring]

Non-lethal options are limited to small impact/control devices, e.g. Kubaton/Persuader, chemical sprays, etc.

I'm not a fan of sprays because they take some time to be effective and if the wind is blowing the wrong way in most cases you will contaminate yourself as well. IMHO the best less lethal weapon is a good quality baton like an ASP. With proper training a baton can be extremely effective. Trouble there is a baton can be considered a deadly weapon and with that comes all of the usual legal issues surrounding concealed carry. Furthermore pretty much every city that has any kind of a "carrying prohibited weapons" statute (and many of them do) includes batons in the list of prohibited weapons.

I believe that keychain gadgets like Kubaton Persuaders are nifty little toys but are very difficult to use effectively in the heat of battle, particularly without extensive training and practice. These, too, could attract unwanted police attention during an otherwise routine encounter such as a traffic stop. If I absolutely had to have something on my keychain I would probably go with a sturdy keychain flashlight - at least there would be a plausible lawful use for that. I would stay away from models like the Defender that are designed and marketed for use as weapons.

The best weapon is, I believe, situational awareness, and the ability to find a safe exit and to use same.

This.

I like firearms, but I love impact weapons. The PR-24 baton is a wonderful device, once the individual is trained in its usage. But, as you say, carriage of such devices is generally illegal. I can escalate or de-escalate the application/level of force with a baton, i.e. application of various restraining techniques, application of various striking techniques, application of various fencing and disarming techniques, and combinations thereof. I simply do not have all those options with a firearm. Were it legal in Ohio, I would carry my expandable PR-24 every day.

I'm not a fan of grappling, nor sprays, nor Tazers, nor monkey balls, etc. I like simple things, things which are not prone to failure, breakage, nor dependent upon the whims of the elements.

I am a certified Instructor/Trainer for the PR-24 Baton, the Straight Baton, as well as the Persuader Baton. I have only used the Persuader Baton once, as a last ditch device. It worked for me that one time. That's all I ask.

[BriKuz]

I find it interesting that 9.68 preempts local regulation of firearms carry, but does nothing about preempting local regulation of batons, knives, etc... why are these arms not protected as FIREarms? This point just keeps popping into my head... (though I can see the anti's argument already: "It will be like Feudal Japan, with people chopping off limbs left and right! There will be blood in the streets!")

[Klingon00]

I find it interesting that 9.68 preempts local regulation of firearms carry, but does nothing about preempting local regulation of batons, knives, etc... why are these arms not protected as FIREarms? This point just keeps popping into my head... (though I can see the anti's argument already: "It will be like Feudal Japan, with people chopping off limbs left and right! There will be blood in the streets!")

Keep in mind, both the Ohio Constitution and the 2A both recognize a "Right to bear arms". The 2A doesn't even specify firearms by name. My understanding is that "arms" in this context is any weapon which may be carried. It seems that everyone (including 9.68) focuses on firearms law, but shouldn't it also apply to knives and such too?

Note, neither limits us to bearing only firearms as far as I can tell...

Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution

“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”

2A of US Bill of Rights

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Please also note there is a potential legal downside to having one or more non-lethal alternatives available.

A person opens himself up to the risk of having how he used force second-guessed. Assume a person is in a situation where deadly force is clearly justified. If all you had was a gun, then that is all you had. However, if you had a taser, for example, but you shot the guy, now a jury has the chance to argue whether you should have used a taser instead of shooting him.

On the other hand, if all you have is a hammer ...

If deadly force isn't justified, then it isn't justified and the fact that you felt you had no other option doesn't change that. Yes in the other scenario a jury may question why you didn't use your non-deadly option, but there's no legal requirement to use non-deadly force, if available, in response to a deadly threat and your lawyer would have to make that point.

[djthomas]

I don't want to veer this too far off topic but in regards to 9.68 only applying to firearms I think it's a very complicated issue, particularly as concerns home rule. The Ohio Revised Code has extensive regulations concerning firearms all of which are constitutionally permissible under Article I, § 4. In the absence of a statewide standard (general law), home rule cities and counties are allowed to adopt such regulations under Article XVIII, §§ 3 and 7. In other words if the state could permissibly regulate something then a home rule entity may regulate it if the state has not exclusively done so.

The Supreme Court upheld 9.68 on the grounds that the state has already comprehensively regulated firearms, both as concerns concealed carry and many other aspects. When it comes to non-firearms weapons the ORC is virtually silent beyond ballistic knives and a prohibition against carrying anything that could be a deadly weapon concealed, or in any manner on school grounds, in a jail, or a courthouse.

If 9.68 were to simply be amended to cover all deadly weapons I think many home rule entities (e.g. Cleveland) would argue that it is not a general law (and thus no preemption) because the state has not comprehensively addressed the issue. On the other hand if the state were to vastly expand the existing weapons controls laws to turn the CHL into a CDWL, impose age restrictions for possession/transfer*, blade limits for knives (possibly), impose "prohibited person" and "intoxicated person" rules, regulate sellers of non-firearm deadly weapons and so forth then I think it might have a chance of withstanding constitutional scrutiny.

The one thing that the state cannot do is say "cities cannot regulate X" unless the state has a comprehensive scheme in place to regulate X. Comprehensive need not be exhaustive but it must be substantive. As it stands today outlawing a single type of knife, prescribing three prohibited places and imposing a general concealed carry prohibition probably doesn't meet that bar.

* Can of worms alert - knives would be particularly troublesome.

[SMMAssociates]

Just as a CYA for everybody, other than bladed weapons, it's usually "less lethal" rather than "less than lethal"....

I have a cute little ballpoint pen that could easily be a deadly weapon in the hands of a skilled operator. In my case, mostly for opening the foil caps on drug bottles .... But it could ruin somebody's day. However, "less lethal" probably applies - the mix of skill and luck required to achieve a fatal injury makes it somewhat unlikely. Pepper spray can be lethal, of course, and impact weapons can kill, but the "less lethal" view says that it's somewhat unlikely. But it's NOT impossible at all. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that you can't kill somebody with most of those.

The problem, of course, is that you usually can't carry anything more dangerous than pepper spray. The "why didn't you just spray the BG?" mess makes that kind of iffy.

Regards,

[djthomas]

I have a cute little ballpoint pen that could easily be a deadly weapon in the hands of a skilled operator. In my case, mostly for opening the foil caps on drug bottles .... But it could ruin somebody's day. However, "less lethal" probably applies - the mix of skill and luck required to achieve a fatal injury makes it somewhat unlikely.

A ball point pen is not a deadly weapon unless it meets both of the following:
1. Is any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death AND
2. It is designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.

Just about any common object will meet (1). The real jury question is (2). Unless you have specially adapted your pen for use as a weapon, or you possessed/carried it or otherwise used it as a weapon then it's not a deadly weapon because it was not designed to be one.

So for instance if there is a history of you on Youtube showing folks how they can wield a Marriott hotel pen to puncture jugulars then you might need to be concerned about carrying around a pocketful of them.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

DON'T BLAME 9.68.

Remember that 9.68 (2007) only came into existence to fix problems with licensed concealed handgun carry (2004).

The state said, "Do these steps and you will have a license to conceal in this state."

Various cites then said, "Due to home rule, we don't recognize your license. Go to jail."

When the cities complained about 9.68, the Supreme Court of Ohio said, "Too bad. We say 9.68 is okay."


The original CHL statutes SHOULD have included edged weapons, but didn't. If that was ever an option, I'm sure some law enforcement union was against it.

[djthomas]

DON'T BLAME 9.68.

Remember that 9.68 (2007) only came into existence to fix problems with licensed concealed handgun carry (2004).

Who's blaming 9.68? I'm certainly not. All I'm saying is that simply adding "deadly weapons" to it might not stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny due to the state of the Revised Code concerning deadly weapons other than firearms.

The original CHL statutes SHOULD have included edged weapons, but didn't. If that was ever an option, I'm sure some law enforcement union was against it.

Law enforcement unions were just about as opposed to concealed carry for handguns as could be. I really don't think that weapons other than handguns were ever serious a consideration for sponsors or opponents. Other than Florida and Kentucky blanket deadly weapons licenses were comparatively rare in 2004 and still are today.