Tag: less lethal

Baltimore County Tasers

Posted by Mostly Genius – September 2, 2009

Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson says that
Tasers are too dangerous for private citizens. I think this is a terrible idea, not because Tasers are useful for private citizens, but because they are useful for the police.

The reason they are useful for the police is because they are an effective low level of force. If you make the case that they are too dangerous for regular people to use then doesn’t that make them a higher level of force? I can see the defense attorney already:

“…the police then used a weapon on my client that is so dangerous, private citizens aren’t even allowed to possess it…”

Running away and related concepts

Posted by Mostly Genius – August 31, 2009

After the comments in this post, I felt I should explain a few concepts again that some people seem to be confused about.

Disengagement. This is a complicated way of saying “running away” (or used preemptively, “don’t be there.”) Obviously this perfectly sound advice and I am in complete agreement that this a very good idea for staying out of both danger and legal trouble. It is not the ultimate trump card that some make it out to be simply because there are situations where you cannot run away from, either for practical reasons (no available path of escape) or moral reasons (running would mean you leaving your child or spouse to face the danger alone.) In terms of self defense as a private citizen we are always working towards disengagement, but we must recognize that there might need to be intervening steps between the beginning of the confrontation and our finally being able to disengage.

Deescalation. Deescalation is the process of being (or at least appearing to be) reasonable and or conciliatory, in the hopes of diffusing a potentially dangerous situation. This is what is known as “talking your way out” of fighting. Most people have some basic idea of how this works, and the better and more practiced at it you are the more applicable it becomes. I consider deescalation to be a core self defense skill and should get at least as much thought and attention as learning to shoot or fight. Unfortunately many situations cannot be deescalated through reason, compromise, or dialogue. This is where pacifism fails: some people are ideologically bent upon causing you harm and they are not going to be dissuaded by discussion.

Use of Force Spectrum

Verbal Commands. A verbal command is a stated demand for compliance. This generally implies that there will be consequences for non-compliance and those consequences include the application of a higher level of force than verbal commands. I think this is where a lot of generic self defense curriculum goes awry, because if there isn’t a credible ability to use force after issuing verbal commands it simply amounts to a bluff. Should a subject comply with the commands then that might create an opportunity for using deescalation and/or disengagement.

Application of Violence. Hopefully, there was an opportunity in a developing situation to apply the previously mentioned steps and something (or some combination) was effective. Other times a situation can require the immediate application of violence because of the nature of the threat and the circumstances. Ideally the amount of violence will be the minimum that is sufficient to stop the attack. In the wider self defense community the martial arts purists seem to think that they can fight their way out of every situation (except for those that believe an armed assailant is instant death) and the firearms purists who believe that any physical altercation is justification for gunfire. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. As a general guideline, you will have an easier time (legally speaking) if you can stop an attack using something less than lethal force – even if you are not required by law to do so.

Less Lethal Weapons and Use of Force

Posted by Words Twice – August 2, 2009

Via Scott at Spartan Cops, I came across a study on less lethal weapons and use of force titled “Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis” by Charlie Mesloh, Mark Henych and Ross Wolf.

While the use of force (UOF) by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) is different from UOF by citizens in terms of goals, there are also a lot of similarities. This document is well worth reading to gain further understanding of UOF issues, particularly regarding less lethal weapons. I will point out a few items from Scott’s post that are relevant to the ongoing Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) discussion here at Brillianter.

The ability to end a confrontation between officers and suspects is the measure of the effectiveness of a force level or weapon. This report lists the success rate of weapons and control techniques that were attempted at the beginning of a confrontation:
Taser – 69%
Police K9 – 69%
Chemical agents – 65%
Impact Weapons – 45%
Takedowns – 41%
Compliance Holds – 16%

The authors point out that previous research looks at the highest levels of suspect resistance and police force as the only factor of a confrontation. This study looks at the whole event and examines each point where officers used force to overcome the suspect’s resistance. It then studies the cumulative effect of all those points and finds that both officers and suspects are more likely to sustain injuries the longer the confrontations go on.

[emphasis mine]

As Mostly Genius has mentioned, stopping a confrontation in its earliest stages can be critical in avoiding serious injury or death.

The authors coin a term, “force deficit”, which describes when officers consistently use less force than may be justifiable or necessary to subdue the suspect and end the confrontation. A force deficit causes the incident to drag out longer and raise the cumulative amount of force used. They point out that decisive force early on appears to be the solution and reduces the likelihood of additional injuries caused by the subsequent applications of force.

[emphasis mine]

Using the appropriate amount of force at the earliest stages not only resolves the confrontation quickly and therefore reduces injuries on both sides, but also shields the defender from legal liability for inappropriate (excessive) use of force. As mentioned previously, the lack of alternatives to deadly force can create a situation where someone can be seriously injured or killed simply because the defender doesn’t know what else to do. Ideally, we want to avoid having to kill anyone.

The authors recommend that officers should be prepared to use decisive force when verbal techniques of de-escalation fail. When a suspect engages in active physical resistance, the authors show that immediately using a TASER, Police K9, or chemical agent is the most reasonable method to quickly end the confrontation.

[emphasis mine]

A few bloggers have stated that they have been sprayed with OC and were less than impressed with the results. I also have been sprayed and sprayed others. I have seen the gamut of reactions exhibited by people who have been sprayed, ranging from panic to indifference. Basically, I have a good idea of what to expect when I spray someone, and I think it is worth carrying.

Some things to keep in mind when using OC is that it is a very low level of force, less force than grabbing or punching someone. Also, the element of surprise is a significant factor in making it effective. Warning someone before you spray them allows them to prepare themselves both physically and psychologically. Resolute, goal oriented people, whether they are protesters passively resisting police, law enforcement or military personnel completing a training event or aggressive assailants firmly intent on committing acts of violence will not be effected by OC the same way a less committed aggressor will be. This does not mean it is worthless.

Those people who dismiss OC as worthless for self defense are missing a valuable capability. The overwhelming majority of confrontations in your lifetime will not be deadly force encounters. Carrying a firearm for defense is certainly useful, and when deadly force is called for, OC is clearly not appropriate. This is not an either/or decision, since they are on opposite sides of the force continuum and are not a substitute for each other. OC is not a deadly force tool, and a firearm obviously cannot be considered less lethal. In between these two ends of the continuum, there are numerous other force options, but deadly force, which so many people seem obsessed with, is only justifiable under a very specific set of circumstances, extreme situations where all other means of defense have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Contrast this with OC, which can be employed quite freely with little worry about liability. Determining what type of situation you are facing and choosing the appropriate course of action (OODA loop) is a matter of experience and training.

There are also some people who recommend martial arts or less lethal techniques only, as a catch all solution to all confrontations; they are also wrong. Martial arts, combatives, defensive tactics or whatever you want to call them are certainly a valuable component of a well prepared person’s self defense plan, but they fall somewhere on the lower side of the middle in terms of the force continuum. They are valuable techniques and like OC, they are more broadly useful than deadly force options like knives and firearms, but they don’t replace them, either. All of these methods have an appropriate place and they are generally poor substitutes for one another.

Some people complain that carrying all these tools and learning all these techniques is a burden. Presumably, they would rather carry only handguns and knives and call it a day. They have very good and redundant deadly force capability, but ignoring the remaining five or six levels of the force continuum does not actually prepare someone for most defensive situations.

Pepper spray or handguns

Posted by Mostly Genius – August 1, 2009

I found Conservative Scalawag had linked to my post about pepper spray, and I think his post exemplifies what people do not understand about pepper spray and use of force in general.

While yes, pepper spray does have its place in the self-defense arena, it would not be my first choice.

Until we have a scenario we can’t make any judgements about what our choices should be. Leaving is generally my first choice, but even that isn’t always viable. There is no “pepper spray or gun” argument, because they fill different roles.

Yet, Mostly Genius believes that pepper spray can fulfill the non-deadly force niche.

There isn’t a “non-deadly force niche”, there are several. Pepper spray fills the niche right before we start striking people because if we can solve the problem at that level we will not have any need to escalate further.

Thing is, criminals are not going to tell you if their intent is deadly, or if they just want your watch. Therefor, you must treat all incidents with bad guys as possibly life-threatening to you. Sorry, but not a mind reader.

(Emphasis mine)
All incidents are potentially life threatening, but the law requires that we have an immediate and credible threat to our lives (or a third party) before we can apply deadly force. Again there is no “pepper spray or gun” argument. Deadly force is the correct response to lethal threats, but we can’t pretend that all threats are lethal or that “potential” is the same as “actual.”

However, I will admit there are times pepper spray comes with me. Those are the times when I cannot carry a gun,due to silly rules, or Byzantine rules. Otherwise, I carry a gun, and with the full intent of using it to STOP the bad guys from victimizing me or my family.

Keeping in mind that pepper spray is basically a step above strong language, it is not a suitable handgun replacement. Pepper spray fills an entirely different role than firearms do. The perfect role for pepper spray is reinforcing a verbal command. We can pepper spray belligerents for continuing to approach when told to stop, it would be very hard to justify shooting them.

For while pepper spray may work a certain percentage, guns, when used properly, work 100% of the time.

Without quibbling about proper use, guns certainly do not work 100% of the time or anything approaching it. Most criminals do quit without any shots being fired, but some require multiple good hits to be put down and those criminals sometimes inflict a lot of injury and trauma before they finally do stop. I certainly agree that handguns are better fight stoppers than pepper spray, but we can’t use handguns in the same situations where we could use pepper spray.