• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Non-lethal force--when justified?

J

JT1

New member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Location
The City
Moto(s)
Whatever I end up buying next...
Folks, I understand the basic concept allowing use of lethal force. That is, it may well be justified under the eyes of the law if you truly feel you or yours are under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

But what about the application of less-than-lethal force? Are you allowed to employ it in situations where death or SBH may or may not be the outcome?

Recently, I've been subjected to Road Rage reactions while driving my cage.

First time, during a severe traffic jam, I honked at a car that was about to block the box as it became my turn to proceed through the intersection. The driver responded by hurling a Coke can at me after I yelled "don't block the box."

Luckily, this driver had only a single, not a six-pack and managed only to hit my car. But had the driver exited the vehicle with any makeshift weapon in hand, I'm thinking I would have unloaded some OC spray at her. Justified or not?

We were in gridlock; infant/toddler/wife in car, so no way for me to bug out on my own

Second time, my fancy automatic lights didn't work correctly. So, while behind another motorist at dusk/night, I went from no lights to brights to lights--inadvertantly. The asshat ahead apparently thought I flashed him to pass, as he then pulled into the leftmost lane, stopped in traffic, then pulled right onto my rear bumper, and followed me.

Same passengers as above, but since I could still drive. I headed to where I know an Officer Friendly often hangs to catch stop sign runners. The nut eventually disengaged, but the other option I considered would have been to stop. Had he approached my family while making any type of threats, I would have warned him to back off, but then deployed OC spray or other countermeasures if my apologies for "flashing" lights went unheeded. Justified or not?

Thanks in advance
 
First scenario:

If someone is showing aggression towards you with some type of makeshift weapon, or even fists for that matter (unless it's a 5'1" 70lb woman and you're a 6'5" 250lb man -- kind of hard to say you were threatened by her fists), it's completely legitimate to use something like OC to stop the threat.

Second scenario:

First, don't stop. Why would you? That only escalates the situation with your family there. In general, if someone is aggressively charging you to fight -- and you use OC, that's fine. That's exactly what it's for. It's a tool for civilians to use in a defensive manner. In other words, when person A wants to beat up person B and person B doesn't feel like getting his ass kicked at the moment. The only thing you have to do is be able to articulate why it was such an imminent threat that you had to use force (of any kind).

I'm sure someone else will reply with a more in depth post....

In law enforcement we work on slightly different terms. Don't confuse your use of force options with that of law enforcement, they differ. Sometimes mildly, sometimes largly.
 
Last edited:
The easy answer is that you may use whatever force is "REASONABLE."

Not so much what is reasonable to you if you are a lunatic, but what is reasonable as viewed by the general public.

There is no book you can look at that says if I am threatened by "A" I should respond with "B." There is only the theory of reasonable force that was appropriate for the incident at the time the incident was occurring.

In both scenarios that you outlined, you were able to drive away from the scene. You were basically protected from the threat by being inside your vehicle. It would not seem to be reasonable that you do anything else.
 
In the first scenario, he was stuck in traffic and unable to drive away.
 
I personally would avoid even yelling at people(scenario 1) with the family in the car. People are unpredictable and there are a lot of idiots waiting to be provoked.
 
The test of reasonableness is relatively simple:

Would a person of like age, maturity and training, reasonably do the same thing?

SilverSVS hit the nail on the head, the most reasonable thing to do was to leave the scene -- as you did. If it were different and someone was coming at you in an aggressive manner with a "makeshift weapon," would it be reasonable to use OC as a defensive counter-measure?
 
Appreciate the replies. I see the problem with my question is that I'm really asking what is "reasonable" and this appears something that can't be answered with 100% certainty until after the fact, with all variables known.

Sure, the extremes are clear: MMA champ macing unarmed grandma in wheelchair for criticizing his haircut wouldn't fly. But there sure is a big gray area.

I'm mindful that both incidents described ended as well as could be expected as I simply drove away. (Coke can dings buff right out, don't they?) But both seemed to be at a tipping point that could have led to escalation. That's why in both cases I remained in the car and otherwise attempted to disengage.

Scenario 1: The woman was wacky enough to start a physical confrontation while also stuck in gridlock. Had she exited her car and approached me, my assumption would have been she was armed or just crazy.

Scenario 2: The reason I considered pulling over was that I was nearing home and would not want the nutjob to know where I live. Plus, the aggressive tailgating was creating risk of an accident. Lastly, I think that people whose emotions get hijacked often come to their senses when they have to reconsider. i.e., would the guy also stop his car and attempt to engage me or just drive on while flipping me the bird?

In both cases, I was considering using the OC only if either driver exited their vehicle and approached me in a continued aggressive manner after ignoring my warnings to back off. I'm wondering if this is reasonable or if there has to be a clearer indication of danger to justify the spray.
 
JT1,

I hope you don't think that using OC will help you out 100% of the time.

I've sprayed a few folks and it didn't affect them in any way. Luckily as LEOs we have more toys on our Batman belt to go to. Where in your case if you sprayed and nothing happeded, you just aggrivated the situation. And all you may have is spray.

Honestly, with regard to your family you should try to de-escalate the situation and go about your business. If you take action on someone, who is to say they won't try to take revenge on you or your family later?
 
I try to avoid confrontation on the highway. It seldom ends nicely. I do remember flipping off a guy in a beemer a few years ago, who flipped me off. We then flipped each other off for five miles until we were both laughing madly.

I flipped off Ricky Henderson in traffic on Hegenberger road once, when he cut me off. He flipped me off and we rolled down our windows and insulted each other's mother for awhile. At the stoplight a car full of girls rolled down their window and said : "OOOAHHHH you know Ricky Henderson." :laughing.
 
The test for what's reasonable is looked at as follows:

What's reasonable for a person of like experience and training / capability, knowing what he/she knows at that time.

It does not mean what is the best decision, it means what is reasonable with the information at hand and with the capabilities of all parties.

Personally, I think pulling over and allowing the situation to escalate is not reasonable. You could drive to a police department, a public place, a gas station, a million other places rather than home if that's your concern. Pulling over and getting out is more like, in my opinion, a challenge to bring it on.

I'm not a judge/jury, I wouldn't be the one hearing all this. In the end, it's up to you to articulate why what you did was reasonable, why you were threatened, and why you felt the level of aggression on their part was enough for you to take preemptive action.
 
Would you say the same for an off duty LEO?

I kinda dig the notion of the "oh shit" moment that would conjure for the bully...I hate bullies.


antarius said:
The test for what's reasonable is looked at as follows:

What's reasonable for a person of like experience and training / capability, knowing what he/she knows at that time.

It does not mean what is the best decision, it means what is reasonable with the information at hand and with the capabilities of all parties.

Personally, I think pulling over and allowing the situation to escalate is not reasonable. You could drive to a police department, a public place, a gas station, a million other places rather than home if that's your concern. Pulling over and getting out is more like, in my opinion, a challenge to bring it on.

I'm not a judge/jury, I wouldn't be the one hearing all this. In the end, it's up to you to articulate why what you did was reasonable, why you were threatened, and why you felt the level of aggression on their part was enough for you to take preemptive action.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know. It's really hard to sit here and judge yes or no with this person or that person.

I will say this: In my opinion, an off-duty LEO (say driving his personal vehicle) has even less of a gray area, as his training and experience are far higher than the average civilian.

I can see it now: "Well sir, isn't it true you deal with people walking towards you and being mad all the time?" "Yes." "Do you pepper spray all of them?" "No."

Does that mean that it wouldn't be reasonable? No. I'm just saying, I think the burden is a little bit heavier for an off-duty LEO due to his "training and experience."
 
Understood. I was coming at it from an angle of LEO's don't have to back down (I understand that "by law"). Not that they could or would create a situation, just that retreating (reasonably) isn't part of the duty of enforcing the law. Clearer when on duty, but the old 24x7 thing...
 
I think in a personal situation when you can avoid a confrontation, that goes across to off-duty LEO's as well. It's not reasonable for me to get out of my car and "refuse to retreat."

A circumstance where it could be, is if other civilians are likely to be seriously injured or killed. I think at that point the off-duty LEO would be acting in his official capacity, no longer "off duty," even if not in uniform. Example: A mall shooting or something along those lines. Clearly this is not in the less-lethal realm though.
 
Don't make eye contact, it only escalates things. Act like a dummy that doesn't know any better. If you can tell they're next to you looking at you - scratch your head and act stupid. You're in highschool anymore - no need to impress anyone, even yourself. Just play the role of the "wussy" and act like a dummy. SAFEST bet.
 
antarius said:
A circumstance where it could be, is if other civilians are likely to be seriously injured or killed. I think at that point the off-duty LEO would be acting in his official capacity, no longer "off duty," even if not in uniform. Example: A mall shooting or something along those lines. Clearly this is not in the less-lethal realm though.
Click to expand...

In that case wouldn't a private citizen have just as much authority to use what force he deemed reasonably necessary?
 
Mikhail,

Ignore the last sentence. I was just making an example of where an off-duty LEO would not have to "retreat."

In the attempt to keep this thread where it originally started, the question of less lethal force for a civilian, I'm gonna try to back away from the question. It's pretty obvious, if someone is killing people it's completely reasonable for civilians and law enforcement alike to take any action necessary to stop that threat.
 
antarius said:
...an off-duty LEO ...

I can see it now: "Well sir, isn't it true you deal with people walking towards you and being mad all the time?" "Yes." "Do you pepper spray all of them?" "No."

Does that mean that it wouldn't be reasonable? ...
Click to expand...

But I would bet there are times that the average officer would love to spray some of them. Seeing the way some civillians react to LEO folks...

There's also the Agression VS aggrivation factor. You have to be able to tell who is aggrivated at the situation and may be reacting, um, badly, and who is acting agressively towards you.

But yeah, when I read that... I had to laugh. "Yes, your honor, I spray them all. Let God sort them out." And the next day, after you've turned in your keys and badge and firearm...

antarius said:
...A circumstance where it could be, is if other civilians are likely to be seriously injured or killed. I think at that point the off-duty LEO would be acting in his official capacity, no longer "off duty," even if not in uniform. Example: A mall shooting or something along those lines...
Click to expand...

A civillian has the duty to protect themselves and get out of the way!

antarius said:
Mikhail,

Ignore the last sentence. I was just making an example of where an off-duty LEO would not have to "retreat."

In the attempt to keep this thread where it originally started, the question of less lethal force for a civilian, I'm gonna try to back away from the question. It's pretty obvious, if someone is killing people it's completely reasonable for civilians and law enforcement alike to take any action necessary to stop that threat.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, I use the Lane Bryant Mall shootings and the question "If the women were armed and trained..." comment I posted earlier. Believe me, if I had to make the choice whether to allow a person to contine a murderous rampage or stop them cold, no question. It's something we had to think about when we had a former employee shoot up one of our Maintenance stations in SoCal. Likewise, if someone breaks down our front door, I feel pretty safe in the assumption they intend to do us harm, and would counter that threat with any means possible to protect our family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top