TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:But.....and some may think this controversial.....I will say this: unless I had the "asthma defense," it might be pretty difficult for me to convince a grand jury that I was in fear for my life because of being sprayed. Not impossible, just difficult. The reason I say that is because pepper spray and teargas and things like that are marketed to the public as "less-than-lethal;" police forces are trained to use these products as a "less-than-lethal" alternative to shooting a suspect, and a prosecutor might try to convince the grand jury that this is common knowledge stuff, and that consequently responding with a firearm is not a justified use of deadly force, and ask the GJ to send the case to trial.

I think that would be easily rebutted.

Tear gas is not regarded as lethal. However, it is regarded as incapacitating a person. If an armed person gets incapacitated, they are now at risk of getting shot with their own weapon, so getting maced is -- by definition -- an armed encounter as I am the armed person. If a police officer is OC sprayed by a BG, I guarantee you they will consider that justification to use deadly force. Look how many police officers have been shot with their own weapon over the years. It is a realistic concern.

I agree that it could be rebutted. All I'm saying is that I can see a potential for this kind of trouble for a shooter in this situation. But like I said, I would likely shoot if it were me.

speedsix wrote:...I have bad asthma...spray me and get shot for sure...it's my life!!!

I don't have asthma, but I do have a strong aversion to getting maced by someone who is escalating a confrontation. What's next, he shoots me? He gets out of his car and whups me while I'm incapacitated? I might well feel threatened enough to draw and shoot too.

But.....and some may think this controversial.....I will say this: unless I had the "asthma defense," it might be pretty difficult for me to convince a grand jury that I was in fear for my life because of being sprayed. Not impossible, just difficult. The reason I say that is because pepper spray and teargas and things like that are marketed to the public as "less-than-lethal;" police forces are trained to use these products as a "less-than-lethal" alternative to shooting a suspect, and a prosecutor might try to convince the grand jury that this is common knowledge stuff, and that consequently responding with a firearm is not a justified use of deadly force, and ask the GJ to send the case to trial.

Mind you..... I don't agree with this interpretation, so please don't assume that I'm defending it. I'm just saying that I can see a prosecutor making this argument, and a GJ made up of people who do not necessarily share our mindset might easily swallow such an argument.

Of course it is bull. In the heat of the moment, when an agressor, who caused the original accident then pursues a person who is trying to flee the aggressor's intentions, then pepper sprays the victim upon catching up to him, any reasonable person (I just love the fact that Texas law includes that term) might draw the conclusion that the next step in the continuum is a butt-whoopin from which he will not be able to defend himself, having been incapacitated by the pepper spray. Like I said, I'd probably shoot too.