attacked with pepper spray?

[joe817]

Does pepper spray in the eyes make it hard to see? I wonder what would happen if you killed a bystander by mistake?

Spend 5-15 in Huntsville maybe?

[seamusTX]

I think if you shot the wrong person after being sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray, you might be able to plead to manslaughter. However, as usual, I am not a lawyer.

I don't know of a Texas CHL holder ever shooting the wrong person during an attack. It happens rather often in situations were the entire business is shady, and in those cases the shooter is usually prosecuted.

- Jim

[PUCKER]

So, for those who've been sprayed by pepper spray, has anyone *not* been affected/adversely affected by it? I've heard/read about some folks not being affected by it. I wonder if one's immunity/love of all things spicy/hot has any bearing on this?

Reason I ask, I'm a pepperhead kind of guy, habaneros are one of my favorite things - one day while sauteeing a nice side dish of habaneros and onions my wife was quite overcome by the fumes, as in she had to immediately get out of the house! The aroma/fumes were perfume to me however. Took a full day to air out the house. Whenever I handle habaneros I don't wear gloves, I prefer to "suffer" for my art, so-to-speak. Usually my hands have a slight burn for several days, it's pretty interesting, to say the least.

I've had fresh jalapeno juice in the eye before, it wasn't too pleasant, but that was before my adventure into "pepperdom."

BTW - I'm not at ALL volunteering to be pepper-sprayed, just wondered if there were folks who have been sprayed and then got the urge to eat spicy food!

[casingpoint]

Why waste your money on pepper spray?This stuff is cheaper, shoots farther and last longer:
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/ ... _raid.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[couzin]

So, for those who've been sprayed by pepper spray, has anyone *not* been affected/adversely affected by it? I've heard/read about some folks not being affected by it. I wonder if one's immunity/love of all things spicy/hot has any bearing on this?

Yes - I was in a class with one guy that just fought straight thru it and was able to pin the 'sprayer' evn though the 'sprayer was back peddling and putting up defensive moves. CS caught up with him later though. Also in one class where the drill was using the alcohol practice spray and one guy had to be carted off to the hospital - turned bright red, snot just gushed, couldn't breathe. We tried that canister on other participants and it was definately an alcohol spray. Once I figured out what it (CS) was like - it isn't that hard to fight thru it. One more thing - don't believe all the hype that it (CS) will deter a dog - it does not faze some dogs.

I seriously doubt a love for peppers will assist in shaking off CS. Like I said - some folks might not be fazed at all.

[Drewthetexan]

So, for those who've been sprayed by pepper spray, has anyone *not* been affected/adversely affected by it? I've heard/read about some folks not being affected by it. I wonder if one's immunity/love of all things spicy/hot has any bearing on this?

Reason I ask, I'm a pepperhead kind of guy, habaneros are one of my favorite things - one day while sauteeing a nice side dish of habaneros and onions my wife was quite overcome by the fumes, as in she had to immediately get out of the house! The aroma/fumes were perfume to me however. Took a full day to air out the house. Whenever I handle habaneros I don't wear gloves, I prefer to "suffer" for my art, so-to-speak. Usually my hands have a slight burn for several days, it's pretty interesting, to say the least.

I've had fresh jalapeno juice in the eye before, it wasn't too pleasant, but that was before my adventure into "pepperdom."

BTW - I'm not at ALL volunteering to be pepper-sprayed, just wondered if there were folks who have been sprayed and then got the urge to eat spicy food!

I think you can build a tolerance to capsaicin oil which I believe is the "active" ingredient in pepper spray. Capsaicin oil content is proportional to the burn you feel and has been quantified, so to speak, using the scoville scale, from 0 to 16 million. Pepper Spray falls between 2 and 5 million, and unless you blast yourself regularly, I don't think you would ever get used to it like you get used to habaneros.

[jbirds1210]

That stuff hurts! This was a full blast to say the least and I still had about five seconds that were almost pain free. The next twenty minutes were miserable. I prayed alot.

Jason

[Beiruty]

Say someone jumped me punched me for no reason, or reason known only to the assailant. Or, Used/Wanted to use an incapacitating force but not deadly force like a tazer or Peperspray. Say, I had I had quick reaction and I was able to draw and shoot the assailant in the legs or the arm. i.e. non fatal shot?

Is my reaction justified under the law ?

[seamusTX]

The law does not distinguish between shooting to kill and shooting to wound (or stabbing or hitting with a club). It's all deadly force.

Whether you are justified in using deadly force against an empty-handed assailant is iffy. All the CHL holders in Texas who have been prosecuted for a self-defense shooting shot someone who did not have a weapon (according to the usual definition of weapon). None of them were convicted.

We just saw the news about Harold Fish, who was convicted in Arizona of murder and spent three years in prison for shooting an unarmed assailant.

All of the above are good reasons to practice situational awareness and not allow anyone to close on you, and also to have a non-lethal defense such as pepper spray.

- Jim

[Keith B]

Say someone jumped me punched me for no reason, or reason known only to the assailant. Or, Used/Wanted to use an incapacitating force but not deadly force like a tazer or Peperspray. Say, I had I had quick reaction and I was able to draw and shoot the assailant in the legs or the arm. i.e. non fatal shot?

Is my reaction justified under the law ?

Shooting someone is use of deadly force, period. Sections 9.31 and 9.32 deal with justification. You must meet the guidelines of 9.31, and then 9.32 to be able to use deadly force.

Section 9.31

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

EDIT TO ADD: seamusTX beat me to some of this.

[dewayneward]

SeamusTx and Keith,

the way I am reading this, if someone gets in "your space" and tells you he is gonna pound you, it looks like you aren't justified in shooting from the way I am reading everything.

...was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

I know there are the other things like unlawful entry, breaking into cars, etc. but it is 2pm and I am on the street and some nutjob says that he is gonna smoke me in the face and starts rearing back to do it, It looks like I would be legal trouble if I were to pull my gun. I remember reading somewhere (and this may be from the MO laws as I visit there from time to time), but if it 2 on 1 or something like that then you have a chance in the court room.

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.

[03Lightningrocks]

All of that, and it is not a real good idea trying to blast someone in the arm or leg. Center of mass...always center of mass.

[Keith B]

SeamusTx and Keith,

the way I am reading this, if someone gets in "your space" and tells you he is gonna pound you, it looks like you aren't justified in shooting from the way I am reading everything.

...was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

I know there are the other things like unlawful entry, breaking into cars, etc. but it is 2pm and I am on the street and some nutjob says that he is gonna smoke me in the face and starts rearing back to do it, It looks like I would be legal trouble if I were to pull my gun. I remember reading somewhere (and this may be from the MO laws as I visit there from time to time), but if it 2 on 1 or something like that then you have a chance in the court room.

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.

Unless you can meet the use of deadly force guidelines, then that is correct, you can't use deadly force.

IANAL, but if you reasonably believe that the person who is going to use force against you is severe enough to be deadly or cause serious bodily injury, then deadly force would be justified to defend yourself. Every case is going to be different.

[03Lightningrocks]

snip............

I get the whole judge by 12 then carried by 6, but if some dude comes up telling me that I was the guy that slept with his wife or some other kookie thing, it looks like I am not allowed to defend myself with a gun (thankfully I have a background in martial arts). I also get that if some old lady wants to hit me with her cane or something, that wold be "dumb" to do something. I am talking about where you would be equally matched or less than equally matched against a person or persons.

This would be a case where verbal judo might be called for. Tell the dude your gay or something...LOL. heck...tell him his wife is so ugly you wouldn't touch her with a stick. JK of coarse, but surely a person could talk their way out of a fist fight. Especially if he is big enough to really put the hurt on ya. If some old lady started whacking at me, I would be laughing so hard my heart would probably stop.

One thing I never quite get. Why is the way we handle an encounter of this type any different than before we got a CHL. Avoidance is still the best solution, even if we do have the ability to take a life. When I see posts asking questions about how to handle confrontation, I always want to ask them how they handled it before they became a guy with a gun.

[dewayneward]

Yea, I'll agree that avoidance is the thing to go for. I think (for me anyway), I'll be trying to backpeddle trying to reason with the guy. I would hope its assumed that I (and others) would be trying to de-escalate and get out of the situation. I ain't looking for a fight, quite the opposite.

In the olden days though before I had a gun and there was "no way out", I have a background in martial arts and I would defend myself.

the "problem" now is that should a scenario present itself, I got a chunk of metal that could be pulled away from me in a confrontation. An "against CHL" thing for me is that before I would have fought the person. you have to admit, that having a gun on you doesnt make it so easy to sidekick someone

I do get that every situation is different and I am by no means itching to use my gun. more than likely I will be with my family and while I dont want to have to deal with the nightmares of hurting someone, I certainly dont want my wife or small children to witness something like that. I've just been around people that for whatever reason, just flip out.

@keith, is there language talking to serious bodily injury as a means for self defense?