Fending off attacks from less-than-lethal weapons

[TallPine]

If someone were to approach and threaten you with pepper spray or a stun gun (like the one pictured below) and tried to mug you, what level of force would be legally acceptable? What if they actually used the pepper spray/stun gun?

Sounds like a "forcible felony" to me which means I can use deadly force in MT

 

[ctdonath]

A core legal factor in lethal self-defense is "disparity of force": if the attacker is significantly stronger/abler than you, and will use that disparity to cause grave harm, you can use deadly force precisely because it is your only viable equalizer. As such, a non-lethally-armed attacking healthy male can be shot by an invalid or a woman (among other disparity scenarios). I (healthy male) cannot legally shoot an unarmed attacking healthy male ... but my wife or father-in-law can.

The thing about a less-than-lethal attack is that the attacker is attempting to create a disparity of force. I could take on a common thug mano-a-mano, but if he comes at me with pepper spray or such it is clear he is conciously trying to weaken me to create a potentially lethal disparity of force. I can block strikes & do takedowns under normal conditions, but if I can't breathe or see due to a blast of Mace, he'll have no trouble breaking arms or smashing my head. If there's any reason to believe he's trying to create a disparity of force, I'd better use my equal or greater ability before renedered helpless.

Attacks with less-than-lethal weapons are an attempt to gain a lethal advantage.

Just as it's ok to shoot an attacker attempting to disarm you of a pistol because if you don't he'll have a lethal advantage, it's ok to shoot an attacker using less-than-lethal weapons precisely because if you don't he'll have a lethal advantage. Just be sure that the lethal disparity of force is a reasonable expectation.

IANAL - just my amateur opinion.

 

[Teufelhunden]

Whether the Taser actually does disrupt neural function (as claimed) or simply increases the pain to an unbearable level, I don't know, but there's a big difference.

Having been certified, I can verify that both assumptions are correct. It was the longest 5 seconds of my life.

I would also agree that it should be faily easy (with competent counsel) to convince a jury that someone who was intentionally trying to incapacitate you can be assumed to have other motives beyond curiosity as to your wallet's contents.

-Teuf

 

[bjbarron]

In New York a person can meet a robbery attempt with lethal force. It doesn’t matter whether the perp is armed or not.

Now if they would only allow us to carry something that can readily apply lethal force...

Shhhhh. We don't want them to know how many people carry - law or no.

Since the Bernie Goetz fiasco and the shootings on the LLR....you now and then read about a mugger who shows up stabbed or holed by a good Samaritan and nobody seen nuttin' (last time it was 60 people on the subway who didn't see nuttin). I always enjoy the half-hearted requests by the police for the good citizen to step forward.