Question about multiple weapons for reasonable force continum

[NickBallard]

I haven't owned a handgun, but want to get one. I was wondering what all of you know about the reasonable force continum? We've all heard that if you shoot someone who's unarmed, you have a good chance of going to jail, even if it's quite obvious that they were trying to kill you. We've all heard that guns are serious and that it's an all or nothing thing. Concerning all of this, I've heard some places that it's smart to compliment your handgun with lower force weapons (such as pepper spray and air tasers), so that in court you can say that you tried many various means and none of them worked as the assailant continued to attack, so you finally had to pull your gun out and tell them to leave you alone. Then in other places I've heard that if you carry a handgun, you should not carry lower down the force continum less-lethal weapons, because the prosecutor will point out that you had other means you could have used, even if it wasn't reasonable to use them. These sources say that jury members are usually not able to understand that if someone's assaulting you with a dagger and your gun is in its holster while your pepper spray is at the bottom of your backpack, it's just like not having the pepper spray at all. Also, I was thinking to myself that if the police find out that you have more than one weapon along the force continum, the prosecuting attorney may say "This proves he was looking for a fight". I guess I can see it from both sides. What does everyone else think?

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

It all depends upon where you are tried, the jury of your peers you get, the judge and prosecutor, and your lawyer, and witnesses. (Notice how I didn't mention what really happened)

I would suggest that if you live in a state like New York, California, or Massachusetts, be very carefull with any show of force. Although, I wold say do so anywhere, you never know who might try to get you.