TexasCHLforum.com

I was having a discussion elsewhere on the internet about the use of deadly force in response to pepper spray, and a couple other people were claiming in this situation wouldn't allow the use of a lethal response from a CHL/CCW holder:

[*]You're alone in an alley, or on a long road. Someone you've never seen appears from no where and pepper sprays you without saying anything. I personally would pull my weapon and defend myself, and I would think most would.

He was pointing to http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and claiming pepper spray isn't a "lethal force item," but I contend that would be irrelevant and that at that point I would definitely feel my life was in danger and would defend myself, and if I shot the aggressor, I wouldn't expect to be charged. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Are there any case laws similar to this that aren't justified with Castle Doctrine?

XD45 wrote:I was having a discussion elsewhere on the internet about the use of deadly force in response to pepper spray, and a couple other people were claiming in this situation wouldn't allow the use of a lethal response from a CHL/CCW holder:

[*]You're alone in an alley, or on a long road. Someone you've never seen appears from no where and pepper sprays you without saying anything. I personally would pull my weapon and defend myself, and I would think most would.

He was pointing to http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and claiming pepper spray isn't a "lethal force item," but I contend that would be irrelevant and that at that point I would definitely feel my life was in danger and would defend myself, and if I shot the aggressor, I wouldn't expect to be charged. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Are there any case laws similar to this that aren't justified with Castle Doctrine?

IANAL, but I wanted to get the conversation started. This theoretical situation needs more context. In itself, "feeling that your life was in danger" does not justify using deadly force.

WildBill wrote:

XD45 wrote:I was having a discussion elsewhere on the internet about the use of deadly force in response to pepper spray, and a couple other people were claiming in this situation wouldn't allow the use of a lethal response from a CHL/CCW holder:

[*]You're alone in an alley, or on a long road. Someone you've never seen appears from no where and pepper sprays you without saying anything. I personally would pull my weapon and defend myself, and I would think most would.

He was pointing to http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and claiming pepper spray isn't a "lethal force item," but I contend that would be irrelevant and that at that point I would definitely feel my life was in danger and would defend myself, and if I shot the aggressor, I wouldn't expect to be charged. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Are there any case laws similar to this that aren't justified with Castle Doctrine?

IANAL, but I wanted to get the conversation started. This theoretical situation needs more context. In itself, "feeling that your life was in danger" does not justify using deadly force.

I thought it did. Besides, a taser is supposed to be non-lethal, but how many people have died after being tased? And I don't know if anyone has dies after being peppered or not. However, if the peppering itself does not rise to the level of being able to respond with deadly force, what about the fear of a deadly attack or something else while disabled due to the pepper?

However, if the peppering itself does not rise to the level of being able to respond with deadly force, what about the fear of a deadly attack or something else while disabled due to the pepper?

The *Texas* answers are contained here
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

The opening paragraphs on his website indicate he is not talking about the law in Texas, since the comments about deadly force in defense of property and shooting certain fleeing felons clearly do not apply here in our great state.

As for pepper spray, it does not have to be a lethal weapon to justify deadly force in self-defense, under the right circumstances. For example, duct tape and plastic wire wraps are not deadly instruments, but under the right circumstances they are part of a rape kit and one can use deadly force to prevent sexual assault. With certain people like my wife who has asthma, pepper spray is a lethal weapon and most certainly get one shot!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The opening paragraphs on his website indicate he is not talking about the law in Texas

Chas.

This is true, we never specified a state, just "most states"... though I would still contend this specific situation would likely result in lethal response in any state.

Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

I forgot about that. I believe we did.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

In the context of road rage, the defender would probably be justified using deadly force again an aggressor using pepper spray. The OP scenario was just spraying someone "out of the blue."

There were two incidents in Beaumont earlier this week where a group of women were shoplifting and pepper sprayed the store managers who were pursuing them. The police spokes officer on TV said the use of pepper spray against the store employees elevated the shoplifting to robbery. If you pepper spray me under those circumstances and if I can see you I will shoot you.

LINK

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

In the context of road rage, the defender would probably be justified using deadly force again an aggressor using pepper spray. The OP scenario was just spraying someone "out of the blue."

I don't believe it makes any difference. You will be incapacitated after being pepper sprayed and don't know what the BG's next move will be. Will he just laugh and walk off, or will he attack and kill you. If some pepper sprays me out of the blue, I most definite would be afraid for my life and will defend myself with deadly force if I can.

If I was a juror there are scenarios in which I would buy the "(he) was going to spray me and then do worse when I was down" story

RSJ wrote:If I was a juror there are scenarios in which I would buy the "(he) was going to spray me and then do worse when I was down" story

IMO, if that type of scenario was properly presented to a jury, it could result in an aquittal.

JJVP wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

In the context of road rage, the defender would probably be justified using deadly force again an aggressor using pepper spray. The OP scenario was just spraying someone "out of the blue."

I don't believe it makes any difference. You will be incapacitated after being pepper sprayed and don't know what the BG's next move will be. Will he just laugh and walk off, or will he attack and kill you. If some pepper sprays me out of the blue, I most definite would be afraid for my life and will defend myself with deadly force if I can.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for pepper spray, it does not have to be a lethal weapon to justify deadly force in self-defense, under the right circumstances. For example, duct tape and plastic wire wraps are not deadly instruments, but under the right circumstances they are part of a rape kit and one can use deadly force to prevent sexual assault. With certain people like my wife who has asthma, pepper spray is a lethal weapon and most certainly get one shot!

Chas.

I still believe that it makes a difference. This is the point I was trying to make... it may be justified under the right circumstances.

WildBill wrote:

RSJ wrote:If I was a juror there are scenarios in which I would buy the "(he) was going to spray me and then do worse when I was down" story

IMO, if that type of scenario was properly presented to a jury, it could result in an aquittal.

JJVP wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn't we have a recent thread about just such a case here in Texas? IIRC, it was a road rage incident in which the aggressor chased the defender down with his vehicle and pepper sprayed him, and the defender drew his weapon and shot the aggressor.

In the context of road rage, the defender would probably be justified using deadly force again an aggressor using pepper spray. The OP scenario was just spraying someone "out of the blue."

I don't believe it makes any difference. You will be incapacitated after being pepper sprayed and don't know what the BG's next move will be. Will he just laugh and walk off, or will he attack and kill you. If some pepper sprays me out of the blue, I most definite would be afraid for my life and will defend myself with deadly force if I can.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for pepper spray, it does not have to be a lethal weapon to justify deadly force in self-defense, under the right circumstances. For example, duct tape and plastic wire wraps are not deadly instruments, but under the right circumstances they are part of a rape kit and one can use deadly force to prevent sexual assault. With certain people like my wife who has asthma, pepper spray is a lethal weapon and most certainly get one shot!

Chas.

I still believe that it makes a difference. This is the point I was trying to make... it may be justified under the right circumstances.

My first thought was ... "Oh, pepper spray, I can wash it off by taking a bath"
Then I heard a guy say "I'll crack open your head and eat your brain and take your wallet and steal your dry cleaning ticket and wear your suits"
and I thought "bath salts"
and wondered if I had the correct zombie ammo ...

If the situation fits one under "justification" Chapter 9, Penal Code, then it should be a "good shoot" if not, it'll be a heap o' trouble.

Pepper spray 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.