I wish I could vote for that sheriff.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Less then lethal defenses
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I have carried pepper spray for about 15 years. I've used it several times at work and seen it used by others. Most of those times it was Bodyguard LE-5 and LE-10. I used the fogger pattern when is was available and now use the cone spray pattern. Very impressive. In my experience it is the spray pattern that makes the most difference with pepper spray. The stream pattern is the most popular, but also the least effective. It doesn't vaporize and therefore doesn't affect the respiratory system like a fogger or cone pattern will. If the attacker manages to keep the spray out of his eyes then the stream pattern isn't very effective. Pepper spray usually takes 10-20 seconds to really start to have an effect. It is only for use against unarmed people.
Tasers work great and instantly if you get a good hit. The disadvantage is they are essentially a single shot weapon.
I think the concern about being sued for using force is greatly overblown, at least in Texas where I live. An individual citizen's concern should mostly be with criminal charges.
The vast majority of people do not have much, if any, non-exempt property. Even if someone managed to win a suit and get a judgment against them they would not collect on the judgment. They can't take your house, car, etc. If it happened at your home they might go after you for your homeowner's insurance policy, but that's all they would get. If they are going after the insurance then your insurance company will provide an attorney for you. Other than that, you are unlikely to be sued. The difficulty in collecting anything from a judgment will keep the attacker from finding an attorney that will take the case on contingency.
Criminal charges against you however will require a substantial amount of money to hire an attorney.
Tasers work great and instantly if you get a good hit. The disadvantage is they are essentially a single shot weapon.
I think the concern about being sued for using force is greatly overblown, at least in Texas where I live. An individual citizen's concern should mostly be with criminal charges.
The vast majority of people do not have much, if any, non-exempt property. Even if someone managed to win a suit and get a judgment against them they would not collect on the judgment. They can't take your house, car, etc. If it happened at your home they might go after you for your homeowner's insurance policy, but that's all they would get. If they are going after the insurance then your insurance company will provide an attorney for you. Other than that, you are unlikely to be sued. The difficulty in collecting anything from a judgment will keep the attacker from finding an attorney that will take the case on contingency.
Criminal charges against you however will require a substantial amount of money to hire an attorney.
Last edited:
I live in a state with no concealed carry laws, but we do have castle doctrine (no duty to retreat). This means if I go out in public I MUST use "less than lethal" defenses but at home I can shoot the first person who breaks in.
Originally Posted By: JT1
WOW sj586, your post is..well... logical to say the least, but who is to say that a court couldn't order ones wages to be garnished?
Wages can't be garnished in my state (Texas) except for child support and by the IRS. YMMV in your state.
WOW sj586, your post is..well... logical to say the least, but who is to say that a court couldn't order ones wages to be garnished?
Wages can't be garnished in my state (Texas) except for child support and by the IRS. YMMV in your state.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
