I’m going to, once again, quote the great Robert A. Heinlein:
If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?’
Why . . . no, sir!’
Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence.
Self defense is force. It is controlled violence.
The purpose of self defense is not political control, but to deter or prevent a criminal from using force against you.
Force comes in degrees.
We spend a lot of time talking about gun rights because guns are the ultimate form of force. They dispense lethal force in a very abrupt way.
They are the ultimate in “stop doing that right the fuck right now” force.
But sometimes that is, pardon the pun, overkill.
Let us turn to a real world example.
https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1569911121402019841?t=ZDH6dMxXqr5KqpVVbXDSmw&s=19
This adult toddler is being annoying.
Then she escalates to violence. Attempting to open the car door, attempting to rip off the side mirror.
It’s not necessary to shoot this person, nor would it be legal.
But clearly this person needs to have their behavior altered with controlled violence.
To me, this looks like a job for pepper spray.
A bit of temporary violence directed at this person’s olfactory glands should be sufficient to deter them from doing damage to the vehicle and dissuade them from continuing their tantrum.
Force comes in varying degrees and you should be equipped to dispense the necessary degree of force at the time.
Perhaps it would stop them there, but would it change their behavior or remove their entitled behaviors in the future or reinforce them?
You are right and I agree, but short vs long term outlooks differ I think.
Clearly someone didn’t have a dad to teach them proper behavior.
I don’t want to be her dad.
I just don’t want her to break the side mirror of my truck.
Fair enough!
Some have claimed “I will just shoot them in the leg”… problem with that is you are using deadly force to try and stop a criminal without it being deadly. Pepper spray (really really good stuff) IS a good alternative that could allow you to get away from the threat and kinda discouraging pursuit.. I like the stuff with dye in it heh heh
A TASER might be amusing here.
Carry pepper spray, regardless.
.
If you are in a situation where deadly force must be used, and you only have your firearm, a DA could push a narrative that you were intending to go straight to deadly force. Granted it is a stretch depending on the situation, but remember, the jury is a bunch of Monday morning QBs. They will question whether your choice to use force is justified.
.
Carry one or more deterrents at all times. If you are in a courtroom, defending your use of deadly force, you need your attorney to be able to say, “Mr. Smith carries a gun, and several other deterrents so he can respond to a threat in the correct proportion.”
.
Will it help? I do not know, IANAL, but I know it will not hurt. And, in this situation, it might have saved some wear and tear on your vehicle.
The converse, of course, is that if you do need to go straight to deadly force, the prosecutor can claim you didn’t fully exhaust all of your other options. We see this same argument used against cops all the time … so I’d consider that a real concern.
Valid point.
Not sure which approach is best/better. Personal assessment of legal risk is definitely a factor.
.
One could argue that the situation did not allow a graduated response. Whereas, the DA will claim you were looking to kill someone because you were not carrying anything other than a gun.
Posting from personal experience, when the shitforbrains gets out of their vehicle and starts for yours, my very effective method was to push their piece of shit down the road until they got back in to slap on the brakes. At that point, I went home, they followed me and then I brought out the artillery. He wasn’t quite as stupid as he looked, he took off. The cop that showed up, the city prosecutor, the county prosecutor and finally a district judge agreed with me and told the moron in no uncertain terms exactly why he would never bother me again. And since he was driving his brothers piece of shit and the truth finally came out from his witnesses, I really think he got a serious ass whipping when they got home.
Here in the great state of Indiana, occupied vehicles are explicitly included in castle doctrine. So when she tried to break into the car, ALL options became available.
If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. A small asp also, any stand off distance is good