Best Pepper Spray?

[Jeff Higgins]

Comp, I have no delusions or fantasies about firearms or their capabilities. I have grown up around them and have used them all of my life. As a life long hunter, I am also very aware of how and why they kill, and just how long that can take. My conclusions about their effectiveness are based upon a lifetime of use and first-hand observation in the killing of many dozens of game animals. Please do not try to defend your poorly thought out position by attempting to attack some one else's experience. Stick to the issues.

My position is that throwing your decoy wallet may get you home safe and sound and it may not. It certainly does nothing to help the next victim; but I guess you don't seem to care about that. As long as the mugger does not hurt you, the next guy is on his own. There are far too many cowards in this world that take that approach, allowing the criminal element to thrive, and to move on to their next target. I refuse to add to their numbers.

If one has time to retrieve their pepper spray and get it into action, there is also time to retrieve a gun and likewise get it into action. You have clearly missed this very important point. Yes, there will be cases where it is impossible to do anything at all but shut up and do what you are told. I agree. Every situation has to be guaged and an appropriate response formulated very quickly; to attempt to present one's weapon is a very important decision. If and when I'm faced with that decision, it will be a gun rather than pepper spray. That was the original point, not the wild tangents you took off on.

I could not dissagree more on the "vigilante justice" point. Vigilante justice is, by definition, a planned occurance carried out by an individual or a group of citizens without the authority of law. Self defense does not equate to vigilante justice in any way. Attempts have been made to link the two in the effort to convince people that defending themselves is wrong. What a shame that so many have bought into that rhetoric. It is our innalienable right to defend ourselves, loved ones, and yes, property in the face of criminal attack. It is also our duty as law-abiding citizens to fight back. Unlike the TV you assert I base my viewpoint upon, the cops do not magically appear to save your bacon at just the right moment. Ask any cop. While I am not personally an officer, there are several in my family. They will tell you they are no more than "janitors" that move in to investigate and clean up the mess after the fact. Your safety is up to you, not them. While I pray to God none of us ever winds up in a situation where pepper spray vs. a gun is a real issue, I sure as hell know which one I will choose.

[competentone]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
My position is that throwing your decoy wallet may get you home safe and sound and it may not. It certainly does nothing to help the next victim; but I guess you don't seem to care about that. As long as the mugger does not hurt you, the next guy is on his own. There are far too many cowards in this world that take that approach, allowing the criminal element to thrive, and to move on to their next target. I refuse to add to their numbers.

and compare that with:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I could not dissagree more on the "vigilante justice" point. Vigilante justice is, by definition, a planned occurrence carried out by an individual or a group of citizens without the authority of law. Self defense does not equate to vigilante justice in any way. Attempts have been made to link the two in the effort to convince people that defending themselves is wrong.

Self-defense has nothing to do with helping "the next victim," or refusing to allow "the criminal element to thrive, and to move on to their next target."

Self-defense involves action to neutralize the immediate threat.

Your comments indicate that you are not suggesting self-defense. You are suggesting that if one is attacked by a criminal, one is supposed to be thinking about defending and protecting society instead of just thinking about surviving the attack. It sure sounds to me like you are equating self-defense with some form of "vigilante justice."

[Jeff Higgins]

You missed the point again, Comp. Let me try once again. In my form of self-defense the miscreant is hopefully rendered unable to hurt me or rob me. That is my immediate goal; not much else will matter if it comes to that. A happy by-product of that is that he is also no longer able to harm others.

That is not my immediate goal in defending myself, but it is an added benefit to society. Yes I have made some up-front decisions on how I choose to defend myself. This is a factor in my decision. And yes, I do feel some obligation to society in not allowing my attacker another chance with some one else. If in your view that equates to vigilante justice, then so be it. I do not now nor will I ever go out looking for these people. That would be vigilante justice. You apparently are unable to understand the difference.

In your form of self-defense, the perpertrator is left alive and well to ply his trade on the next unfortunate that crosses his path. He may also be more determined to not be fooled again and more aggressive about finding something of value to bring home with him. You may very well have won your battle, but you are certainly helping us lose the war.

So which is more intimidating, a can of pepper spray or a gun? Which would you rather face in the hands of some one you are trying to rob? That's what I thought. One of the oft-touted statistics in gun circles is how often they are used in self-defense and never fired. Apparently the vast majority of the time. Does a can of pepper spray provide the same level of intimidation? Hardly.

As an aside, these statistics do not indicate what happens when the gun is not fired. In other words, is the crook held for police or allowed to run off? (Could you even hold some one for police with a can of pepper spray?) Hopefully it's the former, but I really suspect it's the latter. To me in a self-defense situation in which I am able to retrieve my sidearm the guy is either going to jail or the morgue. He does not get to run off to try his luck again with some one else. Pepper spray and/or throw-away wallets virtually ensure he will be able to try again. To me that is just plain cowardly and irresponsible.

[Tim Hancock]

I nominate Jeff Higgins for president in '08!

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
I nominate Jeff Higgins for president in '08!

Hey.. wait a minute. NYC needs a mayor.

[Drago]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
To me in a self-defense situation in which I am able to retrieve my sidearm the guy is either going to jail or the morgue.

If the guy is armed and you are able to draw and the guy turns tail and runs the other way you'd shoot him in the back?

That's a pretty fine line to cross, perhaps you'd like to clarify.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Drago
If the guy is armed and you are able to draw and the guy turns tail and runs the other way you'd shoot him in the back?

That's a pretty fine line to cross, perhaps you'd like to clarify.

Would he still deserve to be shot? Hmmm.... would I have sufficiently intimidated him so as to make him reconsider his life of crime? "Scared straight", if you will? Or did I just scare him onto his next victim?

Maybe when dealing with such as would rob us, hoping we are unnarmed and vulnerable, our instinctive rules of fair play and chivalry should be set aside. Just because he turns tail to run, demonstrating the inheirantly cowardly nature of the breed, does that mean he deserves to get away? After all, it wouldn't be "fair" to shoot him in the back, now would it? Or would it...

Unfair to him maybe, but is it a sporting event where he deserves a fair chance? Does his next intended victim not deserve a "fairer" chance? That is the moral dilema of such a confrontation. Good people, even when confronted by evil people, somehow continue to feel obligated to observe the rules of fair play. After all, goes the argument, if we don't we become "just like them". Do we?

Who initiated the confrontation? Is the unwilling participant in this violent encounter required to give the assailant a fair and sporting chance? I don't think so.

There is, however, always the legal side of the issue to deal with. Not that legal=moral and right any more. Legally, of course, you are obligated to let him run away. I submit that it is your duty to not allow him to do so. In doing so, you are simply facilitating his next attack. If the next victim is unnarmed, as he hoped you would be, don't you have some complicity it whatever harm befalls them? You could have, after all, prevented it.

[jtkkz]

it will be jail time for you if you shoot someone in the back, not worth it.

If the bad guy is staring you in the face and draws a knife or gun and you beat him to it and shoot him, that will be considered self-defense.

[Drago]

Exactly. Not worth it to me or my family.

[DavidI]

As a cop, I suggest you just hand the monster your wallet. Money and valuables are replaceable. The risk of getting shot over property clearly overshadows the value. Even if the gunshot wound you receive is not fatal, it could change your life dramatically. You can be paralyzed, a major organ damaged, etc.

If someone has a gun drawn on you, unless you are some highly trained individual you are at a serious disadvantage. Even if you can quickly draw your weapon, can you do it at a critical, life threatening time? There is a huge difference in training and in reality.

Several years ago, a cop from a local agency was shopping with his 5 year old daughter at a store. He walked into a robbery in progress. He drew his firearm and engaged the bad guy. Each fired, the robber was fatally shot. However, the cop's 5 year old daughter was shot in the head and killed by the bad guy (probably not the intended target). Is it worth it? Nothing is worth the lives of my kids.

I train in full contact cage fighting, and have trained with some of the best fighters in the UFC, King of the Cage, and MMA. I would hesitate to fight someone while off duty if I were being robbed. This all changes of course if I feel my life or the life of one of my loved ones may be compromised.

Back to the question at hand. I recommend "Freeze Plus P." I have no affiliation, except it is what I can on duty. It is by far the most effective pepper spray I have used in my 16+ year career.

Stay safe, David

[alf]

David
From your experience, should one even bother to pepper spray the mugger if he is brandishing a knife or gun? And does anyone mug with a fist?

alf

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by jtkkz
it will be jail time for you if you shoot someone in the back, not worth it.

That is, unfortunately, all too true. Our wonderfull legal system that coddles offenders and ignores victims has made it so. The bad guy gets to live to attack another day. How very sad; how very wrong. But it is reality.

Unfortunately, David, the monster is not always happy just to get your wallet. As a cop you know that. If that is all the guy wanted, and I was dead sure of that (pun intended) it would be a no-brainer to give it to him.

My point remains that given the choice between a gun and pepper spray, I feel there is no choice. Not for a citizen defending themselves. The situation is far different for a cop. You are forced to do things we are not by the very nature of your job. Non-lethal methods of subdual and restraint are important to your job. You guys must very often show a great deal of restraint in dealing with criminals and I very much respect you for that.

I don't believe citizens operate under the same sets of rules. When some cowardly criminal attacks, I feel the appropriate response is the most savage, brutal, surprising, startling counter attack you can muster. Overwhelming force, leaving the crook no chance whatsoever to respond. "Fair" should not enter into the equation at any time. Neither should sympathy and the resultant desire to not hurt them. They brought the fight to you; you did not ask for it or start it. There should be as little risk to you, and as much risk to them, as possible.

[DavidI]

This is all subjective.........If a bad guy had a gun, I would not pepper spray him for fear of being shot. That is unless I truly believed his was going to shoot me (because he shot someone else or something like that). If he had a knife, I would pepper spray him unless I was restricted in my movement (meaning I could not get away). Know that during most knife fights, you will be slashed or stabbed.

This of course applies to me being off duty. On duty, it's on....

David

[DavidI]

Very interesting Jeff. You bring up some excellent points. Each and every bad guy is different and you never know exactly what each will do. The idea is of self preservation. In most states, carrying a concealed weapon is against the law. If you are willing to risk going to jail for this offense, that is a different story.

Taking the offense out of the equation....I would most certainly bring a gun to a gunfight. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Do a little research about how long someone can live even after being fatally shot. Surprisingly, someone shot in the heart can live 30 seconds to a minute before dying. A head shot ends it abruptly though. In the minute timeframe, I can get off at least my full compliment of rounds (46) that I carry. How many will hit you? At least one! Hollywood did a poor job of depicting reality during gunfights. People get shot and fly back several feet. This does not happen. Physics won't allow it!

I love your fighting spirit Jeff. This is what makes America the greatest country in the world.

Semper Fi, David

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins

Unfortunately, David, the monster is not always happy just to get your wallet. As a cop you know that. If that is all the guy wanted, and I was dead sure of that (pun intended) it would be a no-brainer to give it to him.

My point remains that given the choice between a gun and pepper spray, I feel there is no choice. Not for a citizen defending themselves. The situation is far different for a cop. You are forced to do things we are not by the very nature of your job. Non-lethal methods of subdual and restraint are important to your job. You guys must very often show a great deal of restraint in dealing with criminals and I very much respect you for that.

I don't believe citizens operate under the same sets of rules. When some cowardly criminal attacks, I feel the appropriate response is the most savage, brutal, surprising, startling counter attack you can muster. Overwhelming force, leaving the crook no chance whatsoever to respond. "Fair" should not enter into the equation at any time. Neither should sympathy and the resultant desire to not hurt them. They brought the fight to you; you did not ask for it or start it. There should be as little risk to you, and as much risk to them, as possible.