Re: Self Defense for the Disabled

[Guest guest]

Here we can actually not even buy pepper spray... Only the Police

has it (and criminals too, I am sure), as it is considered to be

very harmful to the eyes (a Policeman actually ended up in hospital

with bad damage to his eyes after a training session)...

One little thing to add to your list of things you can use to defend

yourself...

---------------------

I would be very curious/interested in any documentation about the

eye injury from pepper spray because that is contrary to everything

I have ever heard about it. I can understand/accept that it did

happen in an isolated instance but do not accept/agree that it

is " very harmful to the eyes " in general. One of the very strong

plusses about pepper spray is that it does NOT cause permanent

injury. And, yes, I am VERY familiar with the stuff. Over the years

I have literally given cases of the stuff away as gifts and have

personally carried it myself for at least 20 years.

One little thing? There are lots of little things. You mentioned

hair spray. Any small bottle/can of aerosol product would work just

as well. As well as pepper spray? No. But it would at least serve

as a distraction while you threw your power chair into overdrive and

got the hell out of the area, while yelling at the top of your

lungs. With five vehicles around here, plus house and other keys, my

key ring has over a dozen keys on it. I have it set up on multiple

split rings with swivels. One of the rings has a small ASP pepper

spray on it that actually looks like a two cell AAA flashlight at

first glance. With that in my hand, I could either use the spray

itself as spray or as a handle to use the keys as a flail. I also

always carry two ballpoint pens in my shirt pocket. If you know what

you are doing (and I do), pens can become very effective striking

weapons.

Speaking of yelling, another excellent tool to carry is a GOOD

whistle. I always carried one when we lived in Alaska because of the

potential for earthquakes. The primary purpose was for getting help

or attracting attention if ever trapped in a building. It would

work equally well for that if being attacked and trying to flee. Of

course, when we lived in Alaska, I used to carry a LOT of stuff for

the same reason that I don't normally walk around with in Seattle. I

used to carry the small baton on me for the same reason. I didn't

carry it as a self defense tool, I carried it as part of my

emergency supplies equipment. Having it available as a self defense

device was just a bonus. I also always carried a good lock-back, one

hand opening, folding knife with a belt clip in my right rear

pocket. This was also just a tool for me. That it could be used as

a weapon was also just a bonus.

In both cases (baton and knife), they gave me a lesser level of

lethality if the need ever arose before having to resort to the

heavy stuff. And, yes, I also carried the heavy stuff. I got my

first carry permit over 40 years ago, have been licensed to carry in

Oregon, Washington and Alaska, and in fact did carry for better than

half of my adult life. The periods when I generally did not were

those times when we lived in California. I have been fortunate to

live in jurisdictions that for the most part do not treat the

average citizen like a criminal (California excepted).

All of this is fine when at home. Travel throws a whole new twist

to things, especially post 9-11. It used to be perfectly legal to

carry a small pocket knife on a plane as long as the cutting edge of

the blade was no longer than three inches and the blade was not

serrated. No more. It also used to be illegal to carry pepper spray

on a plane, even in checked luggage. That was changed a few years

back at the insistence of flight crews.

Travel issues include not only what is legal to transport (and how),

but also knowing what is legal to possess or carry at your

destination. And a very critical aspect of this is whether

the " offense " is considered a discretionary or mandatory bust. Using

vehicle laws as an example, if you get caught going 70 in a 65 zone,

the officer has enormous discretion. He can ignore it, as in not

even stopping you. He can stop you and give you a verbal warning by

just telling you to keep your speed down. He can give you a written

warning that does not involve a fine, or he can give you a ticket

that has a fine attached. In other words, the involved officer has

enormous discretion about what action he or she chooses to take.

Blast through a 25 mph school zone doing 90 when there are kids

waiting to cross, however, and the offense is no longer considered

discretionary. It now becomes a mandatory situation. The involved

officer has no choice. You will be arrested. Your car will be

impounded. And you are going to take a handcuffed ride in his back

seat to the nearest precinct house.

The same principle applies where defensive weapons are concerned,

but with a bit of an added twist. Get stopped in New York City with

a loaded .38 in your pocket and you are going to get arrested. In

jurisdictions where the offense is classed as a misdemeanor, the

officer has discretion. (If it is a felony, the bust is mandatory.)

So, let's say you are someplace where there is some discretion.

Now, let's first assume that you are a young, shapely, attractive

female and the involved officer is a father with a couple of teenage

daughters. How do you think that officer is going to react in your

situation versus the same officer stopping an obvious gang-banger?

He is going to bust the gang-banger, get " the weapon " (whatever it

is) off the street, and take advantage of the opportunity to ruin

the gang-banger's day. In the case of the young lady, he might

instead give her some additional pointers on how she can best

protect herself and send her on her way with a " have a nice day. "

When we first moved down from Alaska, I got stopped twice (once for

a cracked windshield and the other for a defective tail light).

Both cases involved two officers in the vehicle. Both cases also

involved my having in my possession two guns (both set up with

Crimson Trace Laser Grips), an ASP tactical baton, a top of the line

lock-back knife, and pepper spray. I immediately told the involved

officers that I was licensed to carry and was in fact carrying.

They then proceeded to follow standard procedure and secured all

obvious weapons while we discussed my infraction of the vehicle

code. Their reaction as to the weapons I had on me? In both cases,

one cop says to the other " He's got better gear than we do! " And in

one of the cases, one of the cops said " I wish more of the good guys

were like you. We can't always be where we are needed, when we are

needed, and people need to take responsibility for their own safety. "

And taking responsibility for your own safety where self defense is

involved covers a whole raft of issues. It goes well beyond just

taking a class and/or choosing to carry some kind of self defense

device, whether that device is pepper spray, a baton, a firearm or a

ball point pen. It makes no difference whether your " weapon of

choice " is an obvious weapon or an improvised weapon (like hair

spray). The issue is why you were carrying it in the first place,

what your intent was, and whether its use is deemed justifiable in a

court of law. The more serious the injury caused by your using it,

the greater your liklihood of facing some kind of civil proceeding,

regardless of whether you are ruled justified under criminal law.

The main point I want to stress here is that the decision to carry

or not carry is an individual one. But if you do make that

decision, you absolutely NEED to understand the implications and

ramifications of self defense law and the use of deadly force.

Ignorance can really ruin your day, as in a devasting civil

liability law suit or time in jail. It happens all the time and the

good guys don't always win in the end - even if they win on the

street.

One final thing I want to mention is called the " 21 Foot Rule. " It

was developed by a now-retired policeman named Dennis Tueller and is

currently taught in virtually all responsible law enforcement and

military weapons training programs. It is predicated on normal

reaction times, which for the normal person is about three quarters

of a second. In other words, from the time a threat is presented,

it takes at least that long to physically react to it. It generally

comes into play when a cop shoots someone who is armed with

something less than a firearm but which is capable of causing grave

bodily harm or death (club, knife, broken bottle, etc). Even if the

cop has his weapon drawn, a person within that 21 foot " killing

ground " can close the distance and attack in less time than the cop

can respond. I have seen video demonstrations of this and it is no

joke. I was unaware of this principle the last time someone pulled

a knife on me (and I was carrying at the time). I basically ran a

bluff on him and made him back off just from my body language and my

own " projection " of self confidence. Today? I would immediately

bring my own weapon into play and go from there, no hesitation, no

discussion.

Forgot one thing about travel, especially when flying. Because of

the already mentioned issues of airport security and lack of

complete knowledge of destination laws, I always travel with my

cane. But it is not just an ordinary cane - it is one of the LEKI

telescoping walking sticks. It is fully adjustable in length from a

very short cane to a standard sized walking stick. It also has a

curved cork caned handle that unscrews that lets you use it as a

monopod for a camera or pair of binoculars. In just normal

configuration, it can be used as an improvised weapon. But being

able to take the handle off gives a very compact, very effective,

striking tool that you can keep in your hand. And you are never

going to get questioned about why you have the cane.

Are you beginning to get the idea that I might know a thing or two

about this whole subject?