Weapons, Personal Protection Equipment, and Use of Force - Coursework Example

Use of Force Introduction Protecting one’s self, family and property is the individual’s utmost responsibility. The type of protective equipment and defensive weapons appropriate for a particular situation and person is subjective and potentially difficult to measure as is the degree of force that weapons can be used and still be deemed legally and morally justifiable in a given situation. Protective clothing and gas masks offer a margin of safety in case of biological or chemical attack. Rifles, shotguns, handguns, stun guns and pepper spray, among others, provides offensive capabilities to defend oneself against human attacks. This paper defines these types of protective equipment including their individual assets and drawbacks. It continues with many of the issues to consider when carrying and operating weapons as well as the legal implications and moral obligations involved. Respirators/ Protective Clothing The three types of respirators are classified as SCBA, self-contained breathing apparatus, SAR, supplied-air respirator and APR, air purifying. A SCBA system consists of a portable oxygen source connected to the full face-piece. It can be compared to SCUBA gear. The air supply to a SAR comes from a remote source and fed through a hose to the full face-mask. SCBA’s are for short-term use and are more bulky than SAR’s but offer greater mobility. An APR does not have an oxygen supply. It is a face-piece with an attached filter element, usually underneath. Clothing designed to protect from chemicals or biological attacks are multilayered consisting of a variety of materials designed for differing agents because not one single material can guard against all types. Many are lined with aluminum and do allow vapors to penetrate. Maximum protection is achieved by total body coverage including the use of gloves, hats and shoe covers (Huebner, 2006). Firearms Possessing a firearm is not a cure-all defensive mechanism but does provide advantages over many other types of weapons, range being the greatest of these. Using a stick, knife or hands/feet means a person must come in close contact with an attacker. A firearm allows for a safe distance to be maintained, if possible, and the opportunity to respond from any position, lying down, standing, etc. or can be utilized even if the victim has been injured. The rifle is a versatile weapon. It will reach targets that are a half mile away or more. However, attackers are usually closer than a half mile therefore a shotgun is often promoted as a better choice for defensive situation. The shotgun shell does not have the penetrating power of the rifle bullet but is more effective in short-range situations. It is very powerful and because of the wide shot pattern it produces, does not require as accurate an aim as would a rifle or handgun. Handguns can be either semi-automatic pistols or revolver types. The handgun has a benefit over the rifle or shotgun in that is concealable and portable which allows for it to be readily available without being known and causing a panic amongst other persons. However, handguns are less powerful and less accurate than either a shotgun or rifle (Stanford, 2007). Stun Guns/Tasers Though some think of stun guns and tasers as very similar, they are actually are two different types of weapons. Stun guns are small, handheld devices that, to be effective, must come in physical contact with an attacker. On the gun are two probes that produce a high voltage shock when contacted against a body. This electric shock disables an attacker temporarily allowing for a safe escape. Stun guns act to interrupt a person’s ability to control and not reliant on pain to discourage an attack. Tasers and pepper spray, by contrast, utilize pain as the defense mechanism. Stun guns are small, inexpensive and easily concealable. However, it must be used in close contact which could allow for an attacker to readily continue the assault. Tasers, unlike stun guns, are effective from a distance of about fifteen feet. When the taser is used, two probes shoot out. They pierce and are anchored in the attacker’s skin. The trigger is then engaged sending an electrical charge through the attacker’s body which renders them immobile. “Tasers use a timing feature that delivers an initial shock for about 7 seconds; this is followed by shock waves every one-and-a-half seconds afterward. These periodic jolts keep the attacker from regaining his wits and removing the taser probes from his skin” (Abbot, 2006). Tasers have the advantage of being able to strike from a safe distance from an attacker and are commonly used by law enforcement for this reason. They are widely deemed an effectual self-defense mechanism when being threatened with bodily contact or knife. There are few disadvantages to its use. For some, the idea of electrifying another is not an appealing concept. Tasers have been known to cause death although these instances are rare. They are, of course, not as effective as firearms in stropping an attack because the assailant could potentially pull out the probes and become even more aggressive (Abbot, 2006). Pepper Spray/Mace The use of pepper spray/mace causes an acute burning feeling in the face and eyes of an attacker. It can be deployed from up to 10 feet away thus providing a somewhat safe distance between the attacker and victim. It is not lethal and renders an attacker essentially innocuous for approximately half an hour. The spray will cease its effectiveness when either this time has passed or when washed off giving the victim ample time to flee. Pepper spray is inexpensive and available at most stores in the form of palm-sized containers, commonly as part of a key-ring attachment, which makes it easily accessible. It does however, have drawbacks. If the wind happens to be blowing towards the victim during an attack, pepper spray is not only useless but will aid the attacker. Even if the wind cooperates, the attacker could dodge the spray stream. Another disadvantage is the locking device located on the spray canister’s trigger. This prevents an accidental discharge but could be difficult to operate especially in a stressful situation (Abbot, 2006). Use of Safety Devices Attacks are statistically infrequent therefore personal safety devices (PSD) that are easily concealable are often forgotten and end up under the clutter of a glove compartment in the car, under the many items in a purse or towards the rear in a set of dresser drawers. If the weapon of choice is considered a necessity and can be carried in a discrete manner without the owner feeling or appearing paranoid then it should be. If it can usually be found along with other forgotten items then it is a useless expense and potentially dangerous if discovered by children. In addition, if the owner does possess the confidence or adequate training required to use it effectively, the weapon could still prove useless in a stressful situation. “Many people have been seriously hurt in violent encounters with a potential PSD in their hand. In the stress of the moment, they didn’t think to use it or doubted its’ ability to impact the situation” (LaHaie, 2000). The person in possession of a PSD should be fully prepared to use it which involves proper training and practice. In addition, the limitations of the particular weapon should be understood and a back-up plan clearly established. The person who carries a weapon must be well accustomed to the device of choice and also be entirely resolved to use it when morally and legally appropriate (LaHaie, 2000). Lethal Force There is much emphasis placed on the type of weapon needed for a particular individual’s needs but seldom discussed are the guidelines in which lethal force can be used. To protect oneself, the common belief is that it is legally and morally acceptable to use lethal force. It is only legal and some would argue moral, to use only the degree of force necessary in a given situation. A weapon cannot be legally used, for example, to stop a felony in progress unless it can be proven that that person had reason to believe their life was in peril. If a six-foot male attacked another six-foot male with his fists, then lethal force would be deemed unnecessary and the victim of the attack would face a long prison sentence. However, if the same victim was a 5’ 2” female then this action would likely be judged appropriate (Celaya, 2004). Moral/Civil Liability Issues The moral and civil liability issues involved in using lethal force are an important aspect of PSD ownership.  Society’s moral code is written into the laws of the land therefore if a person carefully follows the law then the gun owner generally can be assured that they are following a reasonable moral path as well. However, everyone draws a different moral line in the sand and some may choose to conduct themselves with more restraint than the laws allow.  This is a preferable approach, generally speaking, because quick and emotionally charged decisions’ involving a lethal weapon often leads to illegal, immoral and greatly regrettable actions. “The man who wears a gun carries with it the power of life and death, and therefore the responsibility to deport himself with greater calm and wisdom than his unarmed counterpart, whose panic or misjudgment in crisis situations will have less serious consequences” (Ayoob, 1980: 81). Whenever an individual uses lethal force, an investigation is certain.  If the District Attorney is not completely convinced that that act was in self-defense and was justifiable, the individual will face criminal prosecution.  This is assuming that the prosecuting attorney is not trying to build a reputation for being tough on gun crime in their particular area and decides to send it to trial regardless of the circumstances. In a courtroom setting, the fate of a person who may simply have been trying to protect themselves lay in the hands and hearts of a judge and jury. The jury will hear the prosecutor’s story of how excessive force was used and now an innocent person is dead. They will also see the anguished looks on the family of the deceased and a portion may think that hand guns shouldn’t be legal in the first place (Quigley, 1989: 110). For some, owning a PSD is an essential fact of life in a dangerous world and even an expression of patriotism. There are weapons available to suit most every situation but not one that fits every possible scenario which instigates the discussion of the use and consequences of ownership. Which weapon to choose, if any, is an extremely personal and important choice and cannot be made without much contemplation. What could be more important than protecting a life, or taking one? Is pepper spray enough protection, a shotgun too ostentatious? How much force is excessive or will be perceived as excessive by a prosecutor or jury? These are questions without definite answers but merit serious consideration. References Abbot, Brodie. (November 14, 2006). “Be Prepared – The Pros and Cons of Non-Lethal Self-Defense Weapons.” Post Articles. Available April 13, 2007 from Ayoob, Massad F. (June 1980). In the Gravest Extreme: Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection. Police Bookshelf Celaya, Adam. (April 20, 2004). “Use of Force.” Gunversation Online Magazine. Available April 13, 2007 from Huebner, Kermit D. (May 23, 2006). “Personal Protective Equipment.” E Medicine. Available April 13, 2007 from LaHaie, Randy. (December 2000). “Should You Carry a Personal Safety Device.” Protective Strategies Self-Defense Newsletter. Vol. 1, I. 5. Quigley, Paxton. (May 2, 1989). Armed and Female. Dutton Adult; 1st ed edition. Stanford, Andy. (April 11, 2007). “Gunfighting: The American Martial Art.” Options for Personal Security. Available April 13, 2007 from Read More