You have to audibly up the ante when someone has already escalated to the point of violence

^well in the us, they have rules where if force is applied to a person who isn't a threat, you are now the aggressor, because a person mugging you all of sudden knocked unconscious, you cannot continue hitting him after he is not longer a threat..

Sure, and the endpoint should be when you are no longer at risk

If the guy was concealed carrying there is a chance he could have turned the tables on the mugger.

But who knows when the attacker is no longer a threat?

Sure, I don't think anyone's arguing that concealed carry is generally safer for the carrier

When he flees, falls unconscious or dies is a pretty decent baseline

^it's up to the jury to decide if the person is reasonably in fear of bodily harm or not... that's why it goes to court..

because the 'victim' may perceive that the attacker could still be a threat

, a guy cannot make it up since all facts will be shown in court when a DA looks at it, and you are like, "oh he's on the ground, but i still fear for my life, so i put another 3 shots in him" won't fly for the judge or the jury...

Plus if you don't want that scenario, don't attack people

^well if he surrenders, you cannot continue using the same level of force as lethal anymore, you can do a citizen arrest, however..

For sure

I'm just saying if you're worried about the grey area, try not assaulting people

but california wants all gun owners to give the assailants a day in court as they are stabbing you with a knife :V goddamn liberalism is a disease...

one politician was talking about how conceal carry allows people to be judge, jury and executioner.... was like.... umm no...

lol

Good rule of thumb is once the assailant is no longer attacking have him get onto the ground and call the police and make sure he doesn't go anywhere.

The definition of when you can use deadly force does allow you to gun down an escaping felon though.

well the rule of thumb is, always say you used lethal force to stop a threat.... do not say you have to kill him... this is where it becomes a legal trap where they can argue you use lethal for to kill, not to stop a threat...

But he is escaping though?

@Lucian actually, there was a case iirc where someone was running outside and was shot, i think the guy somehow got the jury to believe the guy was still a threat because the guy running threatened he was coming back....

What can get the cops in trouble is the portion where it says, "lesser means have been exhausted or cannot be reasonably employed"

They are trained in lesser means so in most cases it can be reasonably employed they also have tasers which work sometimes.

well taser doesn't work after 1 ranged deploy and 2 dry stun, indoors so no go on oc spray...

also they are not trained in MMA, so doesn't know grappling techniques, they have lethal force left..

There is also a chance that a deployed taser can ignite pepper spray.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5312322/man-flames-taser-tear-gas-french-cops/

i got in a heated debate on why lesser than lethal actually leads to a bigger problem than just with lethal force... :V the idea was for taser to work, they would have to be within 30 feet to deploy, and leads to a false sense or security when taser only works 50% of the time...

Not even 50% of the time. You need both prongs making good contact and clothing is sufficient insulation especially winter clothes which will allow even less penetration.

Just beanbag everyone in the junk

^LAPD said roughly 50% of all taser deployment worked on first deployment, and each subsequent try has lower chances..

Baggy shirts could also prevent good contact. I saw a video where the police tasered a guy who was wearing a white cotton shirt. He then tried to make the arrest with a baton which was then wrestled out of his grip and after that the police just shot him.

Even then there's footage of people just not going the fuck down

How about deploying riot shield as a weapon of choice?

bulky... doesn't stop hand to hand confrontation..

But then officers are also trained to immediately bring out their sidearm too are they not?

True it is bulky, but most of the time it takes more than two police to engage a attacker, so if both cop are armed with a shield, it should make it hard for the attacker to use hand to hand combat

If it were as easy to carry as a telescoping baton I could see it but shields are only really viable when they have time to deploy it.

^ASP are illegal in kommiefornia

Does that mean auto-telescoping?