No, not all.
Wikipedia has a list of states by type of self-defense law at
Except of course that the manufacturer of the pepper spray will stand behind its certification that it will cause no permanent harm. The courts, criminal and civil, all take that into account. Many state and local laws specify what is "legal" pepper spray and declare all other substances illegal to use for self defense.
I just love it when someone thinks the law will be applied the way THEY think makes sense. They are invariably wrong, but theior theories make for entertaining reading.
Keep dreaming, if it makes you feel better.
Well, I guess if you live in a trailer and have no assets or prospects for a job, that is true. Sorry for not including your demographic!
No. You can look it all up for yourself if you wish.
Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy them a nice home to live in.
The asshole, in thought and deed, who brought you to the dilemma in the first place ...
And of course we all know that manufacturers of products are credible witnesses regarding their safety (can you say "Pinto").
Please provide an example of a state law that says that it is prohibited to _use_ any specific substance for self defense. The ones that I have seen regulate sale or possession, not use. I have never heard of any law which enumerates what is and is not an acceptable means of self-defense.
So you're saying that it's better to be dead than to be tried for dousing an assailant with bug spray? If so then quite frankly you're a damned fool.
OK, produce such a statute.
Maybe, depending on the jurisdiction, the circumstances, and the jury.
You act like it's better to be dead than to be sued. If that is the case for you then I pity you.
Before I answer, just what am I answering; tongue in cheek, or a serious question? You make no sense.
As others here have implied, you're full of shit.
... snip
That statement is flat out wrong. First of all, once you have been place in a situation where deadly force is necessary, the idea that choosing area of the perp to hit is ludicrous. The person placed in such a situation is going to be aiming for center of mass -- adrenalin and stress aren't going to provide the luxury of calmly selected shot placement. Therefore, no determination of whether the aggrieved homeowner should have aimed to shoot the perp in the leg vs. killing the perp is going to be assessed.
However, the over-riding guidance is that the justification is "shoot to stop". It is legal to fire multiple rounds until the perp falls over and stops his aggression. It is NOT legal to fire multiple rounds, have the perp fall over then walk up to him and shoot him again -- that's murder, and will be prosecuted. [Source: course content -- AZ CCW course]
... snip
Don't know about the other states, but that is NOT true for AZ:
Castle doctrine has been codified since 2006
... snip
It would probably be tied to intent. If you got an avaricious prosecutor whose view is that it is up to the police to protect the public and he/she wanted to make a case of it, if he/she could show that you had the bug spray
*specifically* to use for self-defense (i.e., intent), then he/she might go after you for that. If on the other hand, you grabbed the bug spray just because it was the closest thing to hand and you were in danger, you were simply using the most expedient article available for your self-defense.... and that's the point, isn't it. There was a recent 911 call put on the internet of a woman in Oklahoma whose home was being broken into. The whole call was heartrending, you could tell this woman did not want to take a life, but the sheriff was minutes away while the perp was trying to get into her house. She was forced to shoot the perp when he broke through the patio door. She was devastated, but at least alive -- that's what the 911 operator kept telling her -- you have to protect yourself. The guy was high on something and could very easily have killed this woman for a few bucks to get his next fix.
I don't think you understand the point.
Please provide an example of a state that doesn't have a definition for pepper spray used in self defense and what it can contain.
I'm saying you haven't even the beginning of a clue on this subject. Trying to move the goalposts isn't working for you, either.
You sure know how to add 2 and 2 to get 22.
Feel free to be wrong. Parents, spouses, siblings and children of people who die file suits for "wrongful death" every day of the week.
You state that what I said is flat out wrong and then proceed to provide a lot of verbiage indicating that I'm right. Which is it?
You're asserting that the laws exist, it's up to you to present one. Not one that says what may be _sold_ but what may be _used_.
I see, you just basically don't understand that "tried by 12" means taken to court while "carried by 6" means buried.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.