Pepper Spray - Don't Stay Home Without It

Woman fends off attacker in west Wichita

The Wichita Eagle   BY STAN FINGER

WICHITA — A 23-year-old woman used pepper spray to fend off a would-be rapist in her west Wichita home early this morning, police said.

The woman told officers a stranger came into her house through an unlocked back door shortly before 1 a.m. near Central and St. Paul. He then put a towel over her face and began to assault her, police reports indicate.

At some point during the attack, police said, she was able to reach some pepper spray and use it on the attacker, who immediately left through the rear door.

She suffered visible bruising to her legs, buttocks and back, according to a police document.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/28/2080939/woman-fends-off-attacker-in-west.html#ixzz1c67LKVrM

No implement of self defense does you much good if it's not accessible to you where and when you need it. Yet I know it's not feasible to walk around your house or apartment with a canister of pepper spray or a stun gun in your hand.  But you should, at the least, carry your self-defense implement with you from room to room.  This will improve your odds of surviving an assault immeasurably.
Two of my favorite pepper spray products address the matter of accessibility and proximity. 


The first is 

PEPPER SHOT™ Tri-Pack.  

 You get Total Pepper Protection with this handy collection of 3 pepper sprays at one low price. A 2 oz. pepper spray for home use,  a ½ ounce auto visor clip to keep in your vehicle, and a ½ ounce pepper spray with a Quick Key Release key chain.




The second is 

TORNADO 5-IN-1 Pepper Spray.  

The Tornado is a revolutionary new product that incorporates incapacitating pepper spray, an ear-piercing 125dB alarm and a blinding strobe light into one personal defense system about the size of a cell phone.  It is lightweight and easy to use, and can be accessed and deployed in about one second. A single button releases the unit from the base and automatically activates (in less than one second) the alarm and strobe, calling for help and blinding the attacker. The Tornado personal defense system discharges eight one second bursts of pepper spray up to a distance of 15 feet, and with the built in finger lock you always know the unit is pointed in the right direction (so you can't spray yourself). The unit measures three and one-half inches x two and one quarter inches. It requires 2 CR2032 button batteries that are included. A free belt clip and lanyard are included with each unit purchased.


The Tornado 5-in-1 system addresses the issue of proximity and accessibility by offering accessories that make it extremely easy to keep the unit where you are. These are the:

HOME ACCESSORY UNIT; (Buy several of these and station them throughout your home/apartment wherever you spend significant amounts of time - kitchen, bedroom, family room, etc.)






The AUTO ACCESSORY makes it convenient to take the Tornado unit with you and have it accessible in your vehicle.

The ARM BAND ACCESSORY make it convenient to take the Tornado unit along with you when you run, jog, walk, bicycle, hike, or even when you work out at the gym.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility II

by Walter A Reich

http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/13/2060682/no-charges-yet-against-seattle.html

No charges, yet, against Seattle 'superhero'
By GENE JOHNSON
Associated Press

SEATTLE - Prosecutors have filed no charges, as of yet, against the self-proclaimed Seattle superhero who goes by the name Phoenix Jones.
Jones, whose real name is Benjamin John Francis Fodor, appeared in a city courtroom Thursday morning wearing a charcoal-colored mask and a superhero uniform under a button-down shirt.
Prosecutors told a judge they needed more time to decide whether to file charges.
During the hearing, a court officer asked Jones to remove his mask and he complied. But he put the mask back on after the hearing to speak with reporters - then dramatically removed it again to reveal his true identity.
Jones was arrested Sunday after police say he pepper sprayed a group of people downtown as they left a nightclub.
He says he was trying to break up a fight when he was attacked.

   Here is (possibly) another case of the misuse of a self-defense implement.  I have not read the police reports on this matter, so I cannot claim to be intimately familiar with the details that prompted Fodor to think he was justified in using pepper spray to "break up a brawl."  


   The point is, the responding police officers who investigated the matter felt warranted to arrest Fodor for assault.  (Although, the prosecutors told the judge at Fodor's initial appearance that they would need more time to determine if and what charges were appropriate in this matter.)  Fodor spent seven hours in jail and was required to post a $3,800.00 bond to secure his release.


   This incident will become another example and piece of ammunition for politicians who seek to strip you of the tools you need to defend yourselves in your homes and in your communities.


   In other 'stupid' news, The Wisconsin Legislature has passed a new law concerning the possession of stun guns and Tasers® by their citizens.  They say that if you want to carry a stun gun or Taser® you must have a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit.  (It has to be a Wisconsin Permit or a reciprocal permit from another recognized state.)  This new stun gun/Taser® law parallels their firearms law - you don't need a CCW permit to keep a stun gun or Taser® in your home or business and you can carry one in your vehicle as long as it's in a closed case.  The 'stupid' part is that you need a CCW permit to purchase a stun gun or Taser®.  I haven't figured out how Wisconsin citizens are supposed to acquire that stun gun or Taser® they can legally have in their home/business/vehicle unless they get a CCW permit.


   In other words, you can have it, but you can't get it.  Just another example of government in action.


FOLLOW_UP ON PHOENIX JONES CASE
(Nov. 3, 2011  Associated Press) 

Seattle's self-proclaimed superhero Phoenix Jones lost his job working with disabled children after his arrest for investigation of assault.

On Oct. 11, two days after he was arrested by Seattle police, the Department of Social and Health Services alerted his employer about the case, said DSHS spokeswoman Sherry Hill, who handles children's administration.

"The provider was asked to remove him from any cases that we had," Hill said. DSHS asked that he not be around vulnerable children while the case was pending, she said.

That caused Jones -- whose real name is Ben Fodor -- to lose his job working with autistic kids ranging from age 4 to 18, according to Publicola. "I had to leave work in the middle of the day," he told the website. "It was embarrassing."

Hill clarified that Fodor is not permanently disqualified from working with kids, but the agency wanted to "err on the side of caution" by telling his employer about the assault investigation.

Fodor, 23, was arrested the morning of Oct. 9 after police said he interjected himself into a crowd near the Alaskan Way Viaduct and pepper-sprayed innocent people. Fodor, who speaks to media as Phoenix Jones, has said he was trying to break up a fight and was later assaulted.

Fodor was released on bond just after noon the day he was arrested. On Oct. 13, he said he was not guilty of a crime. He has not been charged in the case.

But Fodor could still be charged with assault, and a spokeswoman for City Attorney Pete Holmes, Kimberly Mills, said this week that a final decision has not been made. People who are convicted of assault are prohibited by law from jobs working with vulnerable adults and children.

Employers are required to background-check people who work with developmentally disabled children and adults. People who do not pass the background check are put on a state list disqualifying them from such jobs.

Fodor could go back to his job if the case is dropped and he is not convicted, Hill said.

Often an attention seeker, Fodor went to his Oct. 13 court hearing with a mask, but had to take it off inside the courtroom. He revealed himself outside court as television cameras rolled, but didn't talk then about the alleged assaults.

"I think I have to look toward the future and see what I can do to help the city," he told reporters.

Police say he should not interject himself in situations, but should call 911. Fodor promised he'd be back on "patrol" soon.

Fodor also goes by "Flattop" when he fights in the local mixed martial arts scene.

Speaking as the costumed Phoenix Jones Guardian of Seattle, Fodor has told reporters he was breaking up a fight during the Oct. 9 incident.

Police say he barged into the situation -- something they say he's done in several other cases -- and assaulted the women and men with pepper spray.

Video of the incident shows two women chasing Fodor and a man with face paint, hitting them and telling the self-proclaimed superheroes to leave.

A woman in the group admitted she hit him, but only after he used pepper spray on her friends for no reason, she said.

"He says, 'I'm a superhero' and sprays everyone," the woman told KING/5. "Nothing gives him a right to do that. That's harassment and assault."

Seattle firefighters were called to treat those affected by the pepper spray during the incident. Fodor has said he is the actual victim.

While dressed as Phoenix Jones at an August Belltown community meeting, Fodor promoted the use of pepper spray for self defense.

A spokesman for Phoenix Jones, Peter Tangen, said last month that it appears the officer who arrested Jones had an agenda and that, when Jones said he was assaulted, the officer laughed at him. He also said police have refused to take statements from two people who were following Jones.

"I think the biggest story here is that the SPD didn't really follow protocol in any way, shape or form," Fodor told KOMO/4 as Phoenix Jones last month.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Superhero-removed-from-cases-with-disabled-kids-2249423.php#ixzz1ceXSW0lQ

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Be careful with your pepper spray and other self-defense implements.

http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/10/2056485/hotel-evacuated-1-hurt-after-bear.html
The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - Authorities say a Salt Lake City Marriott hotel was evacuated and a housekeeper was taken to the hospital after a can of bear repellant accidentally discharged.

Fire officials tell the Salt Lake Tribune the housekeeper was pushing her cleaning cart through a hallway at about 5 p.m. Sunday when it hit a can of spray that was left on the floor.

Salt Lake City Battalion Fire Chief Clair Baldwin says the can discharged and released the repellant, which he says "is like pepper spray, only 10 times stronger." Baldwin says the woman was unable to open her eyes after the incident and was taken to the hospital.

The Deseret News reports about 200 people were evacuated as crews aired out the building.

Authorities are still trying to determine why the bear repellant was in the hallway.

I also recall a story about some nefarious ladies in a bar who talked a guy into believing that a .5 ounce canister of pepper spray was actually breath spray.  They had to evacuate the bar and take the guy to the ER after he tried it.


Carelessness with and misuse of pepper spray and other self-defense implements just helps build a case for those in government who are opposed to those things being available to civilians.  Don't use them for entertainment purposes.  Misuse of pepper spray, stun guns, etc. is classified as a crime in most states.

Pepper Spray – Part III (Effective Deployment).

    Once you’ve chosen the pepper spray product that best suits your circumstances, the next step is becoming proficient with it.  Anyone who has chosen to use pepper spray as their feature self-defense tactic needs to know its effective deployment and performance characteristics.  As I mentioned in the previous article, many pepper spray manufacturers make inert models of their products (filled with water or some other non-active substance) that you can use to become familiar with the product’s effective range, spray density and spray distribution.  


   It’s well worth the investment in time and money for the practice and mental rehearsal so you don’t have to be stumbling through it and figuring this stuff out in an actual tactical situation.  Knowing the intricacies of your pepper spray product’s performance will also lend itself to a higher level of confidence in your ability to deal with an assailant.  Confidence helps to avoid panic.  I’ve heard a few stories about people armed with pepper spray who, due to the stress of the situation, have panicked in the face of an assault and failed to deploy their pepper spray or failed to deploy it effectively.  (Similar to what some inexperienced and mentally unprepared hunters experience known as ‘Buck Fever.’  The body performs some of the required physical activity, but the cognitive aspects of the exercise just disconnect.)


   The second element of proper deployment of pepper spray is preparedness.  There are two aspects of preparedness:  (1) Situational preparedness and; (2) physical preparedness.  Situational preparedness might also be called ‘situational awareness.’  Situational awareness alludes to knowing where and when you are most likely to be accosted.  I think everyone understands the basic precautions they should take to avoid being assaulted – don’t park in dark or isolated areas of a parking lot; don’t move about isolated areas alone – move in groups; know where the higher crime trends are in your community and avoid them if possible; etc., etc.  


   It also encompasses the concept of observing and evaluating your surroundings and all of the tings and people in it – a threat assessment, if you will.  I would describe the mindset as paranoia’s 3rd cousin once removed.  Identify anyone in the environment that you feel could be a threat.  Casually track their gaze in reference to where you are and in reference to where you are moving and your immediate destination.  Track any movements they make and note if their movements appear to be furtive.  If any movement does appear to be furtive, or if someone’s gaze appears to be untypical or unusual, consider that person a threat.  If any aspect of a person’s behavior or appearance seems uncharacteristic or unusual, consider that person a threat.  Begin mentally rehearsing a response to an assault.


   The second aspect of preparedness is to be physically prepared to deploy your pepper spray when it’s needed.  Pepper spray, no matter how potent and no matter how practiced you are with its use, won’t do you any good when it’s sitting in the bottom of your pocket or your purse.  


   When you find it necessary to move into an environment in which you might be vulnerable, your pepper spray should be maintained in your hand at a casual ready.  Many manufacturers of pepper spray products for the civilian markets make models that attach to key rings so that people automatically have them in their hand when moving to and from their vehicles.  My personal favorite is a model that attaches with a belt clip and is very similar to the size and dimensions of a cellular telephone – it provides rapid and easy access without actually having the unit in your hand.


   Should it become necessary to actuate your response plan, point the nozzle of the canister at the assailant’s target area (the muzzle area of the face) and spray a one- to-two second stream making necessary adjustments to the impact area of the stream.  (A one or two-second stream is usually sufficient, but it never hurts to be generous in this situation.)  Be prepared to change targets if there are multiple threats.  As well as spraying the assailant(s), simultaneously scream and yell as loud as you can.  Besides drawing attention to you and your situation the loud screaming and yelling will contribute to the sensory overload your assailant(s) are undoubtedly experiencing.


   One of my favorite pepper spray products is the Tornado 5-in-1 Pepper Spray unit.  Besides delivering a 10% OC solution (about the same potency of the product issued by most police agencies), the unit sounds a 125dB alarm and activates an extremely bright LED pulsating light that attracts attention to you and your assailant and drives your assailant deeper into sensory overload.  The unit provides a little more output to help deliver you from harm.


   Once the assailants’ aggressiveness has been neutralized and their mental focus has shifted to obtaining relief from the OC exposure, that is your opportunity to get away from the assailant(s) and get to help.  Don’t stick around in close proximity to the assailant(s).  Don’t hang around to watch the assailant(s) suffer and admire your handiwork.  Repeated applications of the pepper spray aren’t likely to prolong the assailant(s) debility or intensify the effects. 


   Once you’ve saved yourself, the next step is to do your very best to see that the assailant(s) wind up in the custody of the law.  That will be your contribution to the community.  Most people who engage in this type of crime are serial criminals.  If they recover from their experience with you and your pepper spray, they will likely find another victim at some point and they may even take precautions and/or change their tactics to try to prevent another OC exposure.  


   Just remember that custody is the function of law enforcement officers.  Your only job with respect to that is to do your best to get law enforcement to the assailant(s).  The arresting officers will see to the assailants’ decontamination.


   
   

Pepper Spray II: How It Works

   In order to be effective, pepper spray must make contact with a person’s or animal’s mucus membranes.  That would be in the eyes, nostrils and/or mouth.  The term ‘effective,’ in terms of pepper spray, refers to creating a definitive dysfunction or serious reduction in a person’s or animal’s ability to continue to assault or attack you.  OC contact will also create a rather intense burning sensation when it contacts exposed skin.


   A former associate of mine (a sublime skeptic), upon being issued a canister of pepper spray, conducted a self-exposure exercise.  He read the instructions and paid especially close attention to the decontamination procedures.  Anticipating the worst (or maybe the best – depending how you look at it) he decided that the best place to proceed with the self-exposure test was in his shower to accommodate rapid decontamination.  So he stripped himself down and jumped into his shower.  He held the canister out at arms length and gave himself a brief burst of the pepper spray – upon which gravity carried the excess OC to exactly where you do not want an irritant to contact you.  Of course he couldn’t see and he had difficulty breathing and his motor coordination was severely limited.  He had great difficulty executing the decontamination procedure, but gained supreme confidence in and respect for the effectiveness of pepper spray.


   My primary law enforcement function from the mid 1980s through the 1990s was oversight and operation of a police training academy that served a population base of approximately 1,250 law enforcement officers.  This was during the period pepper spray was being adapted as a law enforcement tool.  Part of my job was to train and certify most of these officers in the use of pepper spray.  The pepper spray training curriculum at that time included a voluntary exposure exercise.  Of course virtually every officer elected to participate in the exposure exercise for fear of being branded a coward should he or she decline to participate.  And, of course, the lead instructor was expected and elected to frequently participate in exposure demonstrations to calm the fears and nervousness of the student/officers and to prove it was effective and safe to participate.  (I doubt there is another man on earth who has been exposed to pepper spray more than me.)


   Once pepper spray contacts mucous membranes, the effects are as follows:


1.   temporary blindness (involuntary closing and temporary inability to open the eyes – I should stress that pepper spray does not actually alter or impede the physical structure or mechanical operation of the eye or ocular components – it’s just the autonomic reaction to the intense burning sensation);
2.   temporary inability to breath (due to swelling of sinus and mucous membranes in the nose and throat and involuntary interruption of autonomic responses);
3.   due to reduced breathing capacity and compromised oxygen transfer (dilated capillaries), many people exposed to pepper spray report experiencing lightheadedness, disorientation, confusion and loss of muscle control.  This is particularly what gives the assailant’s intended victim that brief window of opportunity to escape.


   People who have been caught totally by surprise by exposure to pepper spray in an actual tactical situation have reported that they thought they were having a heart attack or some type of coronary episode.  (This, however, does not happen in training exercises where participants anticipate and understand the exposure.)


   People exposed to pepper spray also experience massive rhinorrhea – a voluminous discharge (snot) from the mucous membranes of the sinuses.  (We actually used to take photos of the officers participating in our exposure exercises and give the person with the longest hanging snot string a ‘booger’ trophy.)  One of my favorite one-liners in the pepper spray training class was, “… pepper spray impresses the snot out of me.”


   Of the thousand plus officers I’ve had participate in pepper spray exposure exercises, I’ve encountered one person whose reflexes were so quick, we had difficulty getting the pepper spray in his eyes or nostrils.  Of course he was standing there looking at the canister in the instructors hand fully anticipating being sprayed.  I’ve come to the conclusion that no one can avoid pepper spray’s invasion to mucous membranes in the sudden, unanticipated deployment of pepper spray in an actual tactical situation.


   We even had people wearing glasses participate in exposure exercises.  Glasses may serve to prevent the highest concentrations of pepper spray from invading directly into the eyes, but the indirect invasion of pepper spray always proved to be effective in halting the aggressive actions of our test officers.


   The effective deployment of pepper spray does require some minor marksmanship skill, depending on the nature of the pepper spray product you choose to use.  There are generally three types of spray dispensers.   


   One is a very concentrated stream.  The spray is dispensed in a narrow stream and requires the most skill to hit the intended target (the eyes, nose and mouth area of the assailant).  The advantage of such a dispenser is that it affords greater range and can be deployed without letting the assailant get as close.  Another advantage is that when it is deployed competently, there is less chance that it will affect anyone in the vacinity it is not intended to.  Some dispensers claim ranges of up to 15 or 20 feet.


   Dispensers that produce a less concentrated stream of pepper spray product sacrifice a little range but don’t require the degree of accuracy to make contact with the intended target area on the assailant.


   A third type of dispenser is referred to as a ‘fogger.’  It dispenses the pepper spray product in a finely atomized  mist that covers a larger area.  It is probably the surest way to get the pepper spray to where it needs to be to affect the assailant’s mucous membranes.  But you sacrifice even a little more effective range.


   Many manufacturers of pepper spray products offer inert samples of their various dispensers for sale as well, that allow users to experience the performance of their selected dispenser type so the user knows better what to expect concerning the deployment of his or her chosen pepper spray dispenser.

   Some manufacturers offer pepper spray foams that stick to the assailant’s skin maximizing the contact effects.  Another advantage of the foam is that it’s easier to see where the stream is contacting the assailant and allows the user to make adjustments to his or her immediate point of aim.  


   And some manufacturers offer pepper sprays with UV dyes in the formula that marks the assailant for easier identification later on.


   Probably the most extensive research on the effects of pepper spray was conducted at the University of Helsinki, Finland.  The researchers used 10 volunteer police officers (5 at a time – conducting the tests twice).  They made a battery of scientific measurements and tests of each officer’s eyes just before, immediately after, 1 day after, 1 week after and one month after pepper spray exposure.  


   The results of the research were published in the July, 2000 volume of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science Journal.  I’ve read the report, but I won’t even pretend to represent to you that I understand it’s scientific techni-speak.  But the conclusion stated that although there were some immediate changes to mechanical, temperature and chemical sensitivity, there were no issues that persisted after a week in any of the eyes examined.  They determined that a single exposure to Oleoresin Capsicum was virtually harmless.


   Manufacturers of pepper sprays promote their products by making potency claims.  They represent potency based on the percentage of Oleoresin Capsicum compounds present in relation to the inert ingredients in the contents of the canister.  Products on the civilian market range from 2% up to 20%.  The pepper spray products carried by police and security officer is generally in the 10% to 12% potency range.  (Note: Many states regulate the potency of pepper sprays carried by civilians to the 5% or 6% range.) Bear spray (developed for outdoor sportsmen, hikers, campers, hunters and fishermen) is usually between 18% and 20% OC concentration. 


   It the nature of our culture to gravitate to the big numbers, assuming that the sprays with higher concentrations of OC will work better.  Manufacturers have known this for ages and market it that way.  Frankly, if I were going hiking in bear country or fishing in an area populated by feral hogs, I’d go for the higher concentrations, too.


   There is another potency indicator that some manufacturers use to promote their pepper spray products.  That’s the Scoville Heat Unit (SHU) rating.  You see, neither God nor Sam Colt were able to make all members of the Capsicum fila equal.  While concentrations speak to quantity, SHU ratings speak to quality.  This index was invented by Pharmacist Wilbur Scoville in 1912.  Some peppers are hotter than others and produce more highly concentrated capsaicinoids.


   If you live in a state that restricts the concentration of OC in your pepper spray, find the products with the percentage of OC concentration allowable and the one with a higher SHU index.

Pepper Spray - Part 1.

   Undoubtedly, the most common and the best known method of self-defense these days is the use of Pepper Spray.  It has proven, many times over to be a very effective means for people to protect themselves against assaults.


   There are numerous reasons that pepper spray has become the most commonly used self-defense method.  But chief among these are:


1. Pepper spray is relatively inexpensive.
2. Pepper spray is uncomplicated and easy to use.
3. Pepper spray is easy and convenient to carry.
4. Pepper spray has a very good reputation (being relied upon as a tool used by various law enforcement agencies for self-defense, to support mechanics of arrest and for crowd control).
5. Pepper spray is essentially safe and relatively harmless.


   You may have heard of pepper spray by the name ‘OC Spray.’  The ‘OC’ stands for Oleoresin Capsicum.  Oleoresin Capsicums are biological substances from a variety of peppers (the same peppers that are used the world over to make spices) that are extracted from the peppers and processed into the irritant agent.  The irritant agent is then packaged with various inert ingredients into a variety of delivery systems for anti-personnel use - self-defense, law enforcement or security.


   Not much is known about the history of Oleoresin Capsicum as an anti-personnel agent before the 1960s.  There is some anecdotal evidence that in the 400s BC, the Chinese ground Cayenne Peppers into fine powder, packed it into balls, wrapped in rice paper and then launched it at enemy soldiers to degrade their combat effectiveness.  About the same time, the Japanese soldiers supposedly carried it in boxes to be blown into the faces of enemy soldiers during combat.


   The contemporary OC agent delivery system was developed in the 1960s at the University of Georgia by Professor James H. Jenkins and Dr. Frank Hayes (DVM).  It was first marketed to the public in 1963 as ‘Halt Animal Repellant.’  The first big marketing push was to mail carriers, bicyclists, and pedestrians who were sometimes bothered by dogs.  ‘Halt Animal Repellant’ was promoted as, while being very effective on animals, virtually harmless to them and caused no long-term damage.  (Note:  While pepper sprays work very well on the typical nuisance and even wild animals, this writer has seen well-trained attack dogs ‘fight through’ a dose of pepper spray.  This, however, was undoubtedly due to the animal’s dedicated training and fighting nature.  These are not the typical dogs that a typical person is likely to encounter in normal circulation throughout his or her community.)


   In the 1980s, Law Enforcement began looking at Pepper Sprays as a tool to help control resistive subjects and for purposes of crowd control.  Until then, police were using other similar synthetic chemical agents commonly known as tear gas or ‘mace.’  (‘Mace’ was the term that referred to these substances packaged in smaller aerosol delivery systems for use on individuals per arrest situations.  ‘Tear Gas’ was the term typically used to refer to larger munitions packaged as incendiary or explosive devices for use in crowd control and as a tool to deal with barricaded suspects.  ‘Mace’ has since become a brand name trademarked by a company that manufactures chemical agents and munitions including pepper spray.)


   In the 1980s the FBI embarked on a three-year study of pepper spray and determined that it was preferable to (safer than) CN or CS (mace) agents and was suitable for issuance to their field agents.  Local law enforcement agencies followed suit in the early 1990s.  Now, thousands of law enforcement agencies around the world issue pepper spray to their officers.  The pepper sprays typically issued for use in the United State and Canada are similar to the biological agent developed at the University of Georgia in 1963.  The agents that are typically issued to police for use in Europe are one of two different synthetic derivatives similar to biological pepper spray.


   The U.S. civilian sector became interested in pepper spray for self-defense purposes in the 1990s.  Many police officers and police agencies in the United States lobbied their state legislatures to pass laws allowing civilians to legally posses pepper spray for purposes of self-defense.  Pepper spray is legal for civilian use (with some restrictions) in all 50 states.  Generally, it is restricted to possession by persons 18 years of age and older.  Many states also left municipalities with authority to ban its possession by civilians as well.  (Anyone considering carrying pepper spray for self-defense should consult with their local law enforcement agency to ensure they are not in violation of any statute or ordinance in the process.)  A few states prohibit the purchase of pepper spray products through the mail and restrict sales to licensed firearms dealers.


   At the same time states passed legislation allowing civilian access to pepper spray, many states passed companion legislation defining and outlawing criminal use of pepper spray.  This usually involved adding ‘penalty enhancements’ to sentences for crimes when they involved illegal use of pepper spray.  (In other words, if someone used pepper spray in the commission of a robbery, they would be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines for robbery plus given an additional two to five years for the use of pepper spray in the commission of the robbery.)


   Once the civilian population showed interest in pepper spray, the manufacturers began to produce and package pepper spray products specifically for the civilian markets.  They made the canisters smaller and easier and more convenient to carry and conceal.  The law enforcement models carried four or five ounces of pepper spray product and required a holster to carry them on a duty belt.  For civilians, the industry developed canisters that ranged from ½ to 2 ounces of product and they made them pocket and purse friendly (they placed safety caps or covers on them to prevent accidental discharges).  Some manufacturers actually made them to attach to your key ring for convenient access.  They began to make canisters and leather holsters in bright, designer colors including hot pink for those who refused to compromise their sense of fashion even in the act of self-defense.


   The industry also responded to various state legislation to make sure that citizens could obtain a pepper spray product that met the legal requirements or restrictions placed on them by state laws.  The State of Michigan was the most restrictive (in terms of the OC concentration of pepper spray product available to civilians – 2%).  But the industry developed a product that met those criteria.  Wisconsin passed the most complex legislation regulating both volume and concentration (10% maximum based on volume of inert ingredients), minimum and maximum range of the unit, certain container appearance and labeling criteria, trigger safety specifications, etc.  You almost have to be a chemist attorney to fully comprehend pepper spray requirements/restrictions in Wisconsin.  But the industry has you covered with products that meet even Wisconsin’s legal model.

Another Case Study

Jonathan Villareal - Another Case Study in the Use of Non-Lethal Force in Schools.

Derby student says cops used Taser, broke his arm because of sagging pants


BY FRED MANN
The Wichita Eagle


Mike Hutmacher/The Wichita Eagle | Buy this photo
Derby high school student Jonathan Villarreal claims two Derby Police SROs beat and tazed him and broke his arm because he refused to pull up his pants. Photographed Thursday, Apr. 28, 2011.
DERBY — A Derby High School sophomore said today that he was hit by a Taser and had his arm broken by two school resource officers for refusing to pull up his pants.
The Derby Police Department said it will investigate the incident. The officers work for the department.
The teen and the Police Department offered differing accounts of what happened.
Jonathan Villarreal, 17, said he was walking with friends to the bus after school on Wednesday when one of the officers ordered him to pull up his pants. He told them he could wear them how he wanted because school was out, he said.
Villarreal said he had pulled his jeans low on his hips, as is fashionable among some young men, after leaving the school.
He said one of the officers, a man who was larger than him, pulled him to the ground by the neck and told him to stop resisting arrest. Villarreal denied he was resisting.
Both officers kneed him in the back and neck while he was on the ground, he said.
Because they were physical with him, he struggled to get up, but was pushed back down, he said.
At one point as he tried to get up, Villarreal said he felt his arm break when he was pushed back down.
After Villarreal tried three times to get up, one officer fired a Taser at his chest, he said. Although he was wearing a heavy coat, he still felt an electrical shock, he said.
Villarreal said the officers handcuffed him in spite of his complaints about pain in his arm, and kept him handcuffed until paramedics arrived and ordered the cuffs removed.
During the altercation, he said, an officer struck him in the eye, which was swollen shut.
Villarreal was taken by ambulance to a hospital, treated and released.
Derby Police Chief Robert Lee said Villarreal used profanities when the officers asked him to pull up his pants.
Lee also said the officers tried to escort Villarreal back inside the school to the office, but he refused to go.
At one point during the struggle, Lee said, Villarreal stood up and took "an aggressive stance," which led to the Taser attempt.
Three students who witnessed the incident supported Villarreal's account during a news conference this afternoon at the Sunflower Community Action offices, 1407 N. Topeka,
Lee said his department will investigate, as is normal procedure, to see whether the use of force was appropriate.
He said he also has notified the student's family about how to make a formal complaint with his department.
Lee said he expects the department will present the case to Sedgwick County juvenile authorities in the District Attorney's Office, who would make a decision about filing any charges.
Villarreal's family is looking into legal action, according to Emira Palacios, of Sunflower Community Action.


Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/04/28/1827093/derby-teen-says-officers-injured.html#ixzz1KwKD9z6X

* * * * *

   This incident is, and will continue to be, an extremely unfortunate circumstance for everyone involved.  The repercussions will be far-reaching and expensive. But let’s examine each element of the story as we know it from the news report.


Part I:  Defining the incident.


   Jonathon Villarreal claims the SROs (Student Resource Officers) tazed him and broke his arm because he refused to hike up his ‘sagging’ pants.  The way this is stated in the news report, Villarreal implies that these were punitive actions by the police as punishment for non-compliance with the school’s dress code.  I’m sure he (and his attorneys) like to convince a jury that the police actions were punitive.


   A more accurate rendition of the facts and circumstances would be: Jonathon Villarreal sustained his injuries in the course of resisting two police officers who were attempting to take him into custody after they arrested him.  (Whether or not the arrest was justified and lawful, and whether or not the specific techniques used to effect the arrest were appropriate and appropriately executed is the business of the review board investigating the matter.)


Part II:  “Sagging.”


   The practice of “sagging” (described by the reporter as a practice that is “fashionable among some young men”) started in the prison system.  Wearing your pants in such a manner in prison was a signal to all of the other inmates that your were someone’s ‘prison bitch’- the willing recipient of acts of sodomy – as well as your disrespect for prison rules and prison authority.


   Villarreal and all of the other ‘young men’ who engage in the practice of ‘sagging’ are sending a signal that they enjoy the practice of sodomy and that they enjoy being the ‘catcher’ rather than the ‘pitcher.’  This goes to demonstrate Villarreal’s antisocial attitude toward school rules and school authority.  Therefore, it is no great surprise to me that Villarreal intentionally disregarded the school’s dress code and swore at the school resource officers that suggested to him that he should adjust his pants to bring them into compliance with the dress code.


Part III: The Taser®.


   Evidenced by the opinion section of the newspaper following the news report, many people assumed (at the suggestion of the reporter) that use of a Taser® was, in-and-of itself, excessive force.  I disagree.


   Had the Taser been effective, or had the SROs


   What Tasers® and pepper spray do is ‘soften’ the resisting subject and reduces their ability to resist and fight.  It does this by ‘scrambling’ the electrochemical signals from the brain to the muscles, causing a good degree of muscular dysfunction. Had the Taser been effective, Villarreal probably wouldn’t have been able to muster enough resistance from his dysfunctional muscles to result in his arm breaking.  (Pepper spray causes similar dysfunction due to sensory overload.)


   The use of the Taser® was appropriate in light of the active resistance, and it was a good try on behalf of the SRO.


   The Taser® is an especially appropriate arrest tool in school environments where the general population is young and has not yet achieved higher cognitive development.  Being more prone to bad judgement in relation to authority, the likelihood of encountering combative kids is proportionally higher than with adult populations.


   Also, the younger the kid, the more prone they are to injuries such as Villarreal suffered.  Turning off the kids’ ability to resist and fight significantly reduces the odds of an injury – for both kids and officers.


Part IV: The ‘black eye.’


   There’s no way around the fact that Villarreal suffered an impact to his left eye – and we probably have to assume it happened during his altercation with the SROs.  (It’s possible that it could have happened in association with some other incident, but I’ll give Villarreal the benefit of the doubt on this one.)


   But here again, if Villarreal had chosen to comply rather than to resist and fight, he would have suffered no injuries at all.


   Police are trained to avoid targeting any place on a suspect’s head or face when engaged in physical combat.  But given the dynamics of physical combat, just about anything can happen -–including impacts with unintended targets.  The fact that Villarreal suffered this injury is evidence to me that he was an active resistor dynamically involved in physical altercation with the SROs rather than the passive resistor he claims to be.  It is more likely that Villarreal moved his face into the impact than it is an officer intentionally struck Villarreal in the face.


Part V: Summary.


   I have to admit that I am more inclined to believe the statements of police officers than I am antisocial, antiauthoritarian 14-year olds looking for a payday.  Part of that is due to professional bias and nearly four decades of dealing with juveniles.  But from a practical perspective, police officers have been screened by panels that lend an ear and an eye to their propensity toward honesty and integrity before they are awarded a position of trust in the community.  Police officers are vetted by a variety of character witnesses as well as psychological screening before they are awarded a position of trust in the community.  Police officers are professionally trained and police officers are aware of the potential costs of falsifying reports and would be logically motivated to avoid that.


   14-year old boys with a head start on an antisocial personality disorder are prone to embellishments and contrivances – especially when they are motivated, coached and supported by an anti-authority, anti-police organization such as is Sunflower Community Action.


   The sad fact is that the City of Derby (or their insurance carrier) will likely pay young Mr. Villarreal a fairly sizeable monetary settlement when all is said and done.  I don’t necessarily believe that the SROs did anything all that drastically wrong, but what they did could have been done differently and probably better.  (Of course I’m Monday morning quarterbacking with the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.)  But unless Villarreal did something that isn’t detailed in the news article that warranted the arrest, the better option for the SROs would have been to disengage and file a formal complaint with the school administration for Villarreal’s violation of the dress code and his subsequent abhorrent behavior.  Hopefully that would have lead to a two or three-day suspension for him.  (Hopefully, he will still be served a suspension or even an expulsion behind this incident in as much as he and his behavior were the precipitating factor.)


   The cost of this skirmish to Villarreal was the tangible physical damage.  The cost of the skirmish to the Derby Police Dept. (and ultimately to the taxpayer) will be whatever monetary amount they decide to settle the matter for - that, and a fair degree of public trust.  (The Derby School District might also suffer some monetary damages depending if and to what degree they’re responsible for supervising the SROs.)  The SROs will suffer some career impediment behind the incident.  No body comes out of situations like these ahead.

http://www.bestdefensesite.com/catalog_3.html


Addendum - 9 August 2011:  


The Derby Police Department has completed it's internal investigation into the Jonathon Villarreal incident.  As I thought they might, the facts of the matter as relayed by young Mr. Villarreal were significantly different than the facts uncovered by the official investigation.  It seems that Mr. Villarreal's sagging-pants fashion statement wasn't even the cause of the confrontation with the School Resource Officers.  That was just the line he used to suck the Sunflower Action Group and the local media into his little pay-day fantasy bid.  It turns out that the SROs were arresting him for disorderly conduct.  It seems Mr. Villarreal was attempting to incite violence by shouting racial epithets (specifically using the 'N' word) at a nearby group of black students.  Mr. Villarreal was order to cease a desist, but refused.  So the officers determined that his arrest was both appropriate and necessary.  The fact finders determined that Mr. Villarreal violently resisted the officers during the course of the arrest.  


I'm going to assume that Mr. Villarreal will likely proceed with a lawsuit against the Derby Police Dept. and/or the Derby School District anyway.  I'm sure his dreams (and his attorney's dreams) of an enormous payday have evaporated to some degree.  But I'm sure they still see a few thousand dollars in nuisance value just to go away.  The problem with that is that even a small settlement to avoid the more exorbitant costs associated with a trial gives the appearance of an admission of guilt to those who don't understand how the civil legal system works.


There will still be some residual stigma as fall out from this incident because the media's follow-up to an incident is never as prominently published as the original articles. But, at least it's good to see some of the wind taken out of young Mr. Villarreal's sails.

Legal Considerations of Self-Defense

  In a recent article, I wrote about the Police “Use of Force Continuum” describing it in the context of a case study of the Aidan Elliot incident in Lakewood, CO. on Feb. 22, 2011.  Since then, I’ve gotten several emails asking if there is something akin to a “Use of Force Continuum” relative to civilian self-defense.

   The answer is, “No – not really.”  But there are some legalistic considerations civilians should keep in mind.

   The Police “Use of Force Continuum” is a complex series of protocols established to assist officers in deciding when, where and how to defend themselves and to establish control and custody of criminals and assailants.  Civilians need not concern themselves with control and custody – just escape and survival.  The “Continuum” is generally the same across the Law Enforcement discipline with slight variations from agency to agency driven by the implements (tools) of self-defense the agency elects to issue to its officers.  (For police and civilians alike, the implements and tools you carry for that purpose dictate your self-defense tactics.)  Law Enforcement officers are usually not allowed to select self-defense implements other than what the agency issues.  Civilians, of course, have the luxury of selecting whatever implements the market offers – within limits.  

   Civilians must ensure their appropriateness and legal compliance by investigating their state and local laws and ordinances for restrictions on self-defense implements.  For instance the State of Michigan  has placed various restrictions on the composition of pepper spray implements that can be carried and used in that state.  In response, the industry has designed and produced a number of pepper spray implements that meet the perimeters established by Michigan.  The State of Wisconsin  has placed restrictions on both the potency (no more than a 10% OC concentration) and effective range (no more than 20 feet) of pepper spray implements.  Most states restrict the carrying and use of self-defense implements to persons aged 18 years and older.  Civilians should also check to ensure that they are not violating institutional policies as well – such as policies governing self-defense implements at their place of employment or on their college campus, etc.

   Beyond the restrictions on the implements themselves and the age of the user, there aren’t really many restrictions on a civilian’s use of force with respect to self-defense except that it must be “reasonable.”  It doesn’t necessarily even have to be proportional to the level of threat the he or she is facing.  Bur even civilians can’t use lethal force unless they are reasonably certain that they are facing a lethal threat.  

   Other than that, a civilian need only be concerned that he or she can justify using force to defend him or herself.  That is a relatively simple matter as the reasonableness of defending oneself when faced with an assault is almost a given.  The primary issue would be the person’s reason to believe that he or she was truly the target of an assault.  Not only must a person reasonably believe he or she is the intended target of an assault, but also they must be able to articulate those reasons and tell investigators why that belief was reasonable.  The test will be whether or not any average, reasonable person would conclude that he or she was being targeted for an assault under the same or very similar circumstances.

   Things that would reinforce a person’s conclusion of being targeted for assault are: 

(1) situational awareness of crime trends and incidents in your area; 

(2) location of suspected assailant(s) in proximity to where you are or in proximity to your immediate destination; 

(3) actions or movements of the suspected assailant(s); content and context of any dialogue or utterances made by the suspected assailant(s); and

(4) any furtive actions or movements made by the suspected assailant(s).

   Civilians who reasonably believe they are being targeted for assault are not necessarily required to engage the assailant with verbal tactics, as are police, although it couldn’t hurt.  In the stress of launching an assault, it’s difficult to say that an assailant might not get cold feet, respond to a verbal command and break off the assault.  But, obviously, you can’t count on that, so be prepared to immediately apply the other strategies, tactics and techniques you’ve decided on for your self-defense tool bag.  

   Another advantage of combining verbal techniques along with your other techniques is something we call “perception management.”  When people in close proximity to you and your situation (witnesses) hear you issue commands and instructions and see how the assailant(s) responds (or doesn’t respond) to them, it helps them to understand better whose doing what to whom and why.  Just don’t waste time in the process.  The simultaneous application of verbal tactics along with pepper spray, an EACD (electronic assailant control device – stun gun or Taser®) or any other self-defense tool is preferable to staging and escalating.

   Whatever techniques you use in defense of yourself, once the assault is interrupted to the extent that you can escape, do just that.  Don’t stick around and admire your handiwork.  You don’t want to be there when / if the assailant recovers.  Don’t continue the application of your preferred techniques unnecessarily or experimentally.  Any excess will cast your original ‘reasonable cause to believe you were targeted for assault’ to come under question.