Hallucinator
New member
Evade, then pepper spray.
Deadly force or no?
- Thread starter Duxman
- Start date
This is an interesting situation but in my mind the use of deadly force is questionable. Ignoring the HIV element, I think it is a hard sell that a typical syringe (not some monster syringe) is a deadly weapon. It is likely not even to penetrate your clothing during a scuffle and if it did it would most likely do little harm assuming you where taking defensive action.
Could he be successful? Sure, it is possible. However, anyone with a pen or a toothpick could be a similar threat.
Even if the syringe has been exposed to HIV, you are unlikely to get HIV from the syringe if you were stabbed. Is it possible? Sure . . . but I think the odds are in your favor.
Given that most fist fights do not justify the use of deadly force (even though there is a remote possibility that you will killed), I question whether you could sell the use of deadly force in this situation, at least in California. Clearly if there were are series of escalations, it might be different story. But, to just pull out your blaster and tag him on his first threat would be a hard sell in a criminal and civil case.
I would be interested if any police officers in the group would be authorized to use deadly force in this situation.
Could he be successful? Sure, it is possible. However, anyone with a pen or a toothpick could be a similar threat.
Even if the syringe has been exposed to HIV, you are unlikely to get HIV from the syringe if you were stabbed. Is it possible? Sure . . . but I think the odds are in your favor.
Given that most fist fights do not justify the use of deadly force (even though there is a remote possibility that you will killed), I question whether you could sell the use of deadly force in this situation, at least in California. Clearly if there were are series of escalations, it might be different story. But, to just pull out your blaster and tag him on his first threat would be a hard sell in a criminal and civil case.
I would be interested if any police officers in the group would be authorized to use deadly force in this situation.
The OP says that the only way out is through the bad guy, who happens to be wielding a deadly weapon, regardless of its infected status. Deadly force would be justified in most every jurisdiction.
Now, if you want to give up the goods and risk his coming in on you despite that, fine. If you want to go hand to hand and risk being stabbed, that's your call.
Now, if you want to give up the goods and risk his coming in on you despite that, fine. If you want to go hand to hand and risk being stabbed, that's your call.
Would a short ice pick be considered a deadly weapon? That's pretty much what a syringe would be in this case. It's not simply a matter of being stabbed, it's also a case of the struggle over the weapon causing it to tear tissue . . . like arteries, eyeballs, etc.
As for LEOs, they'd probably resort to a taser in this circumstance, or certainly pull out a baton.
As for LEOs, they'd probably resort to a taser in this circumstance, or certainly pull out a baton.
Trip, no . . . "supposed "AIDs" infected syringe needle". Its real status is unknown. Based on the description, I am assuming the "victim" is doing the supposing. Under your scenerio, I can blast the guy with a finger in his pocket because it might be a gun and administer deadly bullets. What happens if the druggie and needle are clean after the shooting??
By the way, I am not sure how we know the guy is a heroin user unless he is wearing a sign or we have personal knowledge. I am assuming we are "supposing" on that also.
Buzz, ice pick indicates a more robust weapon . . . one not likely to be bent or broken. Let's say he is standing there with a sewing needle or pin. Deadly weapon?
I would certainly support the taser (non-lethal) being used. Of course, I would support that being used on many of the people I run across in life. ;-}
By the way, I am not sure how we know the guy is a heroin user unless he is wearing a sign or we have personal knowledge. I am assuming we are "supposing" on that also.
Buzz, ice pick indicates a more robust weapon . . . one not likely to be bent or broken. Let's say he is standing there with a sewing needle or pin. Deadly weapon?
I would certainly support the taser (non-lethal) being used. Of course, I would support that being used on many of the people I run across in life. ;-}
Let me put it like this: I know how to cause death or grave bodily harm with a sewing needle, keys, ballpoint pin, etc. Most people do, if they've thought about it for more than a few minutes. If I'm assaulted, I'm not going to sit back and analyze whether the attacker who is threatening death or grave bodily harm has the same level of knowledge. This guy isn't waving the needle around because he thinks you're afraid of needles; he's doing it because he wants you to be afraid of dying and thus compliant with his demands. He intends the needle to be a deadly force threat, so treat it as one.
AAshooter, I interpret the following quote from the OP in a different manner than you:
This portion of the OP has led me to the conclusion that the assailant has qualified the syringe as HIV infected as part of his/her threat. Whereas you appear to assume the victim is responsible for jumping to the conclusion that the syringe is infected with HIV.
The exact contents of the syringe are largely irrelevant. The most important factor in determining whether or not deadly force is justified is to consider that a reasonable person can reasonably assume that the syringe contains any number of contaminants that may cause death or great bodily harm; HIV, drugs, battery acid... it doesn't matter.
I think it's unreasonable and largely naive to assume you’re being threatened with a sterile, fresh needle. Used needles are considered bio-hazardous waste, and thus I would use deadly force to keep from being a pin cushion.
First of all, these are not my scenarios. I'm dealing with the original scenario posed in this thread. Secondly, it would be foolish to assume you're being threatened with a finger in what is being called my scenario. If I catch you in a dark stairwell pointing my finger at you from inside my pocket, threatening to shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet, are you telling me you'd offer a manicure?
Duxman said:
This portion of the OP has led me to the conclusion that the assailant has qualified the syringe as HIV infected as part of his/her threat. Whereas you appear to assume the victim is responsible for jumping to the conclusion that the syringe is infected with HIV.
The exact contents of the syringe are largely irrelevant. The most important factor in determining whether or not deadly force is justified is to consider that a reasonable person can reasonably assume that the syringe contains any number of contaminants that may cause death or great bodily harm; HIV, drugs, battery acid... it doesn't matter.
I think it's unreasonable and largely naive to assume you’re being threatened with a sterile, fresh needle. Used needles are considered bio-hazardous waste, and thus I would use deadly force to keep from being a pin cushion.
AAshooter said:
First of all, these are not my scenarios. I'm dealing with the original scenario posed in this thread. Secondly, it would be foolish to assume you're being threatened with a finger in what is being called my scenario. If I catch you in a dark stairwell pointing my finger at you from inside my pocket, threatening to shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet, are you telling me you'd offer a manicure?
You make valid points.
I guess it comes back to how much of threat to cause death or great bodily harm is this guy.
Infection rates for health care professionals stuck with HIV infected needles is about 0.3% according to one source. So it is pretty unlikely that the HIV aspect of this whole thing will be a problem, even if he manages to stick you.
I guess it comes back to how much of threat to cause death or great bodily harm is this guy.
Infection rates for health care professionals stuck with HIV infected needles is about 0.3% according to one source. So it is pretty unlikely that the HIV aspect of this whole thing will be a problem, even if he manages to stick you.
stephen426
New member
AAshooter said:
AAshooter,
Sorry to say, but even a .03% is more than I want to accept, much less your stated .3%. That means for roughly every 333 accidental sticks, 1 person becomes infected. How long does it take before the virus replicates to the point of being detectable? Your life will be hell while you are waiting to find out. If someone threatens me with a syringe and he tells me it is HIV infected, that qualifies it as a deadly weapon in my eyes. My previous post mentioned drawing on him and shooting him only if he advanced. That is not a crap shoot I am willing to accept.
AAshooter said:
Yes sir, this may be true. But I guess I don't understand the relevance of this with regard to determining the appropriate response to the aforementioned threat.
I'm not comfortable assuming the risk of a 0.3% infection rate to a degree that considering the same would alter my response to this threat.
Besides, I would have to ask the heroin addict to hang on while I Googled infection rates for health care professionals stuck with HIV infected needles.
Both comments understood.
As far as infection rates from HIV exposed needles, the fact that your risk of infection is low should be common knowledge (No googling required).
The only reason I quantified it here is to help separate the threat of the syringe from that of its contaminates for the purposes of discussion.
As far as infection rates from HIV exposed needles, the fact that your risk of infection is low should be common knowledge (No googling required).
The only reason I quantified it here is to help separate the threat of the syringe from that of its contaminates for the purposes of discussion.
HardcoreHehaw
New member
You F*ckin shoot! DUH!!
You could always say he was threatening to stab you to death with a needle.
If you don't feel comfortable with that holding up in court than plant a knife beside his (dead) body before the cops arrive.
OK seriously..
In Florida the law says that you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in immediate danger, OR the BG intends to cause great bodily harm.
Now HIV Infection will seriously harm your body, so you better at least draw, whether or not you shoot is up to you. As for me, I'm shooting to kill. I have no sympathy for any addict who threatens my life to the point to where I'm legally allowed to shoot and kill.
You could always say he was threatening to stab you to death with a needle.
If you don't feel comfortable with that holding up in court than plant a knife beside his (dead) body before the cops arrive.
OK seriously..
In Florida the law says that you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in immediate danger, OR the BG intends to cause great bodily harm.
Now HIV Infection will seriously harm your body, so you better at least draw, whether or not you shoot is up to you. As for me, I'm shooting to kill. I have no sympathy for any addict who threatens my life to the point to where I'm legally allowed to shoot and kill.
HardcoreHehaw
New member
One of the least likely ways to contract HIV is blood spray into the eyes, but yet it has happened.