“So if a young man is walking with friends, and a large group of 20 drunk young men approach him calling him on, he is not permitted to do anything to protect himself even though he is in fear of getting the life beat out of him? I’ll be very interested in the true legal answer to my question please.”

Overall, the young man is in a pretty difficult spot.  He cannot use force to defend himself until one or more of the group of drunks attempts to assault him or use some type of force against him.  Arizona law does not permit any use of force against verbal threats or someone ‘calling him on’.  In fact, this is generally an attempt by the group to ‘provoke’ him.

As difficult as it is to do, the best thing he can attempt to do is either leave the scene or try and de-escalate.  In my experience, this is usually the best course of action.  The fact that he has several friends with him provides him with multiple witnesses if they do attempt to assault him.  The group of men calling him out probably know this too and this is why they are attempting to get him to ’start something’.

For your reference, I have provided the language of the appropriate statute from the Arizona Revised Statutes below:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

There is also a legal concept known as ‘disparity of force’ that states that use of force might be justified in the face of superior numbers, but again this is only if there is a ‘credible threat’ of injury.  Verbal taunts do not constitute a credible threat under Arizona law.

In terms of your request for  a true ‘legal answer’, since I am not an attorney, I can’t give you that, but I suspect that you might get a very similar answer if you asked an attorney familiar with criminal law in Arizona.

Answer:  Before I answer the question, let me reset the stage for readers that might not be familiar with my previous post.  In order to use any type of force in self defense, a person must be under a credible threat of force or a perpetrator must either use force or attempt to use force against you.  Words alone, no matter how nasty, provocative or threatening are not ever a justification for the use of force.

The level of force you can use against another must be reasonable and measured based on the circumstances of the threat.  The purpose of your use of force is to stop the threat or use of force against you.  Once the threat has ended, your use of force must end as well.  If you continue to use force in the absence of a threat, you run the risk of becoming the ‘aggressor’ and potentially turning the tables against yourself.

There are also many factors that can enter into the use of force equation.  These things generally fall under a concept called ‘Disparity of Force’.  Some of the factors that enter into a ‘disparity of force’ situation can include:

• Age - if there is a substantial age different between the victim and the perpetrator, additional force may be appropriate to provide a force multiplier to the disadvantaged person.  For example, a man in his 60’s might need to use additional force to effectively eliminate a threat from another man in his 30’s.
• Numbers - if there are multiple perpetrators that are threatening or using force against a single individual, then that individual might need to use an enhanced level of force to end the threat.
• Physical Disability - if the person being threatened is disabled to the extent that they cannot run away or effectively defend themselves against a threat, again, additional force may be appropriate to eliminate the threat.
• Size - if there is a significant size difference between a person being threatened and the person doing the threatening, that might be justification for using a higher level of force to end the threat.
• Sex - if a woman is being attacked by a man, regardless of the size or age of either party, the law generally permits a woman to use an enhanced level of force to defend herself, up to and including lethal force,  if she is in reasonable fear of sexual assault or serious injury.

Disparity of force issues are not limited to these factors alone.  Many other factors or combination of factors may come into play in the court making a determination of whether or not a particular use of force was justified or not.  You must understand that there is no ‘bright line’ here.  This is a gray area where the factors involved will be considered by a judge or jury in their determination of whether your actions were ‘reasonable’ in light of the circumstances and were appropriate to the level of threat experienced.

Now, to specifically answer your question.  If someone grabs you without your permission, you are being assaulted.  Simple assault in Arizona is defined as:

1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or
2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or
3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

If someone commits assault under the conditions described under item 1, they are committing a Class 1 Misdemeanor which is punishable by a jail term of 6 months and a fine of up to $2,500.

If someone commits assault under the conditions described under item 2, they are committing a Class 2 Misdemeanor which is punishable by a jail term of 4 months and a fine of up to $750.

If someone commits assault under the conditions described under item 3, they are committing a Class 3 Misdemeanor which is punishable by a jail term of 30 days and a fine of up to $500.

You do have the right to defend yourself using a threat of force or physical force if necessary, but nothing you described would allow you to use anything greater than physical force unless you believed that you were in danger of serious injury, permanent disabling injury or death.  My guess is that people that do as you described are trying to intimidate you or are bullies that enjoy making other people afraid.

If you are not trained in some type of self-defense skill, any resistance on your part is likely to result in escalation which could result in potentially much more serious consequences for you.  You might want to consider carrying some non-lethal defensive device.  My choice would probably be a high quality pepper spray from either Fox Labs or ASP.  They make key chain devices that when deployed, can make it very unpleasant for your assailants.  Pepper spray will effectively disable an attacker for 30-45 minutes, giving you plenty of time to get to safety and call 911.

My first recommendation is to not put yourself in the situation if you can avoid it.  If possible, just remove yourself from the vicinity.  Get in your car and drive away or if you are on foot, walk or even run away if necessary.  I can’t begin to tell you the number of bad situations that result from men letting their testosterone dictate their actions in a confrontation.  You can also try to control your anger and de-escalate the situation.  I have used this technique with great success myself many times.

If you cannot leave and cannot de-escalate, do anything you can to attract the attention of any onlookers or witnesses.  Scream or call for help and get on your cell phone and call 911.  Tell them to send the police immediately and give your location.  If your attackers are bullies, they will probably not hang around for long.  If they don’t leave and continue to press the attack, this might be the time to consider using your pepper spray on them.

If they do attempt to harm you in any way and you know who they are, you should call the police and press assault charges.

One final note:  If at anytime you feel that you are in real danger of being seriously injured or killed, or the perpetrators have taken up a weapon or ‘dangerous instruments’ like a stick, bat, rock, bottle or anything similar, the simple assault has moved to an aggravated assault which is a felony.  At this point, unless you are armed, your primary objective should be to get away at all costs.  Even if you are injured while getting away, it is better than trying to fight your way out and be more seriously injured or killed.  Get to a place with lots of people and call 911.

I do feel a bit of an obligation to explain how pepper spray works and how to determine the strength of any spray you might consider purchasing.  This is important because there is some confusion about how hot a spray should be in order to insure that it is effective against a potential attacker.

First, let’s talk a little about the idea behind what is more properly called ‘OC Spray’.  The ‘OC’ stands for Oleoresin Capsicum.  OC is a strong irritant of any mucus membranes it comes in contact with.  The sensation generated by exposure to OC is one of severe burning of the affected tissues.  If sprayed in the eyes, it causes profuse tearing, burning, pain and can cause temporary blindness.  A friend of mine in law enforcement that has been sprayed with OC in training says that it feels like “drowning with your face on fire”.  Not a pleasant experience to say the least…

This experience of burning eyes, running nose, coughing and having difficulty breathing can continue for 30-45 minutes depending on the amount of spray used and it’s strength.  The strength of the spray not based on the percentage of active ingredient, but rather is based on the number of Scoville Heat Units or SHUs that the spray has.  Scoville Heat Units are a measure of ‘heat’ in peppers.  A mild jalapeno pepper might have a SHU rating of 1,000 to 1,500.  Tabasco might carry an SHU rating of 30,000 to 50,000.  The hottest pepper in the world, the habanero, carries an SHU rating of 300,000 to 500,000.  Compare those to the rating of popular pepper sprays which can range from 2 million SHUs to 5.3 million SHUs.  As you can see, these sprays are really hot.

As you have no doubt experienced, different individuals can have different levels of sensitivity to peppers.  My father-in-law can put incredible amounts of crushed red peppers on food.  What he relishes is completely inedible to me.  Similarly, some people will be less susceptible to pepper spray due to ‘conditioning’.

Since pepper spray is many times used by law enforcement and correctional officers against their ‘clients’.  Some of those individuals develop a higher tolerance to the effects of the spray.  While OC spray will always have some effect, even on a heavily conditioned individual, they may be able to continue to function if the strength of the spray is near the lower end of the range.

That is one of the reasons that I recommend a spray by Fox Labs.  The Fox Labs product is highly refined and the SHU rating for it tops out at 5.3 million SHUs.  It is the hottest OC spray available.  Even the most ‘conditioned’ criminals have a difficult time fighting through this stuff.  It is truly ‘wicked hot’ as my friend from the east coast would say.

If you plan to carry OC spray for personal defense, there are a few of things to think about on both the positive and negative sides:

1. It will do you no good if it is in the bottom of your purse, in your pocket or in your briefcase when you need it.  It needs to be accessible.
2. There is a high likelihood of ‘cross contamination’ if you use OC spray.  What I mean specifically is that you might be exposed to it when you spray someone else.  This is not something you want to be experiencing for the first time when you are in trouble.  I’m not saying that you should blast yourself in the face with it, but you might want to understand what you might have to deal with.
3. You cannot just ’spray’ someone without justification.  You need to be under threat of assault at a minimum to be justified in using OC spray.
4. You might also want to think before using OC spray in enclosed spaces.  Several people were killed during a panic to get out of  a Chicago dance club when a bouncer used OC spray on an unruly guest inside the club.

After considering all those things, you might ask yourself “Should I carry OC spray”?  Here is the answer for me:  one of my students probably prevented a robbery or worse by using pepper spray.  She had it in her hand when she was grabbed from behind at an ATM.  She sprayed the robber/rapist in the face and got away unharmed…

You can decide for yourself, but I don’t go anywhere without my OC spray…

What are the laws in Arizona regarding self defense and the legal use of force?

Answer:

This is a short question that has a very long answer.  To give you some idea, in the CCW courses that I teach in Arizona, we spend between 2-3 hours discussing this topic.  

Clearly I can’t do that here.  I also need to tell you that I am not an attorney and can’t give you legal advice.  If you need to get a definitive answer or need legal advice, you should locate a good criminal attorney.  

Having said all that, I will try and give you an answer to your question…

In general, Arizona laws provides that you have the legal right to use force if you are ‘justified’ in doing so.  Justification is a fairly complex concept that looks at the circumstances when a threat of force or use of force has occurred and applies a test of whether or not the response to that threat or use of force was ‘reasonable and appropriate’.  

First, you must understand that words alone are never justification for use of force.  Someone can stand right in front of you and scream obscenities in your face and you are not ever justified in using force to stop them.  

On the other hand, if they take a swing at you with a fist, you may be justified in using some level of force against them to ’stop the threat’.  Since the force you are being threatened with is not “lethal force” , you can only use enough force to stop the threat and can only do so if you believe that you are in danger of being injured.

If the threat against you involves a “deadly weapon”, which by legal definition would be a knife or a firearm, then you are justified in using force, including lethal force to stop the threat against you.  When someone illegally uses lethal force against you, you are most likely in fear of serious injury, permanently disabling injury or death.  This almost always would justify the use of lethal force to defend yourself.

It is the gray areas in between that cause so much confusion.  What happens when someone threatens you with a baseball bat or a stick?  Since neither of these are “deadly weapons” but simply “dangerous instruments” you may not be justified in using lethal force, but would be justified in using some physical force in self defense. 

It simply depends on the circumstances.  For example, if you were elderly or infirm, you might be justified in using lethal force if you believed you might be seriously injured or killed by your attacker. 

If you were about the same size and the same sex as your attacker and had some impact weapon available, you might not be justified in using lethal force, but you would be justified in using physical force to stop an attack.  

These issues are broadly referred to as “disparity of force” issues.  They involve things like the number of attackers, disparity in the physical size, age or sex between the victim and attacker.  All these things can affect whether or not justification can be used as a defense against use of force in a self defense situation.

My rule of thumb is this…if I can remove myself from the situation, that is the best choice.  If I am forced to defend myself from injury I will only use the force necessary to stop the threat or attack.  If I am being illegally threatened with lethal force, I am justified in using lethal force and will use it if necessary to stop the attack.

Bear in mind that any use of force, justified or not, can result in criminal charges.  The police may arrest all involved parties and let the court sort out who is guilty and who is innocent.

If you want a much more involved discussion of justification, you can pick up a copy of the “Arizona Gun Owners Guide” written by Alan Korwin.  You can pick one up for $15 in most gun stores.  You can also buy a copy online at http://www.tacticaldirect.com 

You can also visit the Arizona Department of Public Safety website at http://www.azdps.gov/ccw  

There you will find a downloadable paper written by an attorney, Michael Anthony, on the Arizona laws associated with the use of force and lethal force.  It’s about 75 pages worth of legal reading, but there is lots of detail.  It is also free.

Certainly, if you have specific questions you can feel free to drop me a note with and follow up questions you might have.

On of my former students asked this question recently, so I thought I would amplify things a bit and answer the question here.

His complete question really related to what would happen ifhe actually did have to use lethal force while carrying concealed in arestaurant that serves alcohol.  He wanted to know if he would be charged with the firearms violation, despite the fact that by being armed and acting to stop a lethal threat, he saved lives.

First, let’s begin by saying that carrying a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises is illegal.  It is a class 2misdemeanor which carries a potential penalty of up to a $750 fine and up to four months in jail.

If a person carries an otherwise legally concealed firearm into a restaurant and then uses it against a legitimate lethal threat and is proved to be justified in using lethal force, the police can still charge them with the firearms violation.

It will be up to the court to decide the final disposition of the case, but they could still charge you.  It would then be up to the prosecutor and the court to decide how to proceed.

No one can make this type of decision for you.  Some might even choose not to act out of self-preservation.  Any way you look at it, this is a tough decision.  I would never encourage anyone to break the law, but I also would not let the concern over a relative minor charge prevent me from defending my own life or the life of a loved one.

I will fight and prevail.  I will survive and deal with what I have to deal with.  If I go to prison, I will eventually get out.  If I have to pay a fine, I will make more money.  If I get put on probation, I’ll eventually be off probation. 

If I am dead, that’s it.  There is nothing else. Ever.  That is not a choice that I will willingly entertain.

(1) Before I take the course, please tell what other weapons besides firearms that the AZ CCW Permit covers.
(2) Can you also please tell me what of these weapons are or are not legal to carry:

Batons
Compact Batons
Blackjacks
Knives and what limits if any, like (A) having brass knuckles built in, (B) automatic knives, (C) length limits
Brass Knuckles
Stun guns
Tasers
Pepper Sprays

It would seem like common sense that if a firearm can be carried concealed, then anything less lethal than a firearm would also be legal to carry. But I’d like to know for sure.

From my point of view, if a lesser means of force can be applied to stop an attack, then I’d rather not shoot the person. I may want to pull something like a baton before I get the gun out. I’d really appreciate it if you could help me understand this before I sign up. Thanks.

Answer:

The concealed weapons permit relates specifically to firearms or knives with a blade length of over 4 inches. If a knife has a blade length of less than 4 inches it is considered to be a pocket knife and no permit is required to carry it concealed (like in your pocket).

Regarding the other items you mentioned, specifically batons or compact batons, automatic knives, stun guns, tasers and pepper spray, they are all legal to possess and carry in Arizona without a permit. Please understand that Arizona is a more permissive state than most and all of these items are potential illegal outside of Arizona. For example, carry of automatic knives and batons in California is a felony. As far as blackjacks or brass knuckles, Arizona law is fundamentally unclear. If you were arrested for using them and/or having them in your possession, it would be possible to argue that you were in possession of a ‘deadly weapon’. They are not specifically mentioned in the Arizona criminal codes, so you would pretty much be at the mercy of whatever the trial judge decided. I would probably avoid them for that reason. Additionally, actually using them could potentially cause as much injury to you as the person you were using them against.

Regarding all of the other ‘legal’ items, you would still need to be ‘justified’ in using them, specifically you would have to show that you were being credibly threatened with serious injury, disabling injury or death to avoid being criminally prosecuted. This is something that we discuss in depth during the AZ CCW course itself.

In my own classes, I also include a discussion on alternatives to the use of lethal force, which is beyond the standard curriculum and is not discussed by most CCW instructors as they may not have the skills or training to treat this topic authoritatively. This is one of the reasons that the AZ CCW classes I teach tend to last a little longer than the required 8 hours and cost a little more. Having alternatives to the use of lethal force is very important and most students want to know what other options might be available to them.