From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: BE's question answered.
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:53:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14367@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.102352.9731@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <14324@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> > 	Well, DC, while you are blathering about things legal, why don't you 
>> > give us your assessment of the civil exposure due to (mis)using WD-40 as a 
>> > defensive weapon?
>> 
>> Same as any other device. Use a crowbar, knife, fist, WD-40 or mace for
>> self-defense when you should not have, and you open yourself up to liability. 
> 
> 	Ah - but WD-40 is not really the same as mace, now is it?  
> 	
> 	Most legitimate mace users in this state must attend training classes 
> on the appropriate use of this sort of force.  Mace legal for carry is 
> certified by the state as being appropriate for use.  One of the alleged 
> benefits of mace is that it causes no lasting harm.  All of this gives you 
> some amount of liability insulation.

No, it does not. If you misuse mace, it is no different than misusing a
crowbar. You civiliy liable for the damages you cause. Now either mace is more
damaging than WD-40, which opens you up to greater damages if you misuse it, or
WD-40 is more damaging, which means it is a better deterrant but produces
higher damages.

The liability for both is the same--you were not reasonable in what you did, so
you pay his bills.

An important point however, and that law review guy (Tim?) can verify it. IF
someone has received special training in mace and self-defense, then the
plaintiff they sprayed might be able to show that they are experts, and thus
should be held to a higher standard of care. In short, if you have had
training, you should be better at determining whether or not you need to use
the mace, so in a close case where the untrained person might not be liable,
the expert MIGHT be held liable.

Catch-22, but real.

> 
> 	One of your claims for WD-40 is that it is quite harmful.  This puts
> it in a different category of force, closer to a knife or crowbar than to mace.
> 
> 	All of this would seem to make the use of mace and the use of WD-40 
> quite different, from a liability exposure point of view...  

In a criminal case, it might. A crowbar is a deadly weapon, whereas mace or
WD-40 is usually only harmful for a limited period.

However, in civil cases, all that matters is basically whether or not you were
reasonable in believing you were being attacked. If you were, no bills. If you
were unreasonable in thinking they were attacking you, you pay the bills.


> 
> 	(This also indicates that WD-40 is not an acceptable "substitute" for 
> mace.  While you are searching through CA case law on this stuff, if you are
> able, you might come across one fellow who was *not* charged under the tear gas
> statutes for his use of a "better" substance - that's because they charged him
> with murder instead, as the sprayee died...)

Three important points:

1. Do not mix criminal and civil principles together. They are radically
different games.
2. I have never suggested that WD-40 be used where mace is legal to use.
3. I would never suggest a woman go spraying without being somewhat sure she is
being attacked. But, if she is sure, worrying about possible litigation beats
worrying about whether or not she is going to be killed so she can not identify
her attacker.


DC

PS. Nice post.  I wish more people could keep things civil.