safety or law?

Question

if you were being attacked by a robber and you had brass knuckles in your pocket would you use them? Which would you put first, safety or the law.

Answer 1

Two issues.

First, it may be breaking the law (varies by state) to carry the brass knuckles in the first place. So, just having them is a choice to break the law, whether safety becomes an issue or not.

Second, self-defense requires proportional force. If your attacker is not using a weapon, in most situations you are not allowed to either. If the attacker had a club or sap or brass knuckles, then your use of the same would be proportional.

Answer 2

If I were being attacked by a robber, I would shoot them with my illegal firearm. If I was going to carry a weapon, it sure as hell would not be a set of brass knuckles. I would rather be out of reach when I "attack".

Answer 3

The law permits everyone to defend themselves by use of reasonable force. One does not have to wait until they are injured by an attacker before taking measures to defend themselves. On the other hand, if a child runs at you with a stick, it is not reasonable to draw your pistol and shoot him. The law even takes into consideration the fact that fright and alarm caused by an unexpected attack may cause one in the heat of the moment to misjudge how much force is reasonable.

Answer 4

Safety.

Answer 5

I would always put the saftey of myself or someone I loved 1st, even if I had to break the law. I would not hesitate to kill someone who was attacking me and I would use whatever it took.

Answer 6

definitley safety.. .but the law suggests you have to have been violated/attacked in order to use them to protect yourself.

Answer 7

Law?

There is no law against defending yourself or another person against an attack.

I'd use any weapon available.

Answer 8

I'd drop his *** like a bad habit and enjoy every minute of it

Answer 9

I would pull the gun out from behind my back first and shoot them.

Answer 10

safety