The tools of a man prepared.
Here’s a statement for those that worry about whether their chosen self-defense method is “legal” and whether it will “look bad” in the eyes of a jury.
"[An argument can be made against using] any weapon, or any form of self-defense.
"What might a jury think of someone carrying a knife? Considering that most people don’t see the need or any value in carrying a knife, and considering that many people have a fear of knives, I’d say that jurors are very likely to believe that a person just carrying a knife is a dangerous criminal.
"What about a stun gun? Criminals use stun guns to disable their victims, to make it easier to rob them, rape them, or to kidnap them. I’m sure that any experienced prosecutor could use the fact that you were carrying a stun gun to portray you in a negative way.
"What about a firearm? Even if you have a permit, I’d wager that most people would look upon a civilian carrying a gun as some kind of wanna-be cowboy, Rambo, bad-ass, etc.
"What about using hands and feet as weapons? If you use your fist to break someones nose or kick them in the balls rupturing a testicle, a jury might very well think that you are some kind of thug. No matter what you do, there is always the chance that a jury will see you as the bad guy.
"Personally, when it comes to self-defense I don’t worry about what a jury might think. First and foremost my primary concern is surviving an assault. And if I feel the need to use violence or use a weapon to defend myself then that means I truly believed that my life was in immediate danger. In which case, what a jury might think is all the more meaningless.
"I base my self-defense "strategy" first and foremost on what I think will work best for me, and second, to a lesser degree, on what is legal. The possible opinions of jurors never figures into it.”