Here something to think about. If someone mace a cop can he use deadly force? Please go and vote on this one. I know the answer. Do you?

I really don't see how anyone can vote differently than I did. (maceD)

I guess that would depend on if you are the one no.

I don't know how MN statutes read, but it sure looks like an assault on a police officer aggravated by a weapon, aimed at disabling the officer so that said officer can be disarmed and his weapons used against him or others.

Sure there is the possibility that a perp might use the spray to enhance an escape, but that perp has also demonstrated a willingness to use a weapon against an officer of the law acting (at least in this scenario) within the scope of his duty. If the perp hangs out in such a way that he can be shot by the officer, the perp probably doesn't have flight in mind, but rather fight or at least a free Glock.

I sure wouldn't blame a cop for drawing after being maced, pulling the trigger would be pretty dependant on wether the perp is fleeing or hanging around looking for an opening to do more harm.

What about civilians?

I don't know about you, but I would consider a macing (or an attempt thereof) to put me reasonably in fear of my life.

Most cops are trained to use deadly force if they're being incapacitated (choked out, etc) on the assumption that the perp will take and use their gun against them. I would guess that would apply to mace or pepper spray as well.

For a civilian with a carry permit, I think it would D.O.Y.J. (Depend On Your Jury)!

Yup, Mobocracy, I am with you. I know that I conduct myself in a way that no reasonable person would be justified in macing me, therefore somebody macing me would be an aggressor rather than a victim, so being reasonably in fear for my life, I might, quite likely cap them. I have a hard time imagining a LEO who is wearing even more symbolic "good guy-ness" accepting a macing as anything other than a precursor to a serious threat to his life.

Yup, I think a cop can shoot someone who maces them, or tries. As for a civilian, depends on the situation. If the BG knows that I have a gun, I will shoot them. I don't want them taking my gun and killing me and possibly other people with it. If they don't know yet, it would depend on the circumstances, but if I don't see that they immediately leave after macing me, I will likely shoot them. In order to defend yourself, I see that you need to incapacitate someone to the point that they can not fight effectively. In general that means taking out their ability to see, move, breath, or stay concious. If they mace me, they are severely restricting my ability to see and decreasing my ability to breath. It makes me an easier target. I can't see what they're doing, so they'd better be leaving.

From the perspective of a police officer, the presumtion is that once they are maced, they can be disarmed and killed. Therefore deadly force is a reasonable response.

This same logic could be applied to civillians, if there was evidence that the intent of the assailant was the same as above, then deadly force could be justified.

Agree...except that with civilians it may be harder to prove the intent of the assailant. LEO's represent authority and the assumption (generally) is that using mace is an outright attempt to disarm and harm. While with a civilian there is no challenge of authority and it becomes harder (IMO), to show that the intent of the assailant.