-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Stun Gun Robbery
- Thread starter BobCav
- Start date
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
BobCav wrote:
I'd neutralize him with my .40 cal.
The guy's about to tazer me so he can rape my wife or my kids... or even me after I'm down. I mean, who know what he's gonna do.
Besides, he doesn't have to be using exclusively "deadly" force. It is enough if I'm in reasonable fear of imminent, serious bodily harm.
If "deadly force" were the only justification, then all he'd have to do is say "I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to shoot your foot and cripple you for the rest of your life," and I'd have to comply.
And in the final analysis, after all the fine points are discussed, I'd rather just shoot him and make my case before a jury, and be sure my family and I got away safe. If the system is corrupt enough to make me pay for that, so be it.
BobCav wrote:
I'd neutralize him with my .40 cal.
The guy's about to tazer me so he can rape my wife or my kids... or even me after I'm down. I mean, who know what he's gonna do.
Besides, he doesn't have to be using exclusively "deadly" force. It is enough if I'm in reasonable fear of imminent, serious bodily harm.
If "deadly force" were the only justification, then all he'd have to do is say "I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to shoot your foot and cripple you for the rest of your life," and I'd have to comply.
And in the final analysis, after all the fine points are discussed, I'd rather just shoot him and make my case before a jury, and be sure my family and I got away safe. If the system is corrupt enough to make me pay for that, so be it.
tattedupboy
Regular Member
imported post
Before I even read the other posters' responses to this question, my answer to this question is easy. I would brandish my gun to let the perp know not to come near me. Although deadly force (ie, shooting the perp) would be unjustified in such a situation, brandishing your weapon would be perfectly justified to ward off such a threat. Brandishing the weapon and not getting stunned is certainly preferrable to not brandishing it, getting stunned, and getting your weapon taken from you.
Before I even read the other posters' responses to this question, my answer to this question is easy. I would brandish my gun to let the perp know not to come near me. Although deadly force (ie, shooting the perp) would be unjustified in such a situation, brandishing your weapon would be perfectly justified to ward off such a threat. Brandishing the weapon and not getting stunned is certainly preferrable to not brandishing it, getting stunned, and getting your weapon taken from you.
danbus
Regular Member
imported post
tattedupboy wrote:
Well...
I'd say if you even show it, might as well use it. No point inleaving the poop to let someone else step in it. Wipe out the mess and move on. My reasoning for that is, lets say you scare them away, you both live, however now the criminal thinks he needs more "firepower" to get what he/she wants. Or they will just prey on someone else who is less prepared.
tattedupboy wrote:
Well...
I'd say if you even show it, might as well use it. No point inleaving the poop to let someone else step in it. Wipe out the mess and move on. My reasoning for that is, lets say you scare them away, you both live, however now the criminal thinks he needs more "firepower" to get what he/she wants. Or they will just prey on someone else who is less prepared.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
BobCav wrote:
Given these stipulations, this is a really wicked problem. I wanted to see what someone else's answer would be before I gave mine...but no one seems to have accepted the scenario...Everyone is just changing the givens or making an objection to one of them.
So, the scenario excercise proposal seems to befailing so far. Having done scenario excercises before, I know that they have to have to be a) stipulated well, and, b) theparticipants have to be motivated togo through the excercise with the stipulations unchanged. Also, a big problem is that the purpose of the scenario process must be communicated. The ones I'm familiar with almost never have a "right" answer. The process is undergone to better understand the factors involved in the scenario and, especially, the dynamics of those factors. Often, good scenario excercises make partipants uncomfortable--since easy and simplistic answers are not sought.
This suggested scenario is very good conceptually because it posits a no-shoot resolution possibilityas being dominant in a situation that ostensibly is a shooting situation. Regardless of any defects that might be there in BobCav's givens, it is still good to go through a process of thorough thinking of what it would take to successfully resolve a situation as he described in the OP. I found it very invigorating, anyway.
BobCav wrote:
Given these stipulations, this is a really wicked problem. I wanted to see what someone else's answer would be before I gave mine...but no one seems to have accepted the scenario...Everyone is just changing the givens or making an objection to one of them.
So, the scenario excercise proposal seems to befailing so far. Having done scenario excercises before, I know that they have to have to be a) stipulated well, and, b) theparticipants have to be motivated togo through the excercise with the stipulations unchanged. Also, a big problem is that the purpose of the scenario process must be communicated. The ones I'm familiar with almost never have a "right" answer. The process is undergone to better understand the factors involved in the scenario and, especially, the dynamics of those factors. Often, good scenario excercises make partipants uncomfortable--since easy and simplistic answers are not sought.
This suggested scenario is very good conceptually because it posits a no-shoot resolution possibilityas being dominant in a situation that ostensibly is a shooting situation. Regardless of any defects that might be there in BobCav's givens, it is still good to go through a process of thorough thinking of what it would take to successfully resolve a situation as he described in the OP. I found it very invigorating, anyway.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
BobCav wrote:
I'd shoot the guy with the taser.
A taser can immobilize you. That's a prelude to disarming me, raping me, detaining me, even kidnapping me. Whatever the law says, you threaten me with a taser, game on, brother.
BobCav wrote:
I'd shoot the guy with the taser.
A taser can immobilize you. That's a prelude to disarming me, raping me, detaining me, even kidnapping me. Whatever the law says, you threaten me with a taser, game on, brother.
robertnmjr
Regular Member
imported post
not saying that i wouldn't shoot. carrying a back up is good and also carrying pepper spray or a stun gun as a third back-up would be great for a non lethal response if able to use it. but wouldn't the attacter just use the stun gun with out prior notice to you.
not saying that i wouldn't shoot. carrying a back up is good and also carrying pepper spray or a stun gun as a third back-up would be great for a non lethal response if able to use it. but wouldn't the attacter just use the stun gun with out prior notice to you.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
robertnmjr wrote:
robertnmjr wrote:
This is one of the conclusions I finally made in thinking the scenario through. IMO, "a criminal withno fear" approaching youwith a stun-gun would be very foolish, stupid and suicidal, actually, not to zap the OCer as soon as he was in range of the stun gun. Nothing else makes any sense. That's one of the interesting aspects of the scenario.
jimwyant
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
If, indeed, this is a forced "no shoot" scenario, then I would use my primary weapon (my brain) to locate the next best weapon and proceed to neutralize the threat with said new weapon, even if that ended up being my bare hands. This guy did pretty good with that: http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6131346&nav=menu484_2
HankT wrote:
No change in the "givens" has been suggested by the responders. The OP's statement, "You cannot draw your weapon because a stun-gun is technically a non-lethal weapon and deadly force is NOT authorized." is simply not true, and various folks have merely pointed that out. You can't have a serious scenario in which reality does not apply. There may be a jurisdiction somewhere in which the OP's statement is true, but I doubt it. When someone posts a code or case law that supports this statement, I will retract what I have said. Until then, my response stands.
If, indeed, this is a forced "no shoot" scenario, then I would use my primary weapon (my brain) to locate the next best weapon and proceed to neutralize the threat with said new weapon, even if that ended up being my bare hands. This guy did pretty good with that: http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6131346&nav=menu484_2
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
tattedupboy wrote:
Draw your weapon, train it on he/shes/its COM and yell for a bystander to call the police while you remained trained on COM. If no bystander available, use your cell phone with your weak hand. If perp lunges, shoot....i'm with the crowd that a stun gun constitutes the use of lethal force (in the absence of mitigating circumstances of course).
tattedupboy wrote:
This type of response is a problem and could very well end up with you in more trouble then the perp. Just like it was said over and over in the Lynhaven incident thread, there is no such thing as "justifiable brandishing". I'm definitely not taking the "IF your gun clears leather you have to shoot" mentality presented by some people on that thread. If you were to brandish and he were to decide to change his mind and walk away from the situation, he/she/it has the opportunity to call the police and turn you into the bad guy.
Draw your weapon, train it on he/shes/its COM and yell for a bystander to call the police while you remained trained on COM. If no bystander available, use your cell phone with your weak hand. If perp lunges, shoot....i'm with the crowd that a stun gun constitutes the use of lethal force (in the absence of mitigating circumstances of course).
cm289
New member
imported post
Here's the police solution- the 2 primary Supreme Court cases dealing with Use of Force and Deadly Force are Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Both cases say that the use of force must be "objectively reasonable".
Some factors to decide if the force is reasonable:
Here's the police solution- the 2 primary Supreme Court cases dealing with Use of Force and Deadly Force are Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Both cases say that the use of force must be "objectively reasonable".
Some factors to decide if the force is reasonable:
- Severity of the crime (an armed robbery)
- Did the suspect pose an immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death (he threatened to zap me, rob me, and then take my gun)
- Was the suspect actively resisting arrest (I would say that the act of committing a robbery is pretty much the same as resisting)
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Let's look deeper into the picture, shall we?
TASER effects last around 5 seconds, so I doubt if he could effectively zap you and rifle through your pants to find your wallet and get clear before the effects wear off.
Yes, technically there are ways a TASER could kill you, but then again there are ways a ballpoint pen could do the same thing. That still doesn't make it "deadly force".
TASERS are more expensive than street guns (around $750 each) and harder to find.
This is a burglar, not a murderer. If he was out to kill, he would have used a gun or knife and not asked questions.
Then whyuse a TASER? Because he probably thoughtthat since a TASER is"less than lethal" as is advertised all over the internet and even by the police themselves, he might get caught but not shot. Live to steal another day. If the police arrived with their weapons drawn,they would tell him to drop the weapon since he cannot "fire back" at them. He would likelydrop the weapon and be charged with robbery, but not use of a "deadly weapon" or the felony use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, as is in some states.
Either he just happened to fall into posession of this TASER or he was actually a pretty clever burglar.
Now, throw into the mix - YOU: a law abiding citizen open carrying a weapon that both you and the criminal are aware of. You know it is a less than lethal weapon, and yet if he disables you he can get access to your lethal weapon and turn it against you. I bet they don't teach this in Weapons Retention scenarios!
I would say, in this case, you could draw your weapon and tell him to drop it and kick it aside, just as the police would do. If he runs away, end of scenario. Call the police and make the report andDO NOT PURSUE. If he drops it and kicks it away, tell him to get down and keep him there until the police arrive.
If he comes after you with the TASER, click bang.
Let's look deeper into the picture, shall we?
TASER effects last around 5 seconds, so I doubt if he could effectively zap you and rifle through your pants to find your wallet and get clear before the effects wear off.
Yes, technically there are ways a TASER could kill you, but then again there are ways a ballpoint pen could do the same thing. That still doesn't make it "deadly force".
TASERS are more expensive than street guns (around $750 each) and harder to find.
This is a burglar, not a murderer. If he was out to kill, he would have used a gun or knife and not asked questions.
Then whyuse a TASER? Because he probably thoughtthat since a TASER is"less than lethal" as is advertised all over the internet and even by the police themselves, he might get caught but not shot. Live to steal another day. If the police arrived with their weapons drawn,they would tell him to drop the weapon since he cannot "fire back" at them. He would likelydrop the weapon and be charged with robbery, but not use of a "deadly weapon" or the felony use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, as is in some states.
Either he just happened to fall into posession of this TASER or he was actually a pretty clever burglar.
Now, throw into the mix - YOU: a law abiding citizen open carrying a weapon that both you and the criminal are aware of. You know it is a less than lethal weapon, and yet if he disables you he can get access to your lethal weapon and turn it against you. I bet they don't teach this in Weapons Retention scenarios!
I would say, in this case, you could draw your weapon and tell him to drop it and kick it aside, just as the police would do. If he runs away, end of scenario. Call the police and make the report andDO NOT PURSUE. If he drops it and kicks it away, tell him to get down and keep him there until the police arrive.
If he comes after you with the TASER, click bang.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Bayboy, you answered the same thing while I was writing my reply! I think in this instance, that is the correct answer since you gave him an opportunity to break off the engagement,by running or giving up BEFORE lethal force was used. No need in coming off like a "Shoot First" vigilante if you don't have to.
Front Page Headlines: Distraught mother cries "My baby didn't even have a gun and that vigilante gun nut SHOT HIM!!
cm289, welcome to OpenCarry! Temporarily disabled is not the same as "serious bodily harm" as the effects are very short term, so I doubt that would fly. However, as you say, if you reasonably fear for your life for a number of reasons, that's all you would need. Being temporarily disabled by the taser has the potential to arm him with your weapon and I think you would be justified in drawing your gun and firing.
I do, however think that my first scenario would be my first choice. Minimum force necessary.
Bayboy, you answered the same thing while I was writing my reply! I think in this instance, that is the correct answer since you gave him an opportunity to break off the engagement,by running or giving up BEFORE lethal force was used. No need in coming off like a "Shoot First" vigilante if you don't have to.
Front Page Headlines: Distraught mother cries "My baby didn't even have a gun and that vigilante gun nut SHOT HIM!!
cm289, welcome to OpenCarry! Temporarily disabled is not the same as "serious bodily harm" as the effects are very short term, so I doubt that would fly. However, as you say, if you reasonably fear for your life for a number of reasons, that's all you would need. Being temporarily disabled by the taser has the potential to arm him with your weapon and I think you would be justified in drawing your gun and firing.
I do, however think that my first scenario would be my first choice. Minimum force necessary.
usafe7ret
New member
imported post
I have found "what if" scenarios very useful as well. They can keep you on "your toes" so to speak:idea:
In this situation, being faced by an individual with the intent/willingnes to do bodily harm (give me or else), I will draw and fire to stop.
Looking forward to your next "what if"
I have found "what if" scenarios very useful as well. They can keep you on "your toes" so to speak:idea:
In this situation, being faced by an individual with the intent/willingnes to do bodily harm (give me or else), I will draw and fire to stop.
Looking forward to your next "what if"
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Taser effects certainly last more than 5 seconds, as anyone who's seen a demonstration knows.
And the fact remains that once you allow this "burgler" to taser you, YOU HAVE LOST CONTROL OF WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU NEXT. Even if it only lasts 5 seconds, that's enough time for him to kick your teeth in or beat your brains out.
I am not required to allow myself to be tasered, immoblilized, or violently attacked in any way. A taser attack is a violent act, any way you look at it. I really don't give a crap how much it cost or what the attacker is thinking. I am not required to read his mind.
I repeat: if I am seriously threatened with a taser, I believe I have reason to fear for my life, and I will take immediate, decisiveaction to stop the threat. Don't want to get shot? Don't threaten people with tasers, knives, blackjacks, baseball bats, or any other violent weapon.
Some of you are worried that defending yourself in this manner may get you in trouble with the law. If so, work to change the law. But do not hesitate in the face of danger because of this. Legal trouble is bad, but being dead is probably worse. Now, this is all hypothetical, of course, but if the taser is out of its holster, I will shoot. If the attacker is only holding his coat open and hasn't drawn it yet, then I might not shoot, but might try some other tactic. Who knows. One thing is sure, you must not let a violent attacker take the initiative. Survival comes first.
Taser effects certainly last more than 5 seconds, as anyone who's seen a demonstration knows.
And the fact remains that once you allow this "burgler" to taser you, YOU HAVE LOST CONTROL OF WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU NEXT. Even if it only lasts 5 seconds, that's enough time for him to kick your teeth in or beat your brains out.
I am not required to allow myself to be tasered, immoblilized, or violently attacked in any way. A taser attack is a violent act, any way you look at it. I really don't give a crap how much it cost or what the attacker is thinking. I am not required to read his mind.
I repeat: if I am seriously threatened with a taser, I believe I have reason to fear for my life, and I will take immediate, decisiveaction to stop the threat. Don't want to get shot? Don't threaten people with tasers, knives, blackjacks, baseball bats, or any other violent weapon.
Some of you are worried that defending yourself in this manner may get you in trouble with the law. If so, work to change the law. But do not hesitate in the face of danger because of this. Legal trouble is bad, but being dead is probably worse. Now, this is all hypothetical, of course, but if the taser is out of its holster, I will shoot. If the attacker is only holding his coat open and hasn't drawn it yet, then I might not shoot, but might try some other tactic. Who knows. One thing is sure, you must not let a violent attacker take the initiative. Survival comes first.
countrysinger19
New member
imported post
here here:exclaim:
here here:exclaim:
cm289
New member
imported post
Thanks for the welcome.
Like I said, the most important aspect of any use of deadly force is the state of mind of the shooter.I think most of us believe (reasonably) that anybody assaulting us with a stun gun or a taser in an attempt to rob us, would intend to do us more harm once we are incapacitated (temporarilly or not) after they've armed themselves with our weapon, and therefore we would be justified in using deadly force.
Of course, anyone who shot and later told the police, DA, jury, etc., that they didn't fear for their life but shot anyway, would be subject to spending some time in prison.
Thanks for the welcome.
Like I said, the most important aspect of any use of deadly force is the state of mind of the shooter.I think most of us believe (reasonably) that anybody assaulting us with a stun gun or a taser in an attempt to rob us, would intend to do us more harm once we are incapacitated (temporarilly or not) after they've armed themselves with our weapon, and therefore we would be justified in using deadly force.
Of course, anyone who shot and later told the police, DA, jury, etc., that they didn't fear for their life but shot anyway, would be subject to spending some time in prison.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
usafe7ret wrote:
Welcome Aboard MSGT! I have been thinking of a couple others. The whole point isn't the scenario or even the answer, it's about thinking now so you don't have to later.
usafe7ret wrote:
Welcome Aboard MSGT! I have been thinking of a couple others. The whole point isn't the scenario or even the answer, it's about thinking now so you don't have to later.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk, I wouldnt allow myself or my loved ones to get TASERED by a BG either!! Iwas just trying to put myself in that scenario and ask WWBD?I think everyone agrees taking the shot would be justified,but there may bemore "right" answers for your particular situation and frame of mind. YMMV.
We all knowthat no matter how hard you train, it's NEVER like the real thing.
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk, I wouldnt allow myself or my loved ones to get TASERED by a BG either!! Iwas just trying to put myself in that scenario and ask WWBD?I think everyone agrees taking the shot would be justified,but there may bemore "right" answers for your particular situation and frame of mind. YMMV.
We all knowthat no matter how hard you train, it's NEVER like the real thing.