Stun Gun Robbery

imported post

Well, thieves have resorted to non-lethal methods to commit their crimes:

http://www.nbc4.com/news/11116382/detail.html



What would you do? OK, folks, now here's a scenario to ponder:

While you're open carrying, a criminal with no fear approaches you with a stun-gun and threatens to zap youunless you hand over your cash.

You cannot draw your weapon because a stun-gun is technically a non-lethal weapon and deadly force is NOT authorized.Yet if you don't comply, they will zap you and while you're downthey can and will disarm you. Now they have your weapon and it'll likely be used in many more crimes.

What would you do?

imported post

In answering this question, I am reminded of my experience with OC (pepper spray) when I went through LE training. The instructor asked if someone threatening to use OC spray warranted a deadly force response. Response from the students was mixed. Then he hit everyone with a shot of it, and re-asked the question. After seeing how the application of a non-lethal weapon was able to effectively disable everyone in the class, we pretty much agreed that a deadly force response would be acceptable. A hit from a stun gun or a shot of pepper spray could allow one to be disarmed with little effort. Once disabled, you can easily be disarmed, which means that your life is definitely in danger. My $0.02.

imported post

I'd make myself invisible.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

I'd make myself invisible.

Click to expand...

Can you teach me that trick?

imported post

You think that it is law that a gun cannot be used in response to a TASER threat, as in prior restraint?

Be in reasonable fear of bodily harm (not 'death'). Be innocent of instigation. Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. Withdraw if possible.

A TASER is not different from a knife or a sap.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KKK MA$$

imported post

Well knowing that the TASER wont cause death but merely stun you .. couldn't you in turn just shoot the attackee in the knee or something? It's not deadly, it was merely disable the person momentarily

imported post

MarinesWife wrote:

Well knowing that the TASER wont cause death but merely stun you .. couldn't you in turn just shoot the attackee in the knee or something? It's not deadly, it was merely disable the person momentarily

Click to expand...

That would open up a can of worms that would best be left closed. First of all, there is no guarantee that you won't hit a major artery in the leg that would cause the person to bleed to death before EMS could arrive. Second, the shot that you do not intend to be lethal may not actually stop the attack - this could allow the attacker to successfully complete the attack, yet bleed to death after successfully attacking - meaning you were unsuccessful on both counts. Third, if the situation does not warrant deadly force, one should never deploy their firearm. Fourth, you increase your risk for civil litigation - although you intended non-lethal force, it will be argued that you subjected the "victim" to the physical and emotional trauma of a gunshot unnecessarily...

IANAL, but common wisdom is not to shoot, or even present your weapon unless the situation warrants the use of deadly force. Only after that condition has been met, draw, and if the situation does not deescalate immediately, shoot to stop - not to "disable".

I still stand by my earlier post. Although a TASER or stun gun may be non-lethal in and of itself, it could incapacitate you and allow the attacker to easily disarm you. At that point, your life would be in immediate danger, but you would no longer be properly equipped to respond.

imported post

Don't bring a stun-gun to a gun-fight.

I would have to assume that a person who has the intent and ability to disable me, by whatever means, would only do so in order to victimize me in a manner which would result in great harm. I would not hesitate to defend myself by whatever means Iwas able, to effectively stop the onslaught. To do any less would be foolish, as it would open one up to potentially grave consequences.

molonlabetn

imported post

While in Iraq we were trained on several new weapons FN303 (fancy paint ball gun), Tazers, Pepper spray, Flash bangs, Sting ball grenades (my favorite), etc...

We also had to call the items less then lethal, since they actually can still kill under the right circumstances. Now what the big difference between nonor less is I have no clue but the DOJ guys who trained us insisted we call the items Less then Lethal.

If you approach me with any of the above items with the intention to do harm, I will shoot you, plain and simple.

imported post

If you approach me with any of the above items with the intention to do harm, I will shoot you, plain and simple.

And 'use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil' means "Day'um, he kept coming until my 30 shot S&W eXtreme XYZ loaded with spam(tm) shot wuz empty!"

imported post

BobCav wrote:

While you're open carrying, a criminal with no fear approaches you with a stun-gun and threatens to zap youunless you hand over your cash

Click to expand...

You cannot draw your weapon because a stun-gun is technically a non-lethal weapon and deadly force is NOT authorized.Yet if you don't comply, they will zap you and while you're downthey can and will disarm you. Now they have your weapon and it'll likely be used in many more crimes.

What would you do?

Click to expand...

I don't know what I'd do. That's a great scenario for civilians to think about. Especially if you're right about the statement that deadly force is not authorized. That would make it a kind of KobayashiMaru scenario. I'll have to think about that one. Thanks for bringing it up.

This scenario does indicate an advantage of CC over OC in those circumstances, I believe.

imported post

That article got me thinking and I like doing that on rare occasions!

When I was in the Navy, Iwasalways thinking about "what-if" scenarios. Not to endlessly hypothesize, but to mentally examine a situation, explore the possibilities for feasability, legality, safety, etc. and then mentally put myself in the picture. I still think "military style " and I guess I always will.

I have a few others and I'll be dropping them on here every once in a while...

imported post

HankT wrote:

This scenario does indicate an advantage of CC over OC in those circumstances, I believe.

Click to expand...

Please opine.

imported post

MarinesWife wrote:

Well knowing that the TASER wont cause death but merely stun you .. couldn't you in turn just shoot the attackee in the knee or something? It's not deadly, it was merely disable the person momentarily

Click to expand...

MarinesWife, I would saythat if you're going to draw, you need to be ready to shoot to kill. You would be using deadly force in a non-deadly manner and that would open up a legal can of worms.

The TASER will disable you (for approx 5 seconds at a time) and while you're droppin and floppin, your weapon could easily be compromised. Now they're armed with your gun. Now deadly force would be authorized! (Got a backup?)

I'll guarantee you if someone uses their gun to shoot a thugarmed with only a TASER, all hell will break loose and the litigious and liberals cries of "Deadly force used against a non-lethal weapon" will be ringing in our ears for years to come.

HankT, perhaps you hit it exactly on the head. It is a Kobyashi Maru. Perhaps the rules need changing.

These are the kinds of things that we need to be thinking about right now since thesescenariosare obviouslyplaying out in our neighborhoods (editorial note: Neighborhoods, not communities. If neighborslive in neighborhoods..... who lives in communities? Communors? No. Communians? No. Commun-ists!)

imported post

I'd say that the problem with your "what if" scenario is that in it you give the false premise that "you cannot draw your weapon because a stun-gun is technically a non-lethal weapon and deadly force is NOT authorized."

As several have pointed out now, they would consider the situation to warrant deadly force, and I agree. Less-than-lethal or not, the man is threatening to use a weapon on you. This weapon (he claims) is designed to allow him to disable you, and even "less-than-lethal" methods can kill under the right circumstances. There is also ill-intent in his disabling of you, as he is using the threat of that weapon to rob you, and there's no telling that even if the weapon doesn't kill you or cause you great bodily harm, that he won't afterwards. And am I supposed to be such an expert that when someone attacks me with a weapon, I'm supposed to examine that weapon and know the exact lethality and whether or not that weapon will kill me before I'm allowed to defend myself from the attacker? I think not.

imported post

cs9c1 wrote:

HankT wrote:

This scenario does indicate an advantage of CC over OC in those circumstances, I believe.

Click to expand...

Please opine.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would submit that the reverse is true.Since,wouldn't a BG would more likely be bold in attacking a person who appears unarmed, as opposed to a person who is obviously armed?

Think about it.

The desperate psychos out there are going to attack you anyways, regardless of how you are carrying... those types simplydon't care (if they even notice). The most important issue will be how quickly you can respond.

molonlabetn

imported post

countrysinger19 wrote:

I'd say that the problem with your "what if" scenario is that in it you give the false premise that "you cannot draw your weapon because a stun-gun is technically a non-lethal weapon and deadly force is NOT authorized."

As several have pointed out now, they would consider the situation to warrant deadly force, and I agree. Less-than-lethal or not, the man is threatening to use a weapon on you. This weapon (he claims) is designed to allow him to disable you, and even "less-than-lethal" methods can kill under the right circumstances. There is also ill-intent in his disabling of you, as he is using the threat of that weapon to rob you, and there's no telling that even if the weapon doesn't kill you or cause you great bodily harm, that he won't afterwards. And am I supposed to be such an expert that when someone attacks me with a weapon, I'm supposed to examine that weapon and know the exact lethality and whether or not that weapon will kill me before I'm allowed to defend myself from the attacker? I think not.

Click to expand...

The point of this what-if exercise is to get everyone thinking and researching the facts. Think now, so you won't have to think later if and when it happens. This isn't someoff the wall hypothetical that could never really happen. As stated in the article, it already has.If you were there and OC'ing,ask yourself whatwould you do, then research the laws and find out if you would be justified or jailed!

If I used deadly force against against a thug with a taser and the judge was throwing the book at me, I'm not going to based the defense of the remainder my natural life with theargument "Well some of the guys at OCDO seem to think it should be ok".

I would submit that my first thoughts would also be todraw and fire, knowing full well their intent to cause grave bodily harm to me, using the TASER as a means to the end of gaining my weapon. IANAL, butmy argument would be this; The thug,knowing I was armed, was using the taser as a means to get my weapon and that in and of itself is clearly intent to use deadly force against me. But would that argument hold water in court?

When I started this thread, I wasn't so sure of my answer. Now by playing it out and thinking it through with the help of everyone that has posted, I am fairly certain I'd draw and fire, unless someone comes up with a legal precedent, case law or statute that clearly tells me such action is illegal. I'd like to be completely certain, if that's possible.See how it works?

imported post

You missed my point.

"What if" exercises are great, for just the reason you stated. And I agree that situation is not some off-the-wall-and-could-never-really-happen scenario. No one here should rely merely on what other members say, especially in matters of legallity, but research the facts for themselves.

But the scenario as you stated it has a flaw, in that it assumes that lethal force is not warranted by an attack with a less-than-lethal weapon. I gave you reasons that I disagree with that premise, none of which was "people on OCDO think so."

Thanks for the exercise in thinking things out before hand, though. Whether I agree with one perticular premise in your story or not, it's still a good thing to think about before it happens.

imported post

Ok.

If someone was to do that to me, it is in fact ARMED ROBBERY, no matter how you look at it. Did the person say I have a gun? Is he concealing it from view? Perhaps he draws on you and fires, would you have time to discern whether the weapon was a taser weapon or a toy gun or a real one?

2. Tasers are "less than lethal" however, they have killed people before. Pepper spray and OC spray has killed people before as well. Just because its "less than lethal" it still can kill you.

3. In the taser training I have received in the military, there is a "red zone" you know per say (the head neck) for tasers, meaning that you are not supposed to shoot the person there. Just like your not supposed to shoot OC spray at less than 3 feet because it could "Put someones eyes out".

4. Tasers will leave electrical burn scars on your body.

Just some thoughts...

imported post

One more thing... These individuals were wearing masks, a felony in Virginia in addition to Armed Robbery...