Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Can You Use a Gun in Defense of a Taser

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    I've always heard that lethal force can only be used to defend against lethal force.

    In this story, a gun was used to defend against a taser. Tasers are sold as non-lethal. Can you use a gun to retaliate if someone throws a snowball at you?

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...g/6557924.html

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, attempt to withdraw.

    If you have been tasered then you know that it hurts. 'Hurt' doesn't count? Amputation under anesthesia too?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Less-lethal weapons, less-than-lethal weapons, non-lethal weapons, non-deadly weapons, or, more recently, compliance weapons are weapons intended to be less likely to kill or to cause great bodily injury to a living target than a conventional weapon.

    Would treat the attacker the same I would any other person attacking with a weapon (conventional or not).
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    I'd have to believe that "intent" would factor in HEAVILY into any scenario/equation here.

    Why would anyone "want" to taser someone else? - is there any question of the "harm" that could be inflicted; and thus the intention of the act?

    Don't know of any "sane" reason to taser someone - without the intent to do exactly as the manufacture stipulates on the label (unless there is a beer-bong involve and hazing of some sort - but I do not recall much from that time in my life...:what:

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    People often die from getting tasered. Fire away.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, attempt to withdraw.

    If you have been tasered then you know that it hurts. 'Hurt' doesn't count? Amputation under anesthesia too?
    Before I took any defensive actions of a person acting agressively towards me with an unknown object being pointed at me ...


    1.] First after making sure of the weapon being pointed , I would check the manufacture's date and serial number of the taser .

    2.] I would next check for other weapons .

    3.] Then I'd ask if I had done anything to offend them to cause them to desire me pain ?

    4.] I would then ask them if they had a cell phone and if they would mind calling 911 .

    --------------

    However in the case described ...

    It was a case of racial profiling and the cop acted stupidly . Ya Follow ?


  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    A non-lethal weapon will still disable me and allow the BG full access to my own weapon.

    Hands are (usually) non-leathal weapons, am I obligated to be beat senseless before drawing?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    In my state, I am allowed to use lethal force if I am in fear of "serious bodily harm," among other things.

    Were I to be threatened with a taser, and the perp knew I was armed, I personally feel that I would be justified in using my firearm to fend off the perp. Why? Because, were I to be incapacitated, he could easily take control of my firearm and then end my life.

    Not only that, I consider being tazed (aka electro-musculonervous interruption) "serious bodily harm."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    A taser would place the victim at the mercy of the attacker who's reason for tasering could notbe ascertained as 'innocent' at the moment.

    It would fall under 'disparity'.

  10. #10
    Regular Member dbc3804's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    I think that when the guy said "you're dead now" he sealed his fate.

    Danny

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    A taser would disable someone leaving them open to any type of lethal attack. If disabled by a taser what is to prevent them from then taking your gun and shooting you, or coming up and slitting your throat with a knife or just stomping the life out of you?

    Not to mention a taser is often shaped like a handgun and may not be distinguishable.

    If I understand the taser technology, it is not a device reliant on pain coercion to stop someone. The electricity interferes with your neural control over your muscles, meaning that with the right hit you won't have the ability to resist.

    The shock from the Taser may not usually be lethal in itself, but a Taser and a person together could be a lethal combination.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Someone threatening using a taseragainst me? I would shoot.
    I think this comes back to the saying "I would rather be judged by 12, than be carried by 6"
    I do not care what a persons intentions are, I do not need to be physically disabled by the thing so I can then be robbed, beaten, or whatever their plans may be.

    What if someone threatened you with a box-cutter, chances are itmost likelynot kill you, but it will cause alot of pain and disfigurement.

    How about pepper-spray, or other defensive chemicals? it will not kill you, but it disables you to a point of total incapacitation, we do not know what their intentions are after using a less-lethal weapon.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    A taser would disable someone leaving them open to any type of lethal attack. If disabled by a taser what is to prevent them from then taking your gun and shooting you, or coming up and slitting your throat with a knife or just stomping the life out of you?
    So, for anyone carrying a gun, any use of force above a minimal level can then be met with lethal force?


  14. #14
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    Tasers are sold as non-lethal.
    False.

    http://www.taser.com/legal/Documents...ement.0408.pdf

    quote from above link:

    "TASER devices are designed in probe-deployment mode to temporarily incapacitate a person from a safer distance while reducing the likelihood of serious injuries or death. When used as directed, TASER devices have been found to be safer and more effective than other traditional use-of-force tools and techniques. However, it is important to remember that the use of force and physical incapacitation, by their very nature, involve risk that someone will get hurt or may even die from factors that include, but are not limited to: physical resistance, exertion, individual susceptibilities, and/or unforeseen circumstances."
    Like the probes striking a zippo in your pocket and you burst into flames.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    A taser would disable someone leaving them open to any type of lethal attack. If disabled by a taser what is to prevent them from then taking your gun and shooting you, or coming up and slitting your throat with a knife or just stomping the life out of you?
    So, for anyone carrying a gun, any use of force above a minimal level can then be met with lethal force?
    IMO, YES! I have little to no combat training (hand to hand) and I am a pretty big guy (tall, thick, not a fatty), so I must assume that anyone coming at me with the intention of visiting any harm upon me is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm.

    The BG obviously believes he can harm me enough to accomplish his goals, so I am going to believe him! Never underestimate your opponent.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    A non-lethal weapon will still disable me and allow the BG full access to my own weapon.


    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Were I to be threatened with a taser, and the perp knew I was armed, I personally feel that I would be justified in using my firearm to fend off the perp. Why? Because, were I to be incapacitated, he could easily take control of my firearm and then end my life.

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    A taser would disable someone leaving them open to any type of lethal attack. If disabled by a taser what is to prevent them from then taking your gun and shooting you, or coming up and slitting your throat with a knife or just stomping the life out of you?

    This is why I favor the development of a firearmtechnology that would allow a specially equipped handgun to fireonly whenthe owner of a gun pulled the trigger.

    Some work on this technology was done back in the 1990s but it's been stalled since then.

    It had aLOT going for it.

    If it could be made to work as reliably as, say, aout of the box mid-priced1911, I would definitely buy one as a carry gun. Obviously, other benefits would accrue from such a secure-fire-gun (SFG).

    If I had a SFG when the guy with only a Taser threatened me, I would probably not shoot the guy.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    If I had a SFG when the guy with only a Taser threatened me, I would probably not shoot the guy.
    I sure would. It is never acceptable to be incapacitated at the hands of your enemies, regardless of what weapon (if any) they are using against you. You have no idea what their intentions are.

  18. #18
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    If I had a SFG when the guy with only a Taser threatened me, I would probably not shoot the guy.
    I sure would. It is never acceptable to be incapacitated at the hands of your enemies, regardless of what weapon (if any) they are using against you. You have no idea what their intentions are.

    There's no certainty that a Taser attacker is going to be successful. Especially some untrained jabrone.

    Distraction and distanceare the tools I would badly want touse first. Remember, Tueller can work both ways.

    I really don't ever want to shoot a person who does not have a knife or a gun. Too much cost.






  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, attempt to withdraw.

    If you have been tasered then you know that it hurts. 'Hurt' doesn't count? Amputation under anesthesia too?
    In Virginia, there is no "duty to retreat"... it is a "stand your ground" state. However, I might suggest the prudent man would seek alternate avenues IF such can be done safely.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    A non-lethal weapon will still disable me and allow the BG full access to my own weapon.

    Hands are (usually) non-leathal weapons, am I obligated to be beat senseless before drawing?
    Excellent point!

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    There's no certainty that a Taser attacker is going to be successful. Especially some untrained jabrone.
    I would never take that chance, but of course it is a highly personal decision.

    If the attacker has the opportunity and means to incapacitate and potentially kill you; he must be stopped by any means available.

    IMO, the use of my firearm has a much greater chance of neutralizing that particular threat than any other means available to me.

    You might trust in your close quarters and unarmed skills enough to rush the attacker and that is fine, but I would never trust in my speed and/or his inability to actually land the prongs on target.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Woodlands, Texas, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Don't think the snowball theory is going to hold up here. In Texas, Law Enforcement Officers are trained to deal with several different types of situations.However the fact of the matter is you can't train for all, too many uncertainties, and different dynamics of each situation cannot possibly be trained for. That being said if an Officer, Deputy, State Trooper ETC.... has his taser removed from his person during a struggle with a subjectthen you should expect the outcome to be them same as in this case. The Officer has to take into consideration of being incapacitated by the taser and his gun removed by the bad guy and killed. This is not a what if, it is a issue of am I going home tonight to my family. Bad guy hasthe Officer'staser, points it at the Officer,be prepared to get shot. Most Law Enforcement Officers that go throughtaser training have to be shot with the taser so that they know the level of incapacitation the taser has on them. That is why Law Enforcement react the way that they do. Its not because the taser in a less than lethal weapon,its because the Officer also is carrying a firearm and can easilybecome disarmed if he is hit with the taser.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    kent, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    474

    Post imported post

    Well the taser from the TASER company shoots and also using the prong technolgy just as stun guns do so rushing the dude is a bad idea.
    But in this situation for sure if the intent is to cause harm to others and force is nessisary weather your a cop or Juan Fulano any threat that can harm you and potentially kill you,then deadly force should be reasonable.
    Even more for the Taser is that the prongs stick into you and can be used for up to five minutes and then again after that,so you could kill someone even with a stungun if placed to the back of the neck or a temple on the head.
    SPeaking of the taser company Im pretty sure you actually have to have a CCW to activate one from the TASER company pretty weird I might be wrong but Im pretty sure. I think that there may be other companies that sell the projectile tasers but the taser company is all I know off.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    gb8106 wrote:
    This is not a what if, it is a issue of am I going home tonight to my family.
    The officer has no "right" to go home to his family at night at the expense of the citizens' rights. An officer has the duty to put the citizens' rights first. Being an officer is being employed to assure the citizens retain their right to go home at night. An officer can go home at night only after he's done his duty to the citizens.

    To discharge this duty well, an officer must first be put at risk; consequently, some officers will never go home at night.

    This is the job. If this level of devotion and service isn't for you, take a job sweeping the streets,

  25. #25
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    A taser would disable someone leaving them open to any type of lethal attack. If disabled by a taser what is to prevent them from then taking your gun and shooting you, or coming up and slitting your throat with a knife or just stomping the life out of you?
    So, for anyone carrying a gun, any use of force above a minimal level can then be met with lethal force?
    A Taser is not what I'd call minimal force, and it justifies a large degree of force for anyone, whether they have a firearm or not. It can instantaneously incapacitate you at a range. What kind of force would you recommend against a Taser?

    If someone had a crossbow full of tranquilizer or sleeping darts, I would be equally concerned. Chances are good that a taser might be misconstrued as a gun (since they are roughly the same shape), and a crossbow with tranquilizer darts might be minsconstrued as being able fire deadly bolts, but even if you knew it was a taser or a tranquilizer and you allow yourself to be tasered or tranquilized you are basically giving the adversary say over whether you live or die.

    I don't like putting myself in a situation where my chance of survival is solely dependent on the generosity of a criminal who for some reason decided I needed to be incapacitated.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •