SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
Jim675 wrote:
Jim675 wrote:
Excellent point!
-
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.
Can You Use a Gun in Defense of a Taser
- Thread starter smoking357
- Start date
ScottyT
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
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.
HankT wrote:
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.
gb8106
Regular Member
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.
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.
Bustelo5%
Regular Member
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.
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.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
gb8106 wrote:
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,
gb8106 wrote:
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,
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
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.
smoking357 wrote:
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.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
Felid`Maximus wrote:
Felid`Maximus wrote:
Basically, I was happy to create a thread that drew into the open admissions of the deadly quality of tasers.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Then he would be free to kick your brains out while you are incapacitated.
Yeah, I probably wouldn't shoot either. LIKE HELL!!!
HankT wrote:
Then he would be free to kick your brains out while you are incapacitated.
Yeah, I probably wouldn't shoot either. LIKE HELL!!!
grumpycoconut
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
People don't often die from being tasered. If they did there'd be lots more dead people around. People die from being on way too many drugs or being out of control bug shite crazy hyper stimulated and being tasered. Chances are they would have died anyway after tussling with the cops.
You shoot someone who wants to taser you because of the damage they can do to you while you are riding the lightning and incapable of defending yourself.
AWDstylez wrote:
People don't often die from being tasered. If they did there'd be lots more dead people around. People die from being on way too many drugs or being out of control bug shite crazy hyper stimulated and being tasered. Chances are they would have died anyway after tussling with the cops.
You shoot someone who wants to taser you because of the damage they can do to you while you are riding the lightning and incapable of defending yourself.
grumpycoconut
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Smoking357 I declare SHENANAGINS on you. The cop has every right to go home to his family same as you think you do. He has a duty and an obligation to go home to his family. He made a choice to serve but in making that choice he did not surrender his rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of Crispy Cremes. NOWHERE have I ever seen in the Constitution or any other document that cops surrender the right to keep trying to live just because they swore to uphold the Constitution.
Nobody has the right to put a cop in a position to fear for his life just asnobody have no right to put you in fear for yours.
Cops volunteer to go into harm's way knowing that despite everything they may do they may not go home. That is vastly different than going in intending to let someone else take away all that is theirs.Cops do not volunteer to be martyrs.
Can you see the difference? Could you strap on a tin star or would you be a better broom pusher?
smoking357 wrote:
Smoking357 I declare SHENANAGINS on you. The cop has every right to go home to his family same as you think you do. He has a duty and an obligation to go home to his family. He made a choice to serve but in making that choice he did not surrender his rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of Crispy Cremes. NOWHERE have I ever seen in the Constitution or any other document that cops surrender the right to keep trying to live just because they swore to uphold the Constitution.
Nobody has the right to put a cop in a position to fear for his life just asnobody have no right to put you in fear for yours.
Cops volunteer to go into harm's way knowing that despite everything they may do they may not go home. That is vastly different than going in intending to let someone else take away all that is theirs.Cops do not volunteer to be martyrs.
Can you see the difference? Could you strap on a tin star or would you be a better broom pusher?
smoking357
Banned
imported post
grumpycoconut wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
No. Not the same as me. He takes my dime; I don't take his.
Unless they're at risk, they're not in harm's way. They are employed to put themselves at risk, and that means a well-established and un-persuadable risk.
What? Could I play third base for the Mets, or would I be a better astronaut? Put down the Milwaukee's Best.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
grumpycoconut wrote:
Go learn a concept called "proximate cause."
grumpycoconut wrote:
This is funny. Tasers don't kill people. People just up and die around tasers.
Go learn a concept called "proximate cause."
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
grumpycoconut wrote:
Well, one of those is an honest job.
Tasers are, in addition to being used as torture devices to gain compliance, deadly weapons.
At least I think so. To find out for sure, I suggest you go taser a cop at random tonight and see if you don't get charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
But be careful, if he eats too many donuts, he may actually die, and then you'll really be in a world of sh!t!
grumpycoconut wrote:
Well, one of those is an honest job.
Tasers are, in addition to being used as torture devices to gain compliance, deadly weapons.
At least I think so. To find out for sure, I suggest you go taser a cop at random tonight and see if you don't get charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
But be careful, if he eats too many donuts, he may actually die, and then you'll really be in a world of sh!t!
grumpycoconut
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Both jobs deal with other people's excrement so what's the difference.
So hows about your hypothetical ADW on a cop charge. You are talking law so it's best to be precise in your use of language.
In CA the best charge would be 244.5 PC, a 2, 4 or 6 year felony, which prohibits assaulting a cop with a "stun gun" or other less lethal weapon as defined elsewhere in the penal code.
Now this doesn't mean that you couldn't make a 245 PC arrest stick.
245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of
another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by
any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four
years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
Of course you have to define great bodily injury. For that you have to dig through 243PC for the bit that says
(4) "Serious bodily injury" means a serious impairment of physical
condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of
consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or
impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound
requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.
(5) "Injury" means any physical injury which requires professional
medical treatment
So I guess that if the cop breaks something when he falls down or passes out or gashes himself open when you zap him 245 applies. Of course if you zap him and beat him up badly enough you can go to prison for both 244 and 245. Ain't math fun?
Let's talk donuts now. Here's how that goes. He eats enough donuts and you feel obligated to tease him about it. He gets pissed off and chases you. He has a heart attack and lives to cash those nice fat tax free medical disabitiy checks for the rest of his life. In CA, cop disability is set at 50% of his best ever salary. Tax free that's a nice chunk of change. He laughs at you for the rest of your tax paying lifeknowing that you are subsidizing his donut addiction.
Tomahawk wrote:
Both jobs deal with other people's excrement so what's the difference.
So hows about your hypothetical ADW on a cop charge. You are talking law so it's best to be precise in your use of language.
In CA the best charge would be 244.5 PC, a 2, 4 or 6 year felony, which prohibits assaulting a cop with a "stun gun" or other less lethal weapon as defined elsewhere in the penal code.
Now this doesn't mean that you couldn't make a 245 PC arrest stick.
245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of
another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by
any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four
years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
Of course you have to define great bodily injury. For that you have to dig through 243PC for the bit that says
(4) "Serious bodily injury" means a serious impairment of physical
condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of
consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or
impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound
requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.
(5) "Injury" means any physical injury which requires professional
medical treatment
So I guess that if the cop breaks something when he falls down or passes out or gashes himself open when you zap him 245 applies. Of course if you zap him and beat him up badly enough you can go to prison for both 244 and 245. Ain't math fun?
Let's talk donuts now. Here's how that goes. He eats enough donuts and you feel obligated to tease him about it. He gets pissed off and chases you. He has a heart attack and lives to cash those nice fat tax free medical disabitiy checks for the rest of his life. In CA, cop disability is set at 50% of his best ever salary. Tax free that's a nice chunk of change. He laughs at you for the rest of your tax paying lifeknowing that you are subsidizing his donut addiction.
NightOwl
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
The police do not have a duty to be put at risk. They can not respond if they so choose, or respond and leave, or decide that they want to go home instead of saving the ass of the person who called, etc. If you think officers are required to get involved in any specific type of incident, you're mistaken. They make the choice to get involved, they have no duty or obligation.
smoking357 wrote:
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
The police do not have a duty to be put at risk. They can not respond if they so choose, or respond and leave, or decide that they want to go home instead of saving the ass of the person who called, etc. If you think officers are required to get involved in any specific type of incident, you're mistaken. They make the choice to get involved, they have no duty or obligation.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
NightOwl wrote:
They must have some duty. They must have some obligation. To something or somebody.
What is it?
What do police have a duty and/or obligation to?
NightOwl wrote:
They must have some duty. They must have some obligation. To something or somebody.
What is it?
What do police have a duty and/or obligation to?
grumpycoconut
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Sorry if I got too artsy fartsy for you there. I'll rephrase. Do you have the stones and the heart to voluntarily expose yourself to risk for others or are you best suited to a life of selfish safety?
Maybe your analogy is good. Let's see. Highly educated, poorly paid government employee dude who straps a roman candle to his back side and goes where few men have gone before in order to make things better for the ground hogsvs. spoiled steroid junky who plays a kid's game for way too much money. I guess your analogy holds water. Well done.
smoking357 wrote:
Sorry if I got too artsy fartsy for you there. I'll rephrase. Do you have the stones and the heart to voluntarily expose yourself to risk for others or are you best suited to a life of selfish safety?
Maybe your analogy is good. Let's see. Highly educated, poorly paid government employee dude who straps a roman candle to his back side and goes where few men have gone before in order to make things better for the ground hogsvs. spoiled steroid junky who plays a kid's game for way too much money. I guess your analogy holds water. Well done.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
I would use my 1911 against any adversary attempting to taser me, as while I am incapacitated by the taser, that person can get hold of my gun, and could kill me with the taser if he so desired by repeatedly using it, causing cardiac arrest. No, incapacitated is as dangerous as death in these circumstances.
I would use my 1911 against any adversary attempting to taser me, as while I am incapacitated by the taser, that person can get hold of my gun, and could kill me with the taser if he so desired by repeatedly using it, causing cardiac arrest. No, incapacitated is as dangerous as death in these circumstances.
gb8106
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Think you need to brush up on your Texas Penal Code. NO WHERE does it say an Officer has the duty to put the citizens' rights first, nor does it say they are employed to assure the citizens retain their right to go home. However citizens rights are important and are the back bone of many laws today. I would like to say all, but all good Officers take those rights into consideration in every aspect of their job while dealing with the general public. After all if someone is arrested their right of freedom is taken away. So taking someones rights is actually part of the profession to some degree.The Law is designed as a set of rules, based on common law and a standard of morales accepted by our nationfor people to follow. Law Enforcement Officers have the duty to enforce the Laws of the State of Texas, and take an Oath of Office to protect the citizens in his or her given geographical boundaries based on said laws.
As far as an Officer must first be put at risk to discharge his duty well. Thats just plain ignorant, how is a Law Enforcement Officer supposed to do his duty well if theyalways put him/herself at risk? Most important aspect of being in Law Enforcement is Officer safety, if an Officer is always putting him/herself at risk then how are they supposed to respond to your call for help if they can't even get to you because they put themselves at risk, got hurt, and just couldn't make it. Would youtake a rain check instead?Law Enforcement Officers have EVERY right to go home to their families, as does everyone else, just because being in a profession where there are inherent risks doesn't take away from the rights of Law Enforcement Officers. They are held to a higher standard, yes, but still retain the same civil rights given to all citizens of our nation.
As farasyour comment about taking a job sweeping streets,well thats exactly what I do,been picking up pieces of sh%^ foryearsfor the GREAT state of Texas. LEO 10+ years and proud of it!!!
smoking357 wrote:
Think you need to brush up on your Texas Penal Code. NO WHERE does it say an Officer has the duty to put the citizens' rights first, nor does it say they are employed to assure the citizens retain their right to go home. However citizens rights are important and are the back bone of many laws today. I would like to say all, but all good Officers take those rights into consideration in every aspect of their job while dealing with the general public. After all if someone is arrested their right of freedom is taken away. So taking someones rights is actually part of the profession to some degree.The Law is designed as a set of rules, based on common law and a standard of morales accepted by our nationfor people to follow. Law Enforcement Officers have the duty to enforce the Laws of the State of Texas, and take an Oath of Office to protect the citizens in his or her given geographical boundaries based on said laws.
As far as an Officer must first be put at risk to discharge his duty well. Thats just plain ignorant, how is a Law Enforcement Officer supposed to do his duty well if theyalways put him/herself at risk? Most important aspect of being in Law Enforcement is Officer safety, if an Officer is always putting him/herself at risk then how are they supposed to respond to your call for help if they can't even get to you because they put themselves at risk, got hurt, and just couldn't make it. Would youtake a rain check instead?Law Enforcement Officers have EVERY right to go home to their families, as does everyone else, just because being in a profession where there are inherent risks doesn't take away from the rights of Law Enforcement Officers. They are held to a higher standard, yes, but still retain the same civil rights given to all citizens of our nation.
As farasyour comment about taking a job sweeping streets,well thats exactly what I do,been picking up pieces of sh%^ foryearsfor the GREAT state of Texas. LEO 10+ years and proud of it!!!
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
gb8106 wrote:
gb8106 wrote:
So citizens' rights are important, but not as important as protecting officers. Got it.