11 yo with a stun gun
- Thread starter marley
- Start date
- Status
RetiredUSNChief
Member
If you don't really care about this, then people like me won't really care when you end up in prison.
This is a poor, close-minded attitude about one of the most serious actions that anybody could take...that of using deadly force to take another human being's life.
There is a huge difference between evaluating the totality of the circumstances that one is in (to the best of their ability given those same circumstances) and arriving at the decision to use deadly force as compared to taking a unilateral "I don't care" attitude about someone who simply intends to do you harm.
There is a world of difference between "intent" and "capability"; using "intent" as a defense in court when the person you killed was clearly not capable of causing you serious bodily harm or death will get you hung out to dry.
Bad, bad mindset for a civilian who carries a gun as part of his RKBA to be in.
What I'm saying is, if someone is threatening me with bodily harm, placing me in fear for my life, I'm not going to wait until they attack me to determine that's what they intend. It doesn't mean the only solution I'll look for is to shoot them. It means if they threaten me, I will remove the threat. I will leave, if that's my best choice but I won't stop to worry what the intent behind their threat is. I'll save that part for Monday Morning quarterbacking.
I understand the whole capability thing. But just because the stun stick can only cause brief pain, it doesn't mean he can't also beat me with it, or get a lucky shot or poke me in the eye or other soft place or distract me from the real threat. I don't care because I ain't gonna wait around to find out. But, should you ever find yourself in a similar situation, want to wait to see what the kid intends, be my guest
I understand the whole capability thing. But just because the stun stick can only cause brief pain, it doesn't mean he can't also beat me with it, or get a lucky shot or poke me in the eye or other soft place or distract me from the real threat. I don't care because I ain't gonna wait around to find out. But, should you ever find yourself in a similar situation, want to wait to see what the kid intends, be my guest
Then lets go over this again:
The first part of that implies that you are not concerned about your ability to articulate the reason for a belief that you were in jeopardy.
The second seems to imply that you do not see the need for reason to believe that the assailant has the ability to cause death or gray bodily harm. Ability means that his means is likely to do so--not that it can. Brief pain is insufficient for justification.
Do we misunderstand you? What are you suggesting?
Mike1234567
member
Going on public record here; I'll never never never never shoot anyone unless I'm absolutely positively 100 percent certain they intend to cause me severe and permanent bodily harm.
The above stated, please don't break into my house at o' dark-thirty because I don't want to be languishing with the agonizing decision of whether or not you intend me great harm. If you come at me with a shocky-thingy then I'll assume you intend to hurt me. Of course... that's after you've broken into my house. If you come at me on the street with a shocky-thingy then I guess I'll get shocked and abused. Hopefully you won't take my pistol and shoot me or someone else with it.
The above stated, please don't break into my house at o' dark-thirty because I don't want to be languishing with the agonizing decision of whether or not you intend me great harm. If you come at me with a shocky-thingy then I'll assume you intend to hurt me. Of course... that's after you've broken into my house. If you come at me on the street with a shocky-thingy then I guess I'll get shocked and abused. Hopefully you won't take my pistol and shoot me or someone else with it.
Someone brandishing a stun stick. The stun stick is force multiplier designed to force compliance through pain. It can also be used for physical strikes. Attacker is not physically impaired. There is ABILITY
Distance is close enough for the attacker to quickly close and make contact. Due to the heavy flow of traffic, my avenues of escape are limited. There is OPPORTUNITY
Attacker is using the stun stick to intimidate and control his chosen victim with the sight, sound of it's electric arc and the threat of pain. The attacker has been laying in ambush, revealing himself when he had the advantage of surprise. He is moving towards me while displaying a weapon in a threatening manner. The simple display by itself is Aggravated Assault. There is JEOPARDY.
There is also the possibility this is all something to keep me distracted while another, greater threat is sneaking up on me. I will assume a defensive stance. I will look for a way out of the situation. I will look for ways to keep this threat at a distance. I will look for ways to de-escalate. I will be weighing my options, including using my handgun and deciding at which point those options are needed. These are the actions of a reasonable person who feels their life is threatened.
I will not be wasting much time wondering if the attacker just wants to scare me, or if they have more nefarious plans in mind. I will not be wasting time pondering intent because, as far as I'm concerned, that question has already been answered by the ambush, the brandished weapon, the threat and their actions. The three conditions are ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and JEOPARDY, not intent. If it was based on intent, the attacker would claim he never intended any bodily harm while the coroner was covering your face with a white sheet
Last edited:
When we speak of ability in the context of use of force law, we are not referring to the ability to inflict pain.
And in that context, the act of displaying a stun stick and threatening pain would be insufficient to give reason for believing that the attacker intends to kill or cripple.
If you believe otherwise, you need to consult with a criminal trial attorney who is knowledgeable of use of force law and defending self defense cases. Your conclusions are poorly founded and dangerous and could get you into a great deal of trouble.
Mike1234567
member
My assumption would be that the attacker intends extreme bodily harm with the aid of a crippling device. Still... I guess I'd just get killed.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It seems the basic disconnect in our conversation here is over the concept that what someone would be likely to do with that particular device is somewhat limited. It isn't considered deadly force. It COULD be used as part of an attack that might end in death, but so could a rope, or a fire extinguisher, or a rubber chicken for that matter.
Assault with a less-than-lethal device is certainly a serious crime and will (if you can successfully sustain your claim) support a use of force in defense. But almost certainly not a lethal force response.
For a lethal force response to be found justifiable, more is going to be required than simply, "he was going to shock me and he then might have done more than that." You'll have to be able to articulate what that "more" was and why you thought it was possible and impending.
It is a very tricky situation for a lawful defender to be in. You really can't react with your most forceful defense until the attacker has shown a threat that rises to that level. As MistWolf says, you certainly could end up with a sheet over your face having lately pondered the thought, "oh, I guess he WAS trying to kill me."
In some ways this is analogous to our discussions of the threatening criminal who "calls your bluff," and refuses to leave you alone after you've given your best "verbalization" and maybe even brandished your weapon, but doesn't display a weapon. You could, in some cases in some states, even display a weapon to try and back him off and extract yourself. But you can't SHOOT that weapon. So what then?
Terrible situations to ponder and one hopes that situational awareness will help us to never find ourselves so trapped.
Last edited:
I can see that you don't understand what Ability, Opportunity or Jeopardy mean in the the context of use of force law. This concepts were outlined in this thread (post 1):MistWolf said:
I suggest you spend some time studying UseofForce.us.
I suggest you go back and read the rest of what I wrote.
I also suggest that to think an 11 year old with a stun stick does not have the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm is foolish. There have already been deadly consequences from teenagers using stun sticks to play the "knockout" game
I also suggest that to think an 11 year old with a stun stick does not have the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm is foolish. There have already been deadly consequences from teenagers using stun sticks to play the "knockout" game
And if you are unlucky that might well be for your jury to decide. As Sam properly pointed out (emphasis by bolding added):MistWolf said:
Sam1911 said:
Nor does it change the fact that you apparently do not understand the use and meaning of the terms "ability", "opportunity" or "jeopardy" in this context.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
There are a couple of ways to get a legal education.
Getting it in a courtroom at the defendant's table IS NOT how you want to go about it...
Getting it in a courtroom at the defendant's table IS NOT how you want to go about it...
Claude Clay
Member
if...when, confronted by others who are threatening to impose their will on me,
my response will be based on the ability they claim to have or display, to do me harm
not their size or age
my response will be based on the ability they claim to have or display, to do me harm
not their size or age
Last edited:
Kleanbore,
What a coincidence. I was over at Amazon earlier this morning and saw that book. It looked interesting, so I ordered it.
What a coincidence. I was over at Amazon earlier this morning and saw that book. It looked interesting, so I ordered it.
WardenWolf
member
My main concern with a kid with a stun gun is that he might be able to incapacitate me long enough to take my real gun. Would I shoot him? Only as an absolute last resort if he was attacking me. I would practice standoff and retention techniques and only draw if I felt I had no other option.
A stun gun is a less-lethal weapon but CAN kill if applied directly to the heart area. They're definitely not toys. A Taser is even more dangerous, as it can kill if the darts cross the heart area and can inflict serious injury if it hits an eye or other sensitive area.
A stun gun is a less-lethal weapon but CAN kill if applied directly to the heart area. They're definitely not toys. A Taser is even more dangerous, as it can kill if the darts cross the heart area and can inflict serious injury if it hits an eye or other sensitive area.
Everyone is arguing over the OP who really overeacted and called the cops on a kid who it seems to me was running around playing with the zapper like it was a star wars sword. Half the people here want to shoot the kid. My grandmother would have simply booted the kid in the rear end if he got to close instead of drama queening the incident to where the kid could have been shot by the cop.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
The short response is "wrong".
CURRENT kills, not voltage. You can take hundreds of thousands of volts through your body, but unless there is sufficient current which crosses the heart, then it's not going to kill you. 30 milliamps (mA) is the threshold for this kind of danger.
A Taser is even LESS likely to be dangerous because of the way they're engineered to work.
Darts don't even come into play with this, unless you're talking about direct physical injury by the dart itself...which is minimal considering the alternative which Tasers were designed to provide an option against.
Mike1234567
member
Only partially true... high voltage (with "enough current") can disrupt neurological function and if applied directly to the right area can incapacitate and kill.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
As I said...it's the CURRENT that kills.
You can be killed just as easily with low voltage...as low as 30 volts, in fact. Current is the factor which matters.
Mike1234567
member
Yes, it's "both" voltage and current. The point is some of those little shocky-thingies can be dangerous if the attacker knows how to use them.
As Sam pointed out, so can a lot of other things. What that means is that they should not be taken lightly. It does not mean that an indication that they might be used to inflict pain on a fit individual would be sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
- Status
