11 yo with a stun gun

[doc2rn]

Some peoples kids, yup that sums it up nicely.

It is the primary alternative to lethal force: stunning, tazing, macing, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, tear gas all are considered non-lethal.

Can they be misused, sure. But your not gonna win in court with shooting an 11 yo.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Several issues here, but I'll start off with how a stun gun works:

Stun guns are a bit more advanced than most people take the time to understand. Quite a bit of researchand development went into them and they don't just "shock" a person.

The physiological effects of a stun gun are specifically engineered to disrupt the neuromusculature action of the human body, specifically that of the voluntary muscles. It does so with a controlled, high voltage, low amperage signal with a pulse width that closely mimics the body's own electrical signals used for voluntary muscle control. This is the IMMEDIATE result of being stunned.

This engineered signal makes the human body's voluntary muscles do a tremendous amount of work in an extremely short period of time, with a resulting rapid depetion of blood sugar (converts it to lactic acid). The result is that the muscles are extremely exhausted afterwards, preventing the person from effectively moving or coordinating his/her actions. The longer the duration of the stunning, the more depetion of blood sugar and the more incapacitated the individual.

As a side note here, because the electrical signals which control involuntary muscles are different than those which control voluntary muscles, the effects on involuntary muscles (like the heart) are very minimal. This, coupled with the extremely low current (1 to 3 milliamps), means that any disruptive effects on the heart are non-lethal. (About 30 milliamps of AC current at 50-60 Hertz is required to induce ventricular fibrilation, or 300-500 milliamps of DC current. Assumes a low body resistance of about 300 ohms.)


There is some controversy over whether or not a stun gun is "safe"...but "safe", not being an absolute term, is always relative to something. The fact that possible stun-related fatalities are so difficult to induce means that studies are not positively definitive on this (depends on which study one reads) in spite of the sheer numbers of annual stunnings is an indicator of it's relative safety.


HOWEVER...

The fact that a stun gun itself does not constitute a direct application of deadly force does not mean that one may not be placed in such physical jeapardy as to reasonably fear for one's life. Being totally physically incapacitated during an assault is, in itself, cause for such fear based on the circumstances.

A stunned individual cannot defend oneself against subsequent violent assault, such as rape, beatings, knifings, and so forth. Thus the combination of a stun gun AND physical assault MAY place one in fear for one's life.


It's been said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. I submit to you that when one carries a firearm, they cannot allow themselves to get into this mindset. We must ALWAYS look for the solution which does NOT require us to draw our weapons...and we must be especially vigilant to do this even under duress. This is an inherent responsibility with carrying a firearm for self-defense and each and every one of us will be held to that when all is said and done.


I am ever so thankful that nothing tragic happened here. However, as upsetting as those events turned out to be and as irritating as you may feel with respect to the response of the PD, I would submit to you that you would be better off analyzing what happened, what almost happened, and what you could to to mitigate the possibility of it occuring again.

THAT, in the long run, is what's important.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: The fact that a stun gun itself does not constitute a direct application of deadly force does not mean that one may not be placed in such physical jeapardy as to reasonably fear for one's life. Being totally physically incapacitated during an assault is, in itself, cause for such fear based on the circumstances.

A stunned individual cannot defend oneself against subsequent violent assault, such as rape, beatings, knifings, and so forth. Thus the combination of a stun gun AND physical assault MAY place one in fear for one's life.

A person who is incapacitated and who cannot defend himself cannot employ deadly force, and that is true whether he is subjected to high voltage or in some cases, whether he has been struck several times with fists. The problem is, before that happens, a single attacker not believed to have possessed a deadly weapon will likely not be judged to have had the ability to kill or maim a fit person of roughly equivalent size and strength.

The question will become on of what minimal, reasonable means had been immediately necessary to keep the assailant from contacting and grabbing the victim and using the stun gun. Escape? Grabbing the arms? Fists? Kicks? A firearm?

Usually, a reasonable belief that the attacker possessed a weapon and had the opportunity and intent to use it will suffice for justification. Sometimes, a clear disparity of force will suffice.

The question of whether one is "in fear for ones's life" implies a judgment regarding the subjective level of trepidation felt by the individual; one person's fear threshold will differ from that of another. The operative question is whether there had been a demonstrable basis for a reasonable belief, based on what the defender knew at the time, that deadly force had been immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

I believe that a defender who had employed deadly force against someone who he had known to possess only a stun gun would have an uphill battle in terms of presenting a defense of justification, and that he would have to provide the triers of fact with evidence that he had exhausted every other means and that he had not fired until the attacker was on the brink of gaining the ability to grab him and apply the stun gun.

That is different from a circumstance involving an actual weapon, where only a slashing motion would be required. Those circumstances would thus differ from circumstances that would justify the use of deadly force against an attacker believed to possess an edged or blunt weapon, and the distance often mentioned in discussion of the demonstrations of Mr. Tueller might well prove irrelevant. Someone "closing" with a weapon constitutes one kind of threat; someone approaching with a stun gun presents a different concern.

It's been said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. I submit to you that when one carries a firearm, they cannot allow themselves to get into this mindset. We must ALWAYS look for the solution which does NOT require us to draw our weapons...and we must be especially vigilant to do this even under duress. This is an inherent responsibility with carrying a firearm for self-defense and each and every one of us will be held to that when all is said and done.

Very true, and one lesson to be learned is that it is prudent to carry another tool in addition to a firearm.

 

[Mike1234567]

What if one is no longer physically capable of running or fighting back and is approached by an eleven-year-old with a stun gun who seems highly intent to use it for no good reason?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: What if one is no longer physically capable of running or fighting back and is approached by an eleven-year-old with a stun gun who seems highly intent to use it for no good reason?

I would probably try pepper gel.

If "what if" means, "what if one shoots?", the ultimate answer will depend upon things such as these:

• Will the defender be able to present evidence to the effect that he had had reason to believe that he had had absolutely no choice?
• Will eyewitnesses who want to testify truthfully have seen the encounter from the beginning, have noticed all of what the defender said he saw, and will they come to the same conclusions?
• Will there be eyewitnesses who intentionally describe the boy's actions in a manner that contradicts the defender's account?
• What will the state's expert witnesses say about the design of the stun gun and tests that have been performed on it?
• How will the jurors feel about the age of the victim?

Those, of course, pertain to criminal proceedings. There is a corresponding list for civil proceedings, in which the burden of proof for the plaintiff is much lower.

 

[Mike1234567]

I would probably try pepper gel.

If "what if" means, "what if one shoots?", the ultimate answer will depend upon things such as these:

• Will the defender be able to present evidence to the effect that he had had reason to believe that he had had absolutely no choice?
• Will eyewitnesses who want to testify truthfully have seen the encounter from the beginning, have noticed all of what the defender said he saw, and will they come to the same conclusions?
• Will there be eyewitnesses who intentionally describe the boy's actions in a manner that contradicts the defender's account?
• What will the state's expert witnesses say about the design of the stun gun and tests that have been performed on it?
• How will the jurors feel about the age of the victim?

Those, of course, pertain to criminal proceedings. There is a corresponding list for civil proceedings, in which the burden of proof for the plaintiff is much lower.

I intentionally left the question open-ended for the purpose of ideas and debate. In a situation like that I wouldn't shoot unless I was certain I was going to be seriously injured or killed and even then I'd probably hesitate too long.

RE pepper spray: I used to carry it along with a pistol but have been leaving it home lately. Not anymore...

 

[ChaoSS]

RetiredUSNChief, you may be right about the Tazer, but most handheld stun guns, I believe, are nothing more than something that delivers a simple shock.


The issue of what force is justified is going to be highly dependent on who you are. If it were me, I'd have a hard time justifying using deadly force against a kid with a stunner. An 80 year old, crippled, with severe heart problems, that might be another issue.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Chaoss, I was GOING to say that it probably depends on the quality of the stun gun.

However, I did some quick and dirty research. Turns out, no one seems to make a true high quality stun gun??

Everything looks like this high quality bit of engineering:

http://www.amazon.com/Guard-Dog-Security-Phone-Volts/dp/B003XI5RYK/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt

Which is a glorified circuit with a capacitor and two prongs that make a short. If it works at all, it will hurt, but nothing more.

What I found seems to indicate that this is fairly uniform... handheld stun guns are generally cheap (the most expensive I found was about 60 bucks) and just deliver a shock.

Anyone know why there isn't a high quality handheld stun gun out there?

It seems like you could just take a tazer and replace the wire/prong launcher with two fixed prongs and you'd have a handheld, short range stun gun with the same disabling capabilities of a tazer. Without the need for propulsion and targeting, you could make it in a small package than a tazer as well.

Seems like there would be a market for this... any ideas?

 

[Dnaltrop]

Mike, I fall into the category of being physically unable to escape at speed, and I'm only 37. Welcome to my world.

At first glance all others see is a 6'5", shaven-headed, Hawaiian shirted, lanky guy leaning on what looks like a decorative walking stick. They don't see the orthotics, the spiral fractured bones, the pins, the dislocation injuries, or the network of fine scars on my paper-thin skin that looks like crumpled cigarette paper.

My Size and grumpy demeanor (dislocating jaw does not lend well to conversation) automatically make people file me mentally under either "invincible" (what the heck were you afraid of?) or "the bad guy" (How could you be such an evil person to consider XXXXX") on the instant-reaction scale.

I could go into extreme detail at how little my size means, but would require retelling of events that still trouble me almost 20 years later.

People rarely seek further information until the heat of the moment is past, if they are even willing to accept said information after the fact.

Now, onto Disparity of Force, My preferred example being the Larry Hickey shooting.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey Booklet.pdf

(TL;DR- Man attacked in his driveway by 3 unarmed neighbors, defends himself with a firearm and is subjected to the legal reaming of a lifetime)

Imagine if instead of three older assailants, they were age 11 with Stun guns. Imagine the Outrage in the press. The talking heads ceaselessly droning on about the horror of the situation.

Larry would have been just as justified at the time, but in this hypothetical, would be a Villain of incredible notoriety afterward.

It's not a situation I'd wish on anyone, but I wouldn't give up my breathing rights simply because my attackers would play more sympathetically in the press, however I'd better be sure enough in my convictions, and belief in the imminent threat that such a situation actually exists, because the scrutiny will be life-destroying in today's world.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Almost forgot....

My mother in law carries a "Guard Dog" 4m volt stun flashlight as we have several Pit/mastiff owners who let their dogs free-roam the neighborhood. Animal control has been called several times, they just bought a new dog when the last one was taken.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0087R49PK/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

The sound of electrical discharge has yet to fail to scare them off, (if you can draw, and remove the safety fast enough) and where legal, I do endorse them as a product that has been very reliable as a visual/audible deterrent. They are NOT TASERs however, just localized pain and a light show.

 

[j1]

Try to stay away and wait for someone else to deal with the little child. He should not be your problem.

 

[dayhiker]

We have someone approaching an armed citizen with what the armed citizen recognized as a stun gun. A stun gun is not considered to be a lethal weapon

That is not correct in all areas. In my state 'electronic defense weapons' are dangerous weapons, the same as batons, blackjacks, switchblades etc...

Per Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 53-206

 

[Mike1234567]

Try to stay away and wait for someone else to deal with the little child. He should not be your problem.

There are situations which make this impossible.

 

[Mike1234567]

Mike, I fall into the category of being physically unable to escape at speed, and I'm only 37. Welcome to my world.

At first glance all others see is a 6'5", shaven-headed, Hawaiian shirted, lanky guy leaning on what looks like a decorative walking stick. They don't see the orthotics, the spiral fractured bones, the pins, the dislocation injuries, or the network of fine scars on my paper-thin skin that looks like crumpled cigarette paper.

My Size and grumpy demeanor (dislocating jaw does not lend well to conversation) automatically make people file me mentally under either "invincible" (what the heck were you afraid of?) or "the bad guy" (How could you be such an evil person to consider XXXXX") on the instant-reaction scale.

I could go into extreme detail at how little my size means, but would require retelling of events that still trouble me almost 20 years later.

People rarely seek further information until the heat of the moment is past, if they are even willing to accept said information after the fact.

Now, onto Disparity of Force, My preferred example being the Larry Hickey shooting.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey Booklet.pdf

(TL;DR- Man attacked in his driveway by 3 unarmed neighbors, defends himself with a firearm and is subjected to the legal reaming of a lifetime)

Imagine if instead of three older assailants, they were age 11 with Stun guns. Imagine the Outrage in the press. The talking heads ceaselessly droning on about the horror of the situation.

Larry would have been just as justified at the time, but in this hypothetical, would be a Villain of incredible notoriety afterward.

It's not a situation I'd wish on anyone, but I wouldn't give up my breathing rights simply because my attackers would play more sympathetically in the press, however I'd better be sure enough in my convictions, and belief in the imminent threat that such a situation actually exists, because the scrutiny will be life-destroying in today's world.

I feel for you and I can't flee either but due to a different disability. Like I stated before, I'd probably wait too late even to use pepper spray so I'd and be stunned and then... whatever comes after that. The truth is there are plenty of eleven-year-old psychopaths but what are we passers-by to do to protect ourselves from them? We'll be villainized and sued for using pepper spray too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by dayhiker: That [(a stun gun is not considered to be a lethal weapon)] is not correct in all areas. In my state 'electronic defense weapons' are dangerous weapons, the same as batons, blackjacks, switchblades etc...

Do not confuse a statutory prohibition of so called "dangerous weapons" with the classification of an included item as a lethal weapon.

This is the definition of an electronic defense weapon in Connecticut: "An 'electronic defense weapon' means a weapon that by electronic impulse or current is capable of immobilizing a person temporarily, but is not capable of inflicting death or serious physical injury." (Emphasis added)

 

[dayhiker]

True....but also the use of a stun gun in a crime is the same as a firearm here as well.

Per CT sec 53a-216

I myself would respond with several bursts of Sabre Red. However assault with a stun gun is not as benign as some posters seem to suggest.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by dayhiker: True [that a stun gun is not a lethal weapon]....but also the use of a stun gun in a crime is the same as a firearm here [in Connecticut] as well.

That legal provision defines an offense that is added to charges for certain other felonies.

It pertains solely to criminal proceedings undertaken by the state against someone who has used certain items during the commotion of a crime.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the justification of the use of force by a defender.

 

[itsa pain]

11...let me think...

I was taller than many adults at that age, and had my skull cracked on a steel rail fence by a group of young adults on a Light Rail overpass, clotheslined off of my bike and beaten with a U-Lock by same age assailants. Thrown off of a balcony onto cement, attempted arson of my parent's house, (by kids who robbed the elderly lady on the corner)

2 of these lovely fellows are in jail in Washington state for addicting a 14 year old girl to meth, then repeadly raping her.

Now, as someone who endures lifelong injuries, complicated by a genetic inability to properly heal, I would still have a hard time drawing and firing on anyone smaller than myself.

Then you read the local news.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/11-year-old_portland_boy_accus.html

"An 11-year-old boy was arraigned in juvenile court Friday afternoon, accused of threatening a woman on a TriMet MAX train with a loaded gun after bumping into her baby's stroller."

Here's a different young lad.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/03/portland_boy_pleads_guilty_to.html

"An 11-year-old boy accused of trying to carjack and rob a woman at gunpoint in Southeast Portland last December has pleaded guilty in juvenile court to first-degree robbery and will face probation."

Things like this aren't new compared to growing up in the early '80s. Just better documented.

I walk with a 7 lb steel reinforced cane, and carry a 1m volt stun-pen in addition to the pistol(s) , but I'm under no illusions as to the capability of even the very young. A gun levels the playing field in both directions.

Monsters are Real, but in fighting them we need to avoid becoming them ourselves.

the only way to be sure is to kill every 11 year old. you are armed more then some combat soldier. must be hard living thinking every time you go out you could die

 

[itsa pain]

Ok, Something to get off my chest. I was out walking JC(the dog 91lbs black lab) tueday night down nine mile road. We were in front of a tow lot near the house. When i look to my left as i got in front of a van and there was a kid... i said (10 to 12) (cop said 11) with a stun gun making the zapping noise coming right for me.... there was another guy running right towards me too and then past out into traffic on nine mile... The kid with the stun gun stopped and ran inside the tow lot building and I called the cops. It seems that NO crime was committed according to the officer ( i was thinking brandishing a stun gun would be a crime) because the was a juvi on his property. I was dumbfounded. The kid almost got shot. I was a half second (perhaps two seconds away)away from drawing when the kid stopped and ran back the other way. I had NO idea what was going on.. and was more than a bit scared. Henrico police were less than helpful... I was told they were a good family... I have heard from other souces( other Henrico officers) that the kid is a punk and he has been an issue since he was 7. I am pretty sure the look that JC gave the kid is what turned the kid around. Oh and then the Henrico officer tried to give me crap about JC not being on a leash.. He said there is a leash law... and I corrected him and said NO the law says " verbal control" he said never mind... He knew he was wrong and was tring to put me on my heals... (the officer just wanted me to go away at that point and that was when I said fine but I will call someone else, and he asked who and I said you have supervisors)I wonder if the cop was the tow lots owners cousin or something. I was not pleased with how Henrico pd handled the situation and am still not. We live in a strange society when an 11 yo can have a stun gun and run at you and it not be a crime...... Sad times indeed The worst of it is that he almost got shot... I am pretty sure the dog looked at him and stopped him but he was already within 21 feet or so.. Thinking back on it I am pretty sure that they (the boy and the one that ran past me who was much older) were just playing around... I had walked on to the "field of play" they were just as surprised as I was. But when you hear stories of the " knock out game" you have to wonder. Just something to think about. Henrico co is near Richmond VA.

and you called the cops?? for that?? what if the cop shot the kid would you feel good about that? this adds to the belief that guys that carry cant wait to shoot someone and live in paranoid fear

 

[dayhiker]

I understand your point..and we both agree on the level of force that should be tried first.

Had the eleven year old been 'armed' with OC I could show you case law cites where oc , used for offense, has been ruled a dangerous instument capable of causing serious physical injury. And oc is not regulated at all here.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by dayhiker: I could show you case law cites where oc , used for offense, has been ruled a dangerous instument capable of causing serious physical injury.

"Capable of" and "likely to" are two distinctly different things.

One is relevant to the question of sentence enhancement; the other comes to bear when testing the reasonableness of a belief that an imminent threat exists.

And oc is not regulated at all here.

Good.

 

[beatcop]

Just to flog the horse....

A probe (s) hit from a Tazer will cause NMI, interference that interrupts the brain's signals to muscles and renders you in the "plywood state".

A drive stun/poke with a stun gun or Tazer does not cause NMI, it causes pain only.

Pain is not injury... not physical injury, or serious physical injury.

If you were standing down someone who was intent on immobilizing you with a Tazer and getting your firearm, that would be another story entirely.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

RetiredUSNChief, you may be right about the Tazer, but most handheld stun guns, I believe, are nothing more than something that delivers a simple shock.


The issue of what force is justified is going to be highly dependent on who you are. If it were me, I'd have a hard time justifying using deadly force against a kid with a stunner. An 80 year old, crippled, with severe heart problems, that might be another issue.

Well, I'd have to look into individual stun guns, but the technology is supposed to be the same. They're not simple shock weapons, or they wouldn't work the way they're advertised.

 

[Mike1234567]

Okay... but most of us don't know the difference between a Tazer and a stun-gun. I didn't... and still don't. If someone comes at me with a zapping thingy I can only assume they mean to immobilize me and do their will up to and including killing me.

 

[gamestalker]

Even for someone such as myself, who BTW has encountered more than my fair share of deadly events, would not be reacting to a child making zapping noises with gun in hand. My Lord, talk about way over reacting. It's thoughtless actions such as this that are putting our 2A rights at even higher risk of being put on the chopping block.

GS