11 yo with a stun gun

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.

 

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.

 

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 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...

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

There are situations which make this impossible.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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