11 yo with a stun gun

With respect to the "what if" concerns out there...

We can ALWAYS come up with a "what if" scenario to support anything we wish.

What if the kid had a knife? What if the kid had a gun? What if there were a gang of kids? What if? What if? What if?


The reality of any encounter is that you may well and truly be totally screwed and there may be absolutely nothing you can do about it. But then, being alive you're already ultimately well and truly screwed because the one thing you can be absolutely sure of is the fact that nobody ever gets out of life alive...period.

And the other constant in life is the fact that life ain't fair. The universe does not care one wit about "fair". It's a human concept that only has meaning to humans...and only while we're still living, at that.

That said, all you can do is the best you can to make what life you have as pleasant and rewarding as possible until that final day does come, however it may arrive.


As to this particular "what if", concerning being attacked by an 11 year old:

Once upon a time, when I was taking my mandatory 8 hour training course required by the state of South Carolina for my CCW permit, the officer giving the course discussed some examples of "what if".

It boiled down to what constitutes the "presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril".

Now, you can read the SC statute on this for yourself (Section 16-11-440), but what it boils down to is this: if it ain't reasonable to conclude imminent peril exists, then you are going to be screwed for taking the deadly force course of action. And, since the people who will be making this legal determination will be doing so after the fact and with all kinds of information you may have missed, or not have had at the time, then there exists the very real possibility that you won't be living the rest of your life in as pleasant and rewarding circumstances that you would like.

So you'd better make the wise and prudent decision right the first time. And if it means running away while screaming like a girl, then you'd better hope your pride doesn't interfere with that.

A angry man over 6 feet tall, weighing 250 pounds, with bare hands may indeed be viewed as a very real source of imminent peril.

An angry little old lady only 5 feet tall, 90 pounds soaking wet, with bare hands is not likely to be realistically viewed as a very real source of imminent peril no matter how angry she may be.

An 11 year old with a stun gun against a full grown man walking a 90 pound dog is likewise not likely to be realistically viewed as a very real source of imminent peril.


We can rack up all the "what ifs" we want...but if we have to start looking for a reason to call an attack by ANY person as reason for "imminent peril", then perhaps the answer you want isn't the right one.


Make your decision the best you can, by all means...but if you draw that weapon against another human being, you are cementing your path and you had better be right in every aspect, because if you aren't you will pay the consequences. And no amount of tears or "what ifs" afterwards will ever alter what you did.


I said before that I am thankful that nobody was hurt...and that this very fact presents you with an opportunity to sit down and think about what happened, what lead up to it, and figure out ways to deal with a similar situation should it happen in the future.

The time to train for the "what ifs" is BEFORE the happen so that you have the mental tools you need to more effectively evaluate your course of action in real life.

And when you ask yourself these "what if" questions in the comfort of your own home, you should be honestly diligent in trying to figure out how you would NOT have to use your weapon.

 

There is no functional difference between a Tazer and a stun gun when it comes to how it works on the human body.

A Tazer is a particular brand which, because it was the first successfully marketed electronic stunning weapon, became the defacto generic term. Much like "Xerox" became the generic term for photocopying something.

The Tazer is a stun weapon manufactured by Tazer International which is designed to work at some distance by shooting darts attached by wires to the weapon.

A stun gun is an electronic contact stun weapon which must be held against someone in order to administer the shock.


And, with respect, you cannot afford to "only assume they mean to immobilize me and do their will up to and including killing me". That may be true, but you still have to evaluate the circumstances available at that time AND utilize all the resources available to you which may also resolve or prevent a conflict without having to resort to deadly force.

See my posting I just made previously.

 

Adult male...ARMED with a firearm...WITH a 90lb dog vs 11 year old BOY with a stun gun???

3 pages of DEBATE on this topic?

You would be CRUCIFIED...

And to those who say...we'll at 11 I was a big imposing kid...get real. The average weight of an 11 year old kid ranges from 60-90 lbs...i think a refresher CCW course would be a good idea...

 

If anyone hear decides to carry pepper spray, do not use older types! Some of them are flammable. If your attacker has a stun gun or taser you could cause them to become a fire ball.

 

Bronco, as you appear to be specifically directing part of your comment at me... you seem to be misreading, and applying the statement regarding my extreme size as a youth as a description of your average pre-teen reprobate. Specifically....

"And to those who say...we'll at 11 I was a big imposing kid...get real. The average weight of an 11 year old kid ranges from 60-90 lbs...i think a refresher CCW course would be a good idea..."

My description of myself as an adult-sized 11 year old is not to paint all 11-year-olds as murderous giants, seeking only to grind an Englishman's bones into bread, but rather to exemplify the absolute lack of any defensive worth being adult-sized has when subjected to physical attacks that can (and do) have lifelong implications when faced by someone who has not acquired the mindset and fear of consequences that life ingrains in many of us.

Certainly these average sized "kids" were capable of extreme acts I couldn't even consider today, against actual adults, not just Myself.

This comes from a day and age when this sort of thing was seen as "boys will be boys" rather than a genuine issue to be addressed. Children allowed to run rampant, assaulting the elderly and the young alike in an orgy of destructive glee, protected by incompetent, or simply uncaring parents willing to openly lie to the Police to keep their "precious child" out of jail.

At no time did I minimize the legal and societal aftershocks of treating these offenders as Adults, but anyone who discounts the ability of one (or Six) determined to become as legitimate a threat as any adult, are engaged in lying to themselves.

If the elderly lady on the corner was still alive, she'd tell you the same. They beat her within an inch of her life for her purse before the parents of two of these fellows were finally run out of the neighborhood on a rail.

I still haven't even scratched the surface here.. Ever had someone deliberately try to blind you for "fun" ?

I have. An ambush-style face full of steel shot nearly did the trick, Shattered my glasses, and this FROM A CHILD. This isn't in DC or Chicago, this is flippin' Portland Oregon.

Monsters are Monsters. but as Neitzsche said... (and it bears repeating) Beware when fighting Monsters, Lest you become a Monster yourself.

It's not a pleasant position to be in, and that is for sure, but kids today seem to have even less control, and less understanding of the consequences of their actions.

Is a Gun the best option in the OP's original question? That's a risk up to the person in the heat of the moment. Self defense is entirely in the mindset of the defender.

It's what happens afterward that is the real ordeal.

 

Whoever these people were that tormented you and your neighborhood during your youth Dnaltrop, I hope their actions eventually caught up with them. They sound like true psychopaths.

 

As I was not there I cannot state how scared I would have been. Was the 2nd person large and were they together? Sorry, this was a tough read to picture the senario.

Were any verbal commands given to the child to back off? Did you have an avenue of escape? Is your dog trained to defend you if need be?

I cannot say if your thought process was wrong, I can only ask questions to help put you in a better frame of mind next time. With the info given though, me pulling my side arm would have been much further down the list.

 

Thanks for the Kind words Tahoe, there are millions of people talking about "bullying" today without ever understanding the "real deal", the extremes that never get reported, and when it crosses the line from Hijinks, over into real criminality. My primary problem was both being over 6' far too early in life, and being a bookish extreme pacifist (Also known as a big, soft target... Not a problem now, but over 10 years of Hell till I figured out fighting back)

Yet not once in those 10 years, and the many times I broke into the gun cabinet for the Model 10 and dry-firing practice, did I consider using that firearm against them.

Next time on Dr Phil... Tar and Feathers!

You can't always peg the problem on the parents, as one of the offender's Fathers is a wonderful fellow and still a friendly acquaintance of mine. He would lay down his life for a stranger, or give you the shirt off his back. Nothing like his son at all, and not one of those permissive, "How dare you, my kid is perfect" guys, nor an extreme authoritarian.

I'm not advocating for every troubled child to be treated like a prospective axe murderer mind you, but some take to naked aggression like a fish to water, with as much care for the suffering they cause as a trout concerns themselves with the life of a mosquito on the lake.

 

I agree with all you wrote and, like I stated at least twice before, I'd surely hesitate until I'm down and out. Forget inability to run or defend one's self. No one wants to be wrong when dealing with an 11-year-old kid.

 

Some people might not like it, but if I had a kid coming at me with any contact weapon,I'm putting the dog between me and him. At least that way if he truly has ill intent, he will have to demonstrate it and I'll still have time to play MMA. And if he's just running around with no ill intent, just wants to feel cool that he has a zappy thingy, then no harm, no foul, and i haven't attacked some kid with no cause.

 

Marley-thanks for the opportunity to hear your scenario

 

um, sorry, no. Once I'm incapacitated by the stun gun ...

 

Actual experience: "stun gun" aka drive stun mode, otherwise known as pressing probes to skin does not incapacitate. It causes localalized pain only...like getting shocked by the coil on a car.

A Tazer probe hit is designed to cause NMI, incapacitation.

Two totally different animals.

You are getting some bad info here.

Either way, the best advice has already been given out.

 

No one showed any aggression or attempt to harm you. Cool your jets.

 

Thanks...I did some followup research on this and it seems that very few, if any, stun guns actually use pulsed technology like the trademarked Tazer does. They also suffer from being limited to physical contact by being held against the body...which means a much shorter shock duration than would be typically possible by a Tazer, which would also affect how effective the after-shock incapacitation would be.

 

Due to consideration of others you should keep your dog on leash while on public property.
Henrico should have real leash law and you should have received a ticket.

 

What the....?

I hope that was just sarcasm.

 

I have a pretty serious stun gun. I have offered the zomg he got tazered crowd the opportunity to use it on me with the caveat that while they zap me i will be punching them. The one guy who took me up on it hit the ground before i did.
The hand held ones are not like police tazers. Not a big deal . Unpleasant but not disabling unless you get tagged on your spine
shooting a kid with one would be a mistake if i did it ymmv.

 

The last few years these retractable leash "reels" have become popular. The dog might look like it's on a 6 foot leash when actually it's got 16 feet. The handler can push a button to stop the leash from reeling out, but most people I've seen are not proficient enough with them.

Think Tueller drill and how much distance a dog can cover while a dog owner fumbles around with the leash button.

It's one thing if you're looking at a normal length leash with some slack in it, you can judge if the dog can get to you, it's just a matter of whether the owner can hold the animal when the dog reaches the end of that leash. It's almost impossible to judge when a dog charges and those retractable leashes start reeling out.

 

I've never understood those retractable leashes. Most of the people I've seen with them don't know a thing about training their dog(s) properly, which is probably why you've noticed all those fumblers.

The dog should not be the one deciding where the owner goes and how fast he goes. That's the owner's responsibility.

A standard 5 foot leash has worked fine for me and all the dogs I've ever owned, be it German Shepard mix, Black Labs, or Pug. My dog belongs beside me except where I allow him otherwise.

If I needed to cut my dog loose on an attacker, I don't need 16 feet of leash to do it...I'd just drop my leash and give him the command. Or unhook him, if time allowed.

Of course, all that would happen now with my Pug is he'd run circles around the attacker's ankles and trip him up while trying to get a treat out of him, but hey...

 

I think the retractable leases are getting into lawyer territory - it becomes a matter of convincing a judge or a jury. One side argues the dog was leashed, the other side has to try to convince a judge or a jury that the gun owner had no idea how many feet that leash was going to spin out.

Scary in real life too. I've had dogs come at me and I've backed up but still wanted to face forward in case I was in range of their attack. With a long lead - you can sort of tell if you're in range and you can run for it, if there is a 6" lead, you just have to see if the owner has a good grip on the leash or the dog breaks free (then you know you're in trouble and you have to take action) But with the retractable leashes, the things just sort of spin out and spin out and it complicates your decision making process.

Bad deal...

 

Stun guns are easily obtained online, when I was 13 one of my friends ordered one online to his door and his parents had no idea. Truth be told, if a kid came at me with a stun gun I don't think I would shoot him. Frankly stun guns hurt but I found that unlike a tazer they won't stop me from hitting them.

 

Stunguns, Tazers, rubber bullets and the like are not non-lethal. They are less lethal and people have been killed by them and not always due to mis-use. Non-lethal means "cannot kill" and when something happens, opens the user to all sorts of legal trouble.

I personally don't know how dangerous a stun stick is and if someone is coming after me with one, I don't really care. If their intent is to do me harm, I don't care if they are unarmed, have a stun stick, Tazer or a friearm. I don't care if they are an 11 year old kid or a 90 year woman or 250 lbs bruiser. No matter how I have to defend myself, whether by lethal means or less lethal means, chances are, somebody is gonna get hurt.

I'm not saying the intended victim should just shoot the attacker, but the attacker has got to realize they could get hurt or even dead. The kid was playing a stupid game and stupid games win you stupid prizes. In that situation, I would be preparing myself mentally for the fact I may have to shoot the kid. Yes, I'd be looking for other options but not to the point I'm gonna let the kid zap me. Making the decision at which point the defender will engage the attacker with lethal force isn't the same thing as deciding to engage with lethal force. There is a difference. Marley had picked a point at which if the attack continued to, he would use his handgun. He did not simply decide to shoot the stupid kid. If he had, the kid would have been shot instead of given a chance to halt his attack.

Regardless of what some of you think, Marley handled it well. It was the 11 year old kid that made the near fatal choice