11 yo with a stun gun

[Mike1234567]

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.

No argument with that. I was just making the point that those cheap little hand held stun guns have killed people... cardiac arrest.

 

[WardenWolf]

USNChief, please tell me again how nobody has ever died from police Taser use. It's happened. Not common, but it can happen. It's a less-lethal weapon, just like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds. The intent is not to kill, but it can happen if they hit the wrong place or if a person is susceptible due to a health condition. Tasers are normally used in situations where deadly force may be justified if no other options were available. They're used to provide that "other" option, knowing full well there's a slight possibility that the person may still die.

It's current that does damage, but voltage alone can cause a heart arrhythmia or stoppage even if no actual tissue damage is done.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: No argument with that. I was just making the point that those cheap little hand held stun guns have killed people... cardiac arrest.

Good. Thanks.

I did not want to seem critical, but we always need to be mindful of the possibility that someone else may walk away with an erroneous impression, hence my response.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WardenWolf: Tasers are normally used in situations where deadly force may be justified if no other options were available.

Is that true for all departments?

This seems to say otherwise, but I am not at all conversant on the subject.

Not that LEO procedures are on topic in this forum, or that we were discussing Tasers, but the answer might be valuable for a defender who has a Taser.....

Also, I do seem to remember a ruling in which it was determined that an officer would be justified in the use of deadly force against someone with a Taser because of the likliehood that the attacker might acquire the officer's firearm.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.

Only so far as voltage is required as the potential which causes current flow. Current flow is a function of voltage and resistance, and it cannot exceed the capacity of the source. It is current flow which causes work, not voltage potential.

The low end of 30 volts is based on the lowest body resistance of the human body.

Actual current flow, and length of time exposed to it, is what causes damage. Current flow is the flow of electrons, and flowing electrons causes physical damage to human tissue through heat damage, as well as electrical interference with the nerve signals which control the body (namely the heart). Voltage potential is just that...a potential: it's not a measure of electrons flowing through anything. You can have high voltage potential with zero current flow.

It takes 30 mA of current minimum across the heart to cause ventricular fibrilation. How that current is acheived is a function of body resistance and applied voltage. Changing body resistance means changing the required minimum voltage to induce that 30 mA of current flow.

There are other factors which influences the severity of electric shock. You can take quite a bit of current above 30 mA without cardiac arrest, for example, if the current path for the electricity does not take it through the heart. You may have serious burns on othe parts of the body, but the heart will keep right on trucking.

Frequency makes a difference, as well. DC is worse than household 60 Hz. High frequency electric shocks can produce a "skin effect", where the current flow is across the surface of the skin or through the skin layers, without penetrating deeper, which means very little current flow actually passes through the heart even if the shock is across the chest.

But the medium by which damage occurs is ALWAYS current. Voltage is just the potential which causes current to flow.

Otherwise people would be dropping dead right and left in the dry, winter months when they build up enogh static potential walking across carpeting snd such to reach upwards of 20,000 to 25,000 volts.

Trust me...electrical safety is an integral part of my job and has been for decades now.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

USNChief, please tell me again how nobody has ever died from police Taser use. It's happened. Not common, but it can happen. It's a less-lethal weapon, just like rubber bullets and beanbag rounds. The intent is not to kill, but it can happen if they hit the wrong place or if a person is susceptible due to a health condition. Tasers are normally used in situations where deadly force may be justified if no other options were available. They're used to provide that "other" option, knowing full well there's a slight possibility that the person may still die.

It's current that does damage, but voltage alone can cause a heart arrhythmia or stoppage even if no actual tissue damage is done.

First of all, I don't believe I ever said anywhere in my posting that "nobody has ever died from police Taser use". Feel free to point out to me where I said this if I'm wrong.

And once again, voltage doesn't have anything to do with heart stoppage or tissue damage. Voltage is a POTENTIAL, it's not ELECTRON FLOW. These damages are caused by current flow, which is a measure of electron flow. Current does work, not voltage. Voltage is the potential which causes current to flow. You can have extremely high voltages but zero current flow. See post #101.


Since you're the one claiming that Tasers are so dangerous, then please show me how many actual deaths (and long term, permanent injuries) have occurred due to police Taser use, compared with how many Taser usages in a given period of time, then.

And then, when you're done looking up that information, please do a relative comparison to how many actual deaths (and long term, permanent injuries) have occurred due to police shootings, which is what the Taser was specifically designed to reduce.


Saying that ANYTHING is 100% safe cannot be done, even iwth Tasers. You can't even sit in the comfort of your own chair watching TV without some amount of risk. The question is, therefore, what is the RELATIVE risk compared to other factors in every day life?


Saying that it's "not common, but it can happen" is really a huge misnomer. The risk of death by Taser is so low that there are no definitive studies which can actually quantify it in any meaningful way. The fact that you have to compile ridiculously HUGE numbers of statistical samples in which people are Tased in order to have even a single instance of death gives one an idea of the relative safety of being Tased.

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a Cardiologist (among other things) has studied this and concluded that death can result. However, all he could say about the risk was "The risk is small, but I can’t say how small".

The reason he can't say how small the risk is is because it's so small it requires HUGE amounts of statistical samples of Taser shocks in order to correlate it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/teens-death-raises-new-concern-about-taser-safety-6C10910054


Given why the Taser was designed and what the Tazer was designed to do, the direct relative measure of risk in this instance is to compare the risks associated with the police using a Taser on someone with the risks associated with the police using a gun on someone. And while you're at it, throw in all the other violently physical risks that a police officer would otherwise have to restort to as well.

What do you think the relative risks are? And does a weighing of the various risks for all these methods come out better or worse if the Taser is used alternatively?

 

[Mike1234567]

Only so far as voltage is required as the potential which causes current flow. Current flow is a function of voltage and resistance, and it cannot exceed the capacity of the source. It is current flow which causes work, not voltage potential.

The low end of 30 volts is based on the lowest body resistance of the human body.

Actual current flow, and length of time exposed to it, is what causes damage. Current flow is the flow of electrons, and flowing electrons causes physical damage to human tissue through heat damage, as well as electrical interference with the nerve signals which control the body (namely the heart). Voltage potential is just that...a potential: it's not a measure of electrons flowing through anything. You can have high voltage potential with zero current flow.

It takes 30 mA of current minimum across the heart to cause ventricular fibrilation. How that current is acheived is a function of body resistance and applied voltage. Changing body resistance means changing the required minimum voltage to induce that 30 mA of current flow.

There are other factors which influences the severity of electric shock. You can take quite a bit of current above 30 mA without cardiac arrest, for example, if the current path for the electricity does not take it through the heart. You may have serious burns on othe parts of the body, but the heart will keep right on trucking.

Frequency makes a difference, as well. DC is worse than household 60 Hz. High frequency electric shocks can produce a "skin effect", where the current flow is across the surface of the skin or through the skin layers, without penetrating deeper, which means very little current flow actually passes through the heart even if the shock is across the chest.

But the medium by which damage occurs is ALWAYS current. Voltage is just the potential which causes current to flow.

Otherwise people would be dropping dead right and left in the dry, winter months when they build up enogh static potential walking across carpeting snd such to reach upwards of 20,000 to 25,000 volts.

Trust me...electrical safety is an integral part of my job and has been for decades now.

With respect... that is not my point.

Something like 1 in 900 people die from being shocked by those things. The odds are very small but the possibility is there none-the-less.

What's the likelihood of dying from being shot... 1 in 8? More/less?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to the probability of dying from a given type of device being used on us until we deem in appropriate to defend ourselves... 1 in 20... 1 in 50?

This doesn't even count what happens "after" we're shocked. Yeah, most of us can still fight because all it inflicted was some pain. The fact is we can probably still fight after being shot once or twice.

So, again, where to we draw the line when it comes to the odds/probabilities?

 

[itsa pain]

I say nuke the kid from orbit. It is the only way to be sure

 

[Kleanbore]

Trust me...electrical safety is an integral part of my job and has been for decades now.

One with a moderator's hat on might feel the need to look beyond the interesting aspect of this part of the discussion, and point out hat we seem to have gone off topic again.

BUT: this might be a good time to remind people that, when people end up in court, one or both sides may decide to introduce expert witnesses who can speak with authority on relevant scientific and technical aspects of the evidence.

Their testimony may tell the triers of fact a lot about any of a number of things: what constitutes a safe trigger pull; at what distance does an attacker with a contact weapon reasonably constitute an imminent threat; from how far was the shot fired; how certain is it that the fatal shot was fired from that firearm; from what position was the shot fired; what is the difference between a stun gun and a Taser; and on and on, down to what is the danger of a stun gun buzzing twenty one feet away.

So, I do think the discussion is a good one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: Something like 1 in 900 people die from being shocked by those things. The odds are very small but the possibility is there none-the-less.

What's the likelihood of dying from being shot... 1 in 8? More/less?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to the probability of dying from a given type of device being used on us until we deem in appropriate to defend ourselves... 1 in 20... 1 in 50?

The defender may use necessary force that is reasonable (proportional to the threat), to defend against death or serious bodily harm.

USLegal.com will tell you that deadly force is "that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm". Emphasis added.

They also tell us that serious bodily injury is

something more serious than mere physical injury. Serious bodily injury refers to bodily injury which involves substantial risk of death, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ or mental faculty. Serious bodily injury is more than a minor or superficial injury.

Of course, a jury will have to apply its own reasoning in judging the facts of the case.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Mike1234567]

The defender may use necessary force that is reasonable (proportional to the threat), to defend against death or serious bodily harm.

USLegal.com will tell you that deadly force is "that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm". Emphasis added.

They also tell us that serious bodily injury is



Of course, a jury will have to apply its own reasoning in judging the facts of the case.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, and I appreciate your patience. Please bear with me...

If there is a 1:900 chance that any type of attack will kill or seriously injure the victim of a crime, is that enough reason to defend oneself with whatever tool they have? If not, or probably not, then what are proper odds that the attack will seriously injure or kill the victim before something like a handgun is appropriate to use for self-defense... 1:50? With 1:900 odds would the victim be safer (legally) using a hammer or big rock to smash the attacker?

Please believe me; I'm not trying to be a hard-headed jerk. I think these are valid questions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: Please believe me; I'm not trying to be a hard-headed jerk. I think these are valid questions.

Of course they are valid questions.

If there is a 1:900 chance that any type of attack will kill or seriously injure the victim of a crime, is that enough reason to defend oneself with whatever tool they have? If not, or probably not, then what are proper odds that the attack will seriously injure or kill the victim before something like a handgun is appropriate to use for self-defense... 1:50?

It will boil down to what the proverbial and fictional "reasonable person" would have done, knowing what the actor knew at the time.

At the risk of seeming to repeat the same thing more loudly, which I do not want to do, it is a matter of that a reasonable person would consider to have been immediately necessary....as judged by others on the basis of the totality of whatever piecemeal evidence is available after the fact.

I cannot imagine anyone thinking that the use of deadly force against another human being would ever be justified in the face of 2% odds of being badly hurt.This is a layman's opinion, but I think that to conclude that the assailant had the ability to cause death or serious injury, one would have to be able to assert that such injury would have been probable. The classic legal definition is "can reasonably be expected to."

With 1:900 odds would the victim be safer (legally) using a hammer or big rock to smash the attacker?

NO! Would a hammer or big rock not "reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm"?

This is a good discussion, but I would caution against three things:

1. Relying to much on a Q&A discussion with people whom you do not know; there are some very knowledgeable people here, but none of them know you well enough to reliably interpret your questions as you intend them, and vice versa.
2. Attempting to apply dictionary definitions to words in individual statutes take out of the context of the overall fabric of the law.
3. Trying to figure out when you would be justified in shooting. Shoot only when you absolutely have to. Your world will never be the same afterward.

The best possible advice that I can give is to set some time and money aside and attend MAG-20. The fee is comparable to the price of a good handgun. Add in the travel and per diem and you are still out less than the cost of just a few billable hours with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

That comment is not meant to discourage you from asking questions here.

 

[Mike1234567]

Understood... so, in your opinion (and I know you're not stating it as fact or as legal advice) you (personally) would not consider a 1:50 chance of serious injury or death appropriate to use a firearm to defend yourself. Fair enough. I'm a bit uncomfortable with those odds though.

Again, I do respect your opinion and expertise. I am taking what you write to heart. And, believe me, if I ever did need to defend myself with strong force that resulted in another's permanent damage or death I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. That would certainly be difficult.

But I'll ask just one more time: In your opinion, at what point (ratio of possible death by attacker) does the use of a self-defense firearm become appropriate... 1:30, 1:10, 1:3?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: But I'll ask just one more time: In your opinion, at what point (ratio of possible death by attacker) does the use of a self-defense firearm become appropriate... 1:30, 1:10, 1:3?

My opinion would be worth what you have paid for it, or less.

BUT: possible death is not the only important factor; there is serious injury to consider.

And I gave a layman's option on that: probable. I derive that from these words in the customary definition of deadly force: can be expected to.

I can tell you from years of professional experience in the prediction of future outcomes in a number of different disciplines that this kind of analysis is very subjective indeed and that it is fraught with the potential for debate and disagreement and for after-the-fact second guessing. For that reason, I seriously doubt that any attorney will try to assign probabilities for your answer.

But we might be surprised. And one or more may also tell me that my layman's answer is wrong.

 

[Mike1234567]

My opinion would be worth what you have paid for it, or less.

BUT: possible death is not the only important factor; there is serious injury to consider.

And I gave a layman's option on that: probable. I derive that from these words in the customary definition of deadly force: can be expected to.

I can tell you from years of professional experience in the prediction of future outcomes in a number of different disciplines that this kind of analysis is very subjective indeed and that it is fraught with the potential for debate and disagreement and for after-the-fact second guessing. For that reason, I seriously doubt that any attorney will try to assign probabilities for your answer.

But we might be surprised. And one or more may also tell me that my layman's answer is wrong.

Fair enough. I do appreciate your patience.

I suspect, in my jurisdiction, it probably wouldn't be a serious problem. Although legal fees might be high (though I'd ask for a public defender) if there was reasonable belief that the attacker intended to harm a victim for no good reason, the jury (I "think"... "probably") wouldn't convict the one who was attacked.

 

[HorseSoldier]

To borrow from Clausewitz, the the law is politics by other means. You start dropping pre-teens with nebulous justification and you'll likely be amazed just how anti-gun owner (or at least this particular defendant) the police and DA's office can get, even in Texas.

As for a jury trial, even in Texas, there's a higher likelihood you'd be convicted even if the kid were trying to douse you with gasoline and set you on fire than there is for a lethal outcome from a stun gun encounter.

And then there's the civil suit if you dodge the criminal prosecution bullets.

This isn't so much a "meh, the legal fees will be high" it's more that if by some miracle you avoid prison you can look forward to any paycheck you earn from now until the end of time being garnished to pay out the massive settlement a jury will slap down against you for the family.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sorry...you're right that we've drifted with the subject of Tasers/stun guns and what kills, etc. Still, I feel there is lots of useful information there which people can use to help them understand how these things work, what kills when it comes to electricity, and that should help to understand the relative risks when considering deadly force in an attack involving such weapons.


Let's go back to the justification for the use of deadly force:

First, READ the laws under your jurisdiction and understand what is being said in them.

Then UNDERSTAND what the PURPOSE of those laws is...which is, ultimately, to say that deadly force can result in one of societies most serious criminal acts, which is the taking of another human life. Therefore only the most seriously dire need should require the justified use of deadly force in order to avoid the criminal aspect of homicide.

Remember...homicide simply means the taking of a human life. Justifiable homicide is STILL homicide, but under circumstances wherein the law has allowed certain exceptions to the rules against homicide. If it's not justified, then the homicide is manslaughter or murder.


The OP describes a circumstance involving, in part, an 11 year old boy who MAY have been a serious threat. That can ONLY be determined by the totality of events and circumstances, and this is anything BUT clear cut, even in the best of circumstances. Ascribing all kinds of other specific acts which alter the facts one way or the other are thus only a hypothetical exercise and meaningless to this specific instance.

The absolute WRONG thing to do is either jump on the Deadly Force Bandwagon right away simply because of the stun gun OR to start coming up with all kinds of justifications to use deadly force against an 11 year old boy by coming up with all kinds of extreme circumstances.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You EVALUATE what you have going on at the time and place that it's happening. And then you do everything in your power, using whatever resources and experience you have, to alter circumstances such that you DON'T have to use deadly force.

Because once it's unleashed, right or wrong, for better or worse, there is no taking back deadly force.

 

[Texan Scott]

Stun guns are generally treated by law enforcement (and viewed by the public from which the jury will be selected) as non-lethal. No grand jury in Texas will no-bill you for shooting a child that posed no credible threat of deadly force. Even if by some miracle you beat a criminal charge, you will have no civil immunity, and I can't imagine you NOT being absolutely RUINED in a civil wrongful death suit.

Thing is though, I don't see you beating a criminal indictment in a case were you willfully use lethal force against a child posing no credible lethal threat. If anything, I see the prosecutor pursuing a grand jury indictment of murder two with lesser included, and you being LUCKY to do less than ten in Huntsville for voluntary manslaughter.

And ... DUDE ... you'll live the rest of your life with the blood of a child on your hands. Don't forget that part.

I have to ask... are you a dad?

 

[Mike1234567]

Like I stated before, I'd likely just be dead. I have no one here relying on me anyway except a sick old pug dog on his last legs. My arguments were simply rhetorical. Plus, I wasn't really taking the age much into account. A vicious attack is a vicious attack. There are a boat-load of 11 year old sociopaths.

But, one last rhetorical question: Isn't it a shame we can't legally (safely) defend ourselves unless the "probability" of being maimed or killed is what... 1:1? And who analyzes/defines those odds?

 

[dayhiker]

And yet in the ' knockout' thread in this sub forum a case came to light in Michigan where a concealed carrier shot a stun gun wielding teen. The teen is in prison, the carrier is free...go figure.

With the legal advice given in this thread you would have to assume the carrier would be doing 20 to life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by dayhiker: And yet in the ' knockout' thread in this sub forum a case came to light in Michigan where a concealed carrier shot a stun gun wielding teen. The teen is in prison, the carrier is free...go figure.

With the legal advice given in this thread you would have to assume the carrier would be doing 20 to life.

There has been no legal advice in this thread.

It is important to understand that the outcome of one incident does not establish precedent.

We have seen a case in which a man in Seattle shot a thief running away with his subwoofer and ended up with a felony conviction but no jail time.

We have seen a Texan shoot an unarmed teen who entered the wrong house and ran. Two grueling trials bankrupted him, but he is free.

We have the case of two people who walked in on some new neighbors and made a false arrest. The neighbors declined to complain.

And on and on.

Personally, I sympathize with the shooter in the Michigan case. One does have to wonder, however, whether the death of the young man might have resulted in charges.

The best advice so far remains that of Fred Fuller on the other thread: exercise situational awareness, and have at your command a less than lethal defense.

 

[dayhiker]

Of course more options are great. I myself have several layers above lethal force. However I do disagree with your other points.

From the begining you have resisted any lethal force You have made your beliefs clear, but there is obviously one legal case in which a jury did not havr your opinion.

 

[dayhiker]

Arrgggg i hate this new upgrade to tapatalk.......my post was not complete...

 

[dayhiker]

I mean one jury in one jurisdiction does not agree with your opinion. And you must admit , while you claim not to give legal advice, your posts do suggest as much.

 

[hso]

The kid almost got shot

A stun gun isn't going to render you incapable of protecting yourself. It is not a Taser and doesn't overload the voluntary muscle system.

You would have been wrong to have shot the kid and you would have had little luck with a Grand Jury or in court convincing them you were in reasonable fear for your life.

It sounds like you were startled, had trouble assessing the situation, reacted and are now dealing with the aftermath of almost having shot someone and are trying to justify it to yourself and to others. That's all very natural. BUT you need to learn from this experience and be grateful that instead of following through with your initial startled reaction that you hesitated and reassessed the situation to NOT draw and fire. Good on you for showing that control.