Appropriate Response To Being Threatened With A Taser

[Trunk Monkey]

Before I tell this story I want to clarify two points.

First, the person I’m writing about is a licensed security officer who was responding to a report of a trespasser on client property. I won’t say he had a “duty” to respond like the police would but it was part of his job description and long story short he had to be there.

Second client policy is that for trespassers security is not allowed to call the police unless the trespasser is causing a disturbance or refusing to leave. So my coworker didn’t really have the option of letting the police handle it.

What happened, My coworker arrives in the area where the trespasser was last seen and goes looking, he finds the guy (homeless vagrant) walking around in a storage yard owned by the client and approaches to ask him to leave. As he approaches the homeless guy threatens him with a taser. The coworker states he put his hand on the butt of his gun and told the trespasser it (trying to tase him) would be the stupidest thing he ever did. At that point the trespasser put the taser away (co worker isn’t a cop and has no legal authority to confiscate the taser) and left.

Any time there is a deadly force incident the company requires the officer to justify his actions, coworker’s justification was that while a taser is generally considered non lethal, if tased he would be defenseless and unable to stop the guy from either taking his gun or doing further injury to him and that once the taser was deployed there wouldn’t be anything to stop the trespasser from repeatedly hitting the shock button until it killed the guard. The company agreed with his assessment and closed the matter.

I agree with his assessment as well and would absolutely regard a taser as a deadly threat.

So, my question is not necessarily what would you have done in this situation but would you also regard a taser as a deadly threat

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

If the guard is tased, he loses his ability to deal with the trespasser, as well as the ability to maintain control of his firearm. He can then neither provide for his own security, that of the location, nor the public. To not recognize the potential for disaster would be to rely upon hope rather than reason and prudence. Your coworker therefore acted with prudence, and within reason.

 

[LordDunsany]

I would consider it so. Moreover if the threatened-to-be-tazed person has a heart condition, a pacemaker, or is prone to seizures (epileptic) then the tazer threat should be responded to by potentially deadly force.

 

[Bobson]

Hard to say because the word TASER is so overused. "Taser" is a generic term for the less-than-lethal devices made by the company, TASER. It fires barbed projectiles that are wired to a battery. They're expensive, require a new barb unit to be reloaded each shot, and can only be sold to individuals who provide training/certification documents. A TASER is harder to buy than a gun, and I would equate being threatened with one to being threatened with a firearm.

On the other hand, what the homeless man likely had was a stun gun, which requires direct contact, and even then, doesn't incapacitate the victim for any amount of time. Instead, it's just fairly intense pain. I'm not entirely sure I would consider it to be a deadly threat.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think I remember reading of a finding that the use of deadly force by a sworn officer who had been threatened with a taser had been determined justified, for the obvious reason that the perp could have easily taken and used the officer's gun while the officer was incapacitated.

I do not know who made the determination or in what jurisdiction it occurred.

The security guard's not having a legal duty to apprehend, or to use deadly force to expel, the perp might well color the situation at hand. It could be argued that he had the ability and the duty to avoid the confrontation in the first place. Successfully? I don't know. I do know that persons who have gone out to confront people on their own property have failed in their defense of justification after the situation led to the use of deadly force.

Once he had been threatened, he certainly would have been expected to call the police. And the question at that point would seem to be one of whether he could have withdrawn safely. If not, it would seem, to me at least, that he acted out of necessity.

If I were a security guard or his employer, I would want to have a competent legal opinion on the question beforehand.

To answer the question, yes, I would regard a taser as a deadly threat, as long as the intended victim is carrying openly or had displayed a firearm or other lethal weapon.

I think that otherwise, the answer might hinge on whether the defender had prior knowledge that the taser would reasonably be expected to present a high risk of death or crippling injury. I would want to know that, also.

 

[zmoore1991]

I agree with the assessment that, if the weapon the transient was threatening with was an actual TASER with deployable prongs, it could put the security officer at risk of serious injury or death in that the guard might be unable to move while said transient took his firearm.

I don't agree with his claiming that a TASER would eventually kill him if the transient kept hitting the trigger. TASERs don't work like that. They pulse an electric current through the surface muscles only, locking them up and causing the target to become immobilized (assuming the attacker got a good shot with good contact points spaced far enough apart on the body to lock up several major muscles - and I'm guessing that, as a security guard, he's got pretty thick clothing that would make it difficult for the prongs to penetrate skin or even arc to the skin).
I'm also pretty sure that there is no evidence to say that a threat is elevated for someone with a pacemaker or heart condition since, as I already stated, the current never passes through the body, only along the surface muscles directly between the two contact points.
I suppose the contractions might be dangerous for someone in overall bad health, since they do work your muscles over pretty harshly - I've heard that a full five-second ride is equivalent to playing a half of a game of basketball.

That said, I'd still say he did the right thing. It's not a gamble I'd take, considering it could very well incapacitate him if he fell over and busted his head or, again, if the transient was able to get his firearm during the ride.

 

[Ankeny]

Good question. There is case law where threatening a police officer with a taser is a deadly threat and the police officer can respond (and they have) by shooting their assailant. I know of no case law where a taser has been determined to be a deadly threat when deployed against a civilian. OTOH, when multiple robberies were committed in Washington by a bandito armed with a taser, the "opinion" of the prosecuting attorney was a taser is a non-lethal threat when used against a civilian. Go figure.

 

[easyg]

I consider a taser or a stun gun to be a deadly threat.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by easyg: I consider a taser or a stun gun to be a deadly threat.

Do you have a basis for believing that the use of a stun gun presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury?

We had a lengthy discussion on the subject in november, and a number of member who appeared to be knowledgeable said that a stun gun is designed to cause pain.

 

[xXxplosive]

Any gun pointed at me during a confrontational situation will be considered a deadly threat...

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Point of order. I wasn't there all I have to go by is the report (which I plan to read again) and in the report the word "Taser" was used so I'm going to assume he was talking about a Taser the real deal. I rememeber seeing a commercial sveral years ago for TASERS
for the civilian market so it may well have been one of those but bottom line the word used in the report was "TASER"

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trunk Monkey: Point of order. I wasn't there all I have to go by is the report (which I plan to read again) and in the report the word "Taser" was used so I'm going to assume he was talking about a Taser the real deal.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the November discussion, the consensus seamed to be that a stun gun is designed to administer pain, for the purpose of compliance, and that if has to be kept in contact with the subject to do so. The TASER was described as a tool that could be used from a short distance and that it could disable the subject temporarily.

The latter is usually unlawful for civilian use, and in some jurisdictions, so is the latter. Also, in some jurisdictions, the unlawful use of one or the other (it varies) is treated in the same manner as the use of a lethal weapon, even though both are evidently designed as less than lethal weapons.

That does not mean that a defender would be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend against one. It's a different subject altogether.

If I were carrying openly and were unlawfully threatened by someone with a TASER and could not otherwise defend myself, I would, based upon what I think I know today, consider the likelihood that the assailant would get my firearm and use it if I did not prevent him from doing so.

I would not want to end up in a position of having a stun gun or a TASER shown to a jury after having tried to claim that I had believed it to be a deadly weapon.

I would not relish having the witnesses for the prosecution explain that a stun gun was not a lethal weapon.

And unless I had been carrying openly such that my being incapacitated would be perceived by the attacker as an opportunity to acquire a firearm, I would not like to be in a position of having expert witnesses for the prosecution explain how the design of a TASER was intended to limit its effects to a less than lethal level.

 

[MedWheeler]

Stun guns, as were issued to LE back in the eighties, around here, do indeed cause pain. However, they did also cause momentary loss of coordination (and bladder control in many cases), which typically caused the shocked subject to drop to the ground. Once the device is removed or deactivated, the electrical current stops. Recovery of muscle/motor function depends largely on the person, but is typically instantaneous. This is also true with Tasers.

Both stun guns and Tasers cause pain in addition to momentary loss of coordination. They both use electricity to deliver it. The means of delivery is what differs.

The main reason stun-guns fell out of favor with LE is that it is so hard to keep the device in contact with a person who is moving/fleeing/fighting to keep him disabled. As soon as he pulls or falls away, the current is stopped and he's "back on."

I would fear the possibility of being disarmed if being held down by, or fighting with, a person who keeps delivering a shock from a contact-type stun gun, and who knows I am armed.

I do not fear being killed by the electrical weapon itself.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MedWheeler: I would fear the possibility of being disarmed if being held down by, or fighting with, a person who keeps delivering a shock from a contact-type stun gun, and who knows I am armed.

That sounds reasonable to me.

The issue would seem to hinge upon the circumstances, and whether one could reasonably keep from getting pinned down without using deadly force.

Creating distance and keeping the stun gun out of contact, if possible, would be the first order of the day.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the November discussion, the consensus seamed to be that a stun gun is designed to administer pain, for the purpose of compliance, and that if has to be kept in contact with the subject to do so. The TASER was described as a tool that could be used from a short distance and that it could disable the subject temporarily.

The latter is usually unlawful for civilian use, and in some jurisdictions, so is the latter. Also, in some jurisdictions, the unlawful use of one or the other (it varies) is treated in the same manner as the use of a lethal weapon, even though both are evidently designed as less than lethal weapons.

That does not mean that a defender would be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force to defend against one. It's a different subject altogether.

If I were carrying openly and were unlawfully threatened by someone with a TASER and could not otherwise defend myself, I would, based upon what I think I know today, consider the likelihood that the assailant would get my firearm and use it if I did not prevent him from doing so.

I would not want to end up in a position of having a stun gun or a TASER shown to a jury after having tried to claim that I had believed it to be a deadly weapon.

I would not relish having the witnesses for the prosecution explain that a stun gun was not a lethal weapon.

And unless I had been carrying openly such that my being incapacitated would be perceived by the attacker as an opportunity to acquire a firearm, I would not like to be in a position of having expert witnesses for the prosecution explain how the design of a TASER was intended to limit its effects to a less than lethal level.

In this particular case the Guard was open carrying(it's against the law for a Licensed Guard to carry concealed on shift). I wouldn't be so I wouldn't have that concern.

The report doesn't specify but I assume that the guard was far enough away that the guy couldn't have hit him with a Taser which would be another point against using deadly force.

 

[JERRY]

your coworker is luck to be alive. while he was debating and trying to decide what to do, the bum could have tased him, took his gun and shot him in the head. lucky for him this didn't happen.

next time he decides to not act on a Taser pointed at him he should do so from father than 25 feet.

 

[TestPilot]

The following is not a legal advice.

Take into consideration why you are being threatened.

If a TASER is used for robbery or some other serious felony, some jurisdiction law will presume that you are under deadly threat.

Also, you do not necessarily expect to die in order for lethal force to be justified. You can defend yourself against serious injury, and "temporary paralysis'' may fall into that deinition.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Appropriate Response To Being Threatened With A Taser

BLAM!!!

Hot lead is the response, just as it's the same response to a gun snatch.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trunk Monkey: In this particular case the Guard was open carrying(it's against the law for a Licensed Guard to carry concealed on shift). I wouldn't be so I wouldn't have that concern.

Yes, that was clear.

The report doesn't specify but I assume that the guard was far enough away that the guy couldn't have hit him with a Taser which would be another point against using deadly force

Which could be all-important...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by TestPiilot: Nothing one sees on an Internet board is legal advice. Legal advice is something provided by one's own attorney, licensed to practice before the courts with jurisdiction.

Take into consideration why you are being threatened.

If a TASER is used for robbery or some other serious felony, some jurisdiction law will presume that you are under deadly threat.

Do not confuse the fact that some jurisdictions characterize the felonious use of such a device as deadly force for the purpose of meting out punishment with the conditions necessary for justification for the defender to use deadly force. Two different subjects.

Also, you do not necessarily expect to die in order for lethal force to be justified. You can defend yourself against serious injury,...

True.

...and "temporary paralysis'' may fall into that deinition.

I rather doubt it.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

FWIW I can't find the report.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I would suggest you get an ECG after you were tased.
Not mentioning company names but they have spent a fortune defending the unit after folks have had heart attacks and died up to 36 hours of getting a jolt.

 

[TestPilot]

Do not confuse the fact that some jurisdictions characterize the felonious use of such a device as deadly force for the purpose of meting out punishment with the conditions necessary for justification for the defender to use deadly force. Two different subjects.

No confusion here.

I am specifically talking about laws of some juristictions regarding use of force for self-defense.

For example:

California Penal Code. 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

 

[Kleanbore]

Many states, and probably most if not all, have provisions that excuse the use of deadly force when immediately necessary to prevent felonies, or at least forcible felonies. That has been true for centuries. Mine is one of them.

However, the jury instructions are more limited, bringing in the requirement for an objective basis for fear of death or injury to the defender or to a third person.

Personally, I would not rely for a moment upon the protection given by such laws.

If one sets aside the cases of property protection so famous in Texas, one is hard pressed to find examples of acquittals in which the use of deadly force by a defender was not associated with a reasonable belief of immediate necessity to defend against an imminent threat of death or of a crippling, permanent injury, which includes sexual assault; armed robbery, because the threat is one of death or serious injury; kidnapping; the unlawful entry of a domicile or vehicle, in which case the presumption is that death or serious injury was threatened; or arson of an occupied structure (same principle).

Police officers have been given some leeway in using deadly force against attackers with TASERs, because they are known to carry firearms, and because they have a sworn duty to enforce the law.

There have been opinions offered that such leeway should be extended to persons other than sworn officers. I am not aware that that has happened anywhere.

However, the open carrier who cannot escape a TASER would be in grave danger, and most of us would, I think, believe deadly force to be appropriate if necessary.

 

[Ankeny]

Many states, and probably most if not all, have provisions that excuse the use of deadly force when immediately necessary to prevent felonies, or at least forcible felonies. That has been true for centuries. Mine is one of them.

My state (Wyoming) does not have such provisions. I like it that way.