Appropriate Response To Being Threatened With A Taser

[easyg]

The actual term is, or should be, "less than lethal", not "less lethal"

Not true.

Tasers have some times been lethal.
There is certainly no guarantee that a taser will be "less than lethal".

 

[JRH6856]

Whatever you say.

 

[Mike1234567]

Okay.... How about "sometimes lethal but not intentionally lethal (probably)".

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, the terms "less lethal", "non-lethal", and "less than lethal" are used interchangeably in weapons discussions, whether the subject at hand is law enforcement, personal defense, or military operations. They all mean the same thing. They do not mean that the proper use of the item in question cannot result in death. They simply mean that the item is designed to function in a manner that substantially reduces the likelihood of death or permanent serious bodily harm.

I am of the impression that "less than lethal" is the most widely accepted term, but I cannot prove that.

 

[RussellC]

Our training at work has always included talk of a bad guy guy getting our Taser as a deadly force encounter. The reason for this is simple: if someone gets my Taser they can easily incapacitate me to the point of being able to do anything they want (like taking my gun and shooting me). As a police officer, that's not an option for me.

A Taser is a "less lethal" device, and police are trained how to use it properly, per the manufacturer's instructions. Some dirtbag with a Taser is probably not operating with the same set of rules or knowledge of the device.

I'd have drawn on the guy in the situation the OP described, not put my hand on the butt of the gun.

This answer get the prize in my book....if he tazed me, he would have access to my gun. I dont think I would trust the "good intentions" of one pointing ANY kind of weapon at me. (not speaking about law enforcement of course, then its yes sir no sir...)

Russellc

 

[Mike1234567]

Folks, the terms "less lethal", "non-lethal", and "less than lethal" are used interchangeably in weapons discussions, whether the subject at hand is law enforcement, personal defense, or military operations. They all mean the same thing. They do not mean that the proper use of the item in question cannot result in death. They simply mean that the item is designed to function in a manner that substantially reduces the likelihood of death or permanent serious bodily harm.

I am of the impression that "less than lethal" is the most widely accepted term, but I cannot prove that.

My post was a sarcastic joke... or maybe a poor attempt it one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RussellC: This answer get the prize in my book....if he tazed me, he would have access to my gun.

For a sworn officer, at least in some jurisdictions, that reason has been found to justify the use of deadly force.

It would seem to make sense for an open carrier who is not a sworn officer, and who cannot otherwise avoid the device, but no one has given us anything definitive on that here.

I seriously doubt that it would hold water for someone who is not known by the attacker to be carrying a weapon.

I dont think I would trust the "good intentions" of one pointing ANY kind of weapon at me.

Whether or not one "trusts the 'good intentions' " of someone else does not figure into the question of justification.

If the defender has reason to believe that he is being threatened with an item that can cause death or serious bodily harm (even if it is a toy), and if the defender has no alternative but to use deadly force, and if the defender did not initiate the confrontation or if he has clearly expressed his desire to end it, the use of deadly force would likely be justified.

 

[Mike1234567]

Apparently our crappy laws make NO SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER...

Come at me with a big rock and my tendency is to shoot because I can no longer fight back. I'm SICK of fearing my own state and federal laws when I'm in the right...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: Apparently our crappy laws make NO SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER...

Many of them certainly do not, but for the most part, our use of force laws have evolved over many centuries, and have evolved from the common law developed by some of the finest judges around.

Come at me with a big rock and my tendency is to shoot because I can no longer fight back.

A "big rock" would give an attacker the ability to cause death or serious bodily harm. The additional considerations for justifying the use of deadly force would be opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion, and of course whether you initiated the confrontation.

I'm SICK of fearing my own state and federal laws when I'm in the right...

The discussion at hand would not involve Federal law. The purpose of the state laws, whether common law or laws codified by the legislature, is to establish whether you were in fact "in the right."

 

[Mike1234567]

So if a "shocking device" has a good chance of disabling or killing ME then I MIGHT have SOME chance of defending myself in court? Well, praise God and Hallelujah... sorta!! Ya' gotta love our "American Freedoms".

 

[Madcap_Magician]

It's not a good chance. It's a nearly infinitisimally small chance, unless you have a preexisting medical condition, which under established self-defense law weighs into the disparity of force issue.

 

[CMC]

In Florida statutes they are classified as electric weapons, and illegal to carry it concealed.

 

[Pilot]

"Don't Taze Me Bro!"

Surprised it took four pages.

 

[Fred Fuller]

And with that, this one is done.