Appropriate Response To Being Threatened With A Taser

[torqem]

Looks like a good reason to not openly carry, does it not? I realize that ccw is not a legal option for some, like the security guard.

 

[IlikeSA]

I am taser certified and would treat someone pointing a taser at me with hostile intentions to be a deadly threat. There is neuromuscular incapacitation for 5 seconds with a police taser (longer if the trigger is held down) and a whopping 30 seconds with the citizen taser. Having been tased, I know one is completely at the mercy of someone who tases you.

In the case of the guard, a crime was committed (assault, harassment, charges vary, depending on jurisdiction) and is certainly in his rights as a citizen to call for law enforcement. Had the taser been deployed, he could have suffered injury from the fall, had his weapon taken from him and used against him, or could have suffered at the hands of the vagrant for an extended period of time, causing him to cease breathing regularly.

 

[JRH6856]

Technically, both a "stun gun" and a Taser are elecro-shock weapons, designed to stun, disable, or incapacitate a person by administering electric shock aimed at disrupting superficial muscle functions. Some do this fairly reliably, some do not. But if the purpose is to incapacitate and it fails, I would classify that as the same as shooting and missing. It really does not alter the intent.

Bottom line is, if someone is trying to incapacitate me while I am armed, I consider that to be a deadly threat. Especially if they are aware I am armed and have no legal justification for seeking to disarm me.

 

[marv]

I have already had two heart attacks. Therefore, any threat involving electricity will be dealt with appropriately.

 

[critter]

Lets see. Point a tazer at me. I point my gun at you. Zap me, my muscles contract. There you go.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I’m kind of frustrated that I can’t find the report in our database at work because there are some questions that I can’t answer without reading it again and some that aren’t answered in it. I will look today again and try to get more detail but I want to stress that this was just an example.

My question was more in some other situation if you were threatened by a Taser (and again I specify “Taser” because that’s what the report said) would you consider it to be a deadly threat?

I also want to point out that in the example above the guard initiated the encounter and I’m sure he did so at some distance where if the guy with the taser initiated the encounter I would think he’d try to get closer to you.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Some folks have also asked why this was considered a deadly force incident. In Colorado if you so much as place your hand on your weapon or even verbally indicate that you are armed it is considered aggravated menacing unless it’s justified self defense. So in the incident I used in my example the guard would have been guilty of a felony except for the Taser. That’s why the company reviewed the incident.

One of the things that my employer stresses with the armed guards is that if you are in some minor confrontation at work (like a client employee forgot their ID card and is upset because you can’t just let them in) is to be very aware of your body language and don’t even put your hand near your gun (like how some people put their hands on their hips when they get upset) because the employee might consider it a threat.

 

[CA Raider]

IlikeSA ... do you mind if I ask a simple question.

I have not been tased myself, so I don't really know what the experience feels like. If you are tased with a body shot, does this cause the muscles in the trunk of your body to stop functioning (only)? Are your arms and hands able to still move, even temporarily? Or does the taser shot incapacitate the whole body, including the extremities?

tx,
CA R

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Trunk Monkey: Some folks have also asked why this was considered a deadly force incident. In Colorado if you so much as place your hand on your weapon or even verbally indicate that you are armed it is considered aggravated menacing unless it’s justified self defense.

Lest there be any confusion, in most states, pointing a gun is not classified as the use of deadly force per se .

BUT--and this is important--in all but a few jurisdictions, an overt act involving the public display, production, or even the mention of a deadly weapon could, depending upon the circumstances and the reason, be considered a crime unless the actor had had reason to believe that the use of deadly force had actually been lawfully justified.

The seriousness of the crime varies a great deal among jurisdictions.

In those few others, the threshold for justification is lower--evidence showing the need for non-deadly physical force would suffice.

Law enforcement officers are almost always excepted.

 

[CA Raider]

"The seriousness of the crime varies a great deal among jurisdictions.

Law enforcement officers are almost always excepted. "

Those two facts are the root of our problem right there.
Since the level of the crime varies tremendously, this causes confusion.
And since the average Joe on the street does not have the same legal protection as a police officer, we can't simply adopt the tactics of cops.

Too bad. I do believe there are situations where letting your opponent know that you are armed and serious about defending yourself would reduce the severity of the outcome. Not always, but sometimes. The laws made for civilians lead to escalation, because the gun owner must keep his weapon a "secret". The same laws also give a huge advantage to whoever draws his weapon first ... which is usually the criminal because he has the advantage of surprise.

CA R

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Lest there be any confusion, in most states, pointing a gun is not classified as the use of deadly force per se .

Right, I was speaking specifically to why this guy had to justify his actions to the company.

In Colorado puting your hand on the gun, or saying or even implying that you have a gun is the same as pointing the gun, you've threatened the other person with deadly force.

Hence the review

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

I don't know why people get hung up on the notion that because something was designed for a given purpose, that it fulfills that purpose and only that purpose, or that it would not be suited for other purposes or cause other problems. Viagra was designed an a medication to lower blood pressure. It did not do that well in the clinical trials as well as it did something else and this side effect was found beneficial and was completely unintended. The point here that design intent does not always follow with actual use or only use.

Do stun guns provide a risk of serious injury or death? Sure. Was that the design intent? Nope.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taser-danger/

When hit in the chest, it can cause the heart to beat abnormally, leading to cardiac arrest.
http://www.livescience.com/36418-tasers-kill-cardiac-arrest-stun-gun.html

The risk is increased when used multiple times.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51899743-78/police-taser-cardall-stun.html.csp

Would I consider it a lethal threat? Probably. It isn't non-lethal.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Double Naught Spy: I don't know why people get hung up on the notion that because something was designed for a given purpose, that it fulfills that purpose and only that purpose, or that it would not be suited for other purposes or cause other problems....Do stun guns provide a risk of serious injury or death? Sure. Was that the design intent? Nope.

I was referring not to the original intent, but to the performance objectives of the device as designed, tested, and produced.

When hit in the chest, it can cause the heart to beat abnormally, leading to cardiac arrest....Would I consider it a lethal threat? Probably. It isn't non-lethal.

"Can cause" is not sufficient. Deadly force is defined as force that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing serious injury or death.

Again, any issue regarding a defense of justification would bring to bear the testimony of expert witnesses who would explain the relevant design factors and test results. What an uninformed layman might "consider" would have little weight.

 

[xXxplosive]

Is there a difference being tased on a wet street environment or in the snow...?

 

[torqem]

Pointing a gun at somebody, but not firing, is aggravated assault. That's 3-8 years in prison, folks. Just "brandishing" the gun, not pointed at anybody, is a misdemeanor that will probably result in the loss of your ccw permit. If firing is not imminent, leave the gun in your pocket holster, out of sight, with your hand on it. From there, you can draw and fire just as fast as if you'd had the gun out and in your hand (but held beside your leg). This sort of thing is one of the reasons to favor pocket carry. There are many others.

 

[boom boom]

Yes, it can be regarded as a deadly weapon in at least a couple of states.

See State v. Riviera, NO. COA11 (2011) found at http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=27496

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 4 - DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES AND PRACTICES
PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 16-11-106 - Possession of firearm or knife during commission of or attempt to commit certain crimes
O.C.G.A. 16-11-106 (2010)
16-11-106. Possession of firearm or knife during commission of or attempt to commit certain crimes


(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.

(b) Any person who shall have on or within arm's reach of his or her person a firearm or a knife having a blade of three or more inches in length during the commission of, or the attempt to commit:

(1) Any crime against or involving the person of another;

(2) The unlawful entry into a building or vehicle;

(3) A theft from a building or theft of a vehicle;

(4) Any crime involving the possession, manufacture, delivery, distribution, dispensing, administering, selling, or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance or marijuana as provided in Code Section 16-13-30, any counterfeit substance as defined in Code Section 16-13-21, or any noncontrolled substance as provided in Code Section 16-13-30.1; or

(5) Any crime involving the trafficking of cocaine, marijuana, or illegal drugs as provided in Code Section 16-13-31,

and which crime is a felony, commits a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement for a period of five years, such sentence to run consecutively to any other sentence which the person has received.

(c) Upon the second or subsequent conviction of a person under this Code section, the person shall be punished by confinement for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the sentence of any person which is imposed for violating this Code section a second or subsequent time shall not be suspended by the court and probationary sentence imposed in lieu thereof.

(d) The punishment prescribed for the violation of subsections (b) and (c) of this Code section shall not be reducible to misdemeanor punishment as is provided by Code Section 17-10-5.

(e) Any crime committed in violation of subsections (b) and (c) of this Code section shall be considered a separate offense.

 

[Ankeny]

Again, any issue regarding a defense of justification would bring to bear the testimony of expert witnesses who would explain the relevant design factors and test results. What an uninformed layman might "consider" would have little weight.

You just nailed it as far as things go in Wyoming. Around here, it's pretty simple. Everything is based on case law (with the exception of the castle doctrine). If the decision is made to file charges, you just need to convince the jury that you were justified in shooting.

A friend of mine wrote a lengthly paper on the use of deadly force in Wyoming. He was a prosecuting attorney at the time. Like he told me, if someone needs to be shot, just shoot them. Doesn't matter if it's with hollow points, handloads, a custom gun, a one pound trigger or any of that other nonsense. However, if you shoot someone and the jury doesn't think they deserved to be shot, you are screwed. He also added something to the effect that jurys in Wyoming seem to feel like there are a whole lot of people running around that deserve to be shot.

If someone pointed a Taser at you in Wyoming and you shot them, the context of the scenario would be the deciding factor. I would suspect that would hold true across the nation.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by boom boom: Yes, it can be regarded as a deadly weapon in at least a couple of states.

The section of the code you cited covers crimes and offenses. It defines the crime of the possession of firearm or knife during commission of or attempt to commit certain crime, states that an electrical device is covered by that provision, and prescribes the penalties.

That has nothing to do with the original question.

We have covered that ground more than once in this thread.

 

[Noah]

I would treat someone pointing a Taser or menacing me with a stun gun (don't forget the civilian model taser that looks a lot like a stun gun, but shoots the darts) exactly the same as someone with a gun (taser) or knife (stun gun). "Less-lethal" my left pinky, it will put me down and remove my ability to keep them from harming me or anyone with me.

And in a dark and crazy self defense situation, how will you possibly know for sure that it is a Taser, not a firearm? It's not too different than someone drawing a realistic airsoft gun on you. Can you afford to give the person who is illegaly threatening you the benefit of the doubt? And if you think you can, can your family afford to give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[JRH6856]

"Can cause" is not sufficient. Deadly force is defined as force that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing serious injury or death.

Again, any issue regarding a defense of justification would bring to bear the testimony of expert witnesses who would explain the relevant design factors and test results. What an uninformed layman might "consider" would have little weight.

What if it causes fear of serious injury or death? Or would that just be in Colorado?

 

[Kleanbore]

Post by Noah: I would treat someone pointing a Taser or menacing me with a stun gun (don't forget the civilian model taser that looks a lot like a stun gun, but shoots the darts) exactly the same as someone with a gun (taser) or knife (stun gun). "Less-lethal" my left pinky, it will put me down and remove my ability to keep them from harming me or anyone with me.

And others will determine the consequences after the fact, based on evidence and testimony that can be pieced together. As previously discussed, such evidence may include expert witness testimony.

And in a dark and crazy self defense situation, how will you possibly know for sure that it is a Taser, not a firearm?

The burden is not to show that you did not "know for sure" that it was not a firearm. It would be up to you to show show an objective basis for a reasonable belief that you thought that it was a firearm.

It's not too different than someone drawing a realistic airsoft gun on you.

Again, others would decide that.

We have already been over this, but to summarize:

• Poliice officers, whose weapons would be there for the taking, and importantly, who have a sworn duty to enforce the law, have, in some jursidictions, been found justified in the use of deadly force against persons threatening them with TASERs.
• We have not seen evidence of similar latitiude being afforded to civilians.
• It would seem arguable that an open carrier who could not otherwise avoid the risk may have littel choice other than the use of deadly force against someone unlawufully threateining him or her with a TASER. No one has cited an actual example here.

 

[IlikeSA]

When I was tased for the certification, it was two alligator clips to my upper shoulder and lower back, near my kidney. The feeling, for me, was like someone was hitting me in the back repeatedly very quick with a golf club. As far as being incapacitated, my muscles were locked up, similar to lifting a heavy weight. I was able to sit up on my elbows from a prone position and kick, but was not controlling that reaction consciously.

I was able to yell for a short time, but remember losing my breath. I was able to think somewhat as well...from..."this isn't that bad" to "this really hurts" to "make it stop!" We are limited to two applications of the taser, but have never needed to use with two within my company to gain compliance.

As far as tasers and hearts, there is no direct connection to a taser stopping a heart. The defib machines that you see in places are much more powerful in their electric current. The deaths that have been associated with tasers were usually also attributed to drugs that had been taken.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JRH6856: What if it causes fear of serious injury or death? Or would that just be in Colorado?

To support a defense of justification, that "fear" would have to have an objective basis.

No, it would not be limited to Colorado.

As a matter of fact, a Virginia Supreme Court justice pointed out in a decision concerning the subject of brandishing that a person unlawfully threatened with a firearm would be justified in the use of deadly force in self defense. That is effectively the case everywhere in the country, unless (1) the actor had initiated the confrontation (that would apply in Virginia, too), or (2) the actor could safely retreat, in some places.

 

[JRH6856]

Back to "brandishing" again? For the Virginia case to apply it would seem that the TASER would have to be classified as a firearm or on the same level in terms of force. But whether or not that is the case is the question, not the answer.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"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."


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

With that said, the security officer's ROE probably would support him calling in the local sworn officers after being assaulted, or threatened with assault. This is exactly what happened. I'd have backed off and made the call.


Willie

.