Appropriate Response To Being Threatened With A Taser

[JRH6856]

Corporations often contract for security guards, or create their own in-house security dept. and then assume that because they are paying the bills, they can make the rules. It is not uncommon for these rules to run counter to what the law requires or allows. Such as not calling the police in certain circumstances, even when such a call is warranted by law.

The SO was threatened and he made a counter threat. Either party could have called the police and as has been mentioned in many threads, who calls first often gets the benefit of the doubt with the responding officers. Handling things "in-house" is not always the best way, even when all parties involved are in house. When an external party is involved, it usually isn't.

 

[marv]

Modern state of the art semi auto pistols are so chunky and blocky that it would be near impossible to tell them from a taser.

 

[brownie0486]

At my age, the taser is potentially a threat to my health. As there's enough historical evidence to support the notion one CAN die from them, the older and more infirmed [ health conditions ] could articulate their fear of great bodily harm or death.

Jurors may not be aware of the cases of death produced by them, that would have to be part of the defense about ones mindset when confronted and threatened with that type of weapon.

 

[Edventures]

Do electrical stun guns (TASER-X26®) affect the functional integrity of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators?Conclusion Pacemakers and ICD generators and leads functions were not affected by the tested standard 5 s stun gun shocks.
This is a condensed version of an arcticle in Oxford journals of medicine.
I am interested in this as I wear a ICD unit in my chest.

 

[tepin]

Couple articles:

Force Science News #211: Latest developments in Taser heart-safety controversy

Force Science News #238: Does just threatening to use a Taser constitute force?

Force Science News #214: Tasers & deaths: Not a simple relationship, researchers argue

 

[gym]

Yes I would.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by brownie0486: As there's enough historical evidence to support the notion one CAN die from them, the older and more infirmed [ health conditions ] could articulate their fear of great bodily harm or death.

"Fear" and reasonable belief of an imminent threat are two different things, and "CAN" doesn't cut it.

We've been over that. One may not like it, but disputing it will not change it.

 

[PabloJ]

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

I would threaten him with pepper spray.

 

[easyg]

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.

People have died after being tazed, so yeah, it can be deadly in and of itself.

But the tazer isn't designed to just cause pain....it is designed to temporarily immobilize the person tazed.
Cops taze folks not to just cause them pain, but to drop them to the ground, to subdue them, where the cop can then handcuff them and control them.

Why would someone want to immobilize someone else?

Maybe to rob them.
But maybe to do far worse to them....Rape? Torture? Mutilate? Murder?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by easyg: People have died after being tazed, so yeah, it can be deadly in and of itself.

People have died from having been punched, so yeah, a punch can be deadly in and of itself.

But where the question has been tested in appellate courts, the question of whether is lawful for an able bodied man to use deadly force to defend against a physical attack by a single equally fit unarmed person has been settled. And the answer is no.

I know of no authoritative findings about the use of deadly force against an attacker with a TASER, other than findings that a sworn officer, who is known to be armed and who has a duty to apprehend and to not try to evade the attacker, may use deadly force when necessarily.

If I recall correctly, those findings came only after high level review and deliberation.

Why would someone want to immobilize someone else?

Maybe to rob them.
But maybe to do far worse to them....Rape? Torture? Mutilate? Murder?

"Maybe" isn't enough. One may lawfully resort to deadly force, if necessary, to defend against an imminent serious threat, but not a potential one.

I'm repeating myself with this, but I should think that an open carrier or someone else known to be armed, if he or she had no way of preventing the TASER from hitting him or her, would probably be in a good position to justify the use of deadly force.

But I would not like to be the test case.

 

[Mike1234567]

Given my health issues I won't have any problem proving disparate force. However... what about a 180 pound weight lifter who attacks a 160 pound computer nerd? There's only 20 pounds difference... which, BTW, is very significant in professional sports. So why is it not considered so in SD issues especially if the attacker is very fit and the victim is not but is otherwise healthy? What about a 160 pound weight lifter who attacks a 180 pound computer nerd?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: Given my health issues I won't have any problem proving disparate force. However... what about a 180 pound weight lifter who attacks a 160 pound computer nerd? There's only 20 pounds difference... which, BTW, is very significant in professional sports. So why is it not considered so in SD issues especially if the attacker is very fit and the victim is not but is otherwise healthy? What about a 160 pound weight lifter who attacks a 180 pound computer nerd?

You must be referring to the question of an attack by fists. The subject at hand has to do with TASERs.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ IMO, it's related. I wouldn't worry about an average seven-year-old coming at me with a tazer but a 180 pound fifteen-year-old might get me worried a bit. Size does matter even when their only weapon is a tazer and their fists... or whatever other weapons I can't see.

Disparity of force, as it pertains to physical size and strength, matters when tazers are involved too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: Disparity of force, as it pertains to physical size and strength, matters when tazers are involved too.

Well, OK, but it is off topic.

 

[Mike1234567]

Really? How is it not related?

ETA: Please don't close this thread because I'm not agreeing.

 

[easyg]

But where the question has been tested in appellate courts, the question of whether is lawful for an able bodied man to use deadly force to defend against a physical attack by a single equally fit unarmed person has been settled. And the answer is no.

The George Zimmerman/Travon Martin case shows that this ^^ notion is not always true.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by easyg: The George Zimmerman/Travon Martin case shows that this ^^ notion is not always true.

I was probably too imprecise. The appellate court rulings that I have read referred to an attack with fists.

Zimmerman's defense was not that he fired to defend against an attack by fists. They contended that he fired because his head was being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

I recall reading something from Mas Ayoob to the effect that the use of the concrete negated any reasonable contention that Martin was at that point unarmed.

 

[coloradokevin]

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.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

I think that is the key point. The point of using the tazer is to render the victim incabable of further defense. Seems like a valid reason to respond with deadly force to me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coloradokevin: 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.

It has been decided, at least in some jurisdictions, that for a sworn officer, that action would be proper. Not to mention that it just makes good sense.

I have suggested that an open carrier who cannot reasonably avoid being hit with the TASER would likely be justified in doing the same thing, but I am aware of no rulings supporting that, and no one has come forward here with anything definitive about my onion, which I cannot support with independent facts.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

We have 2-4 cases across TX about folks dying from being tazed so IMO he would have been Justified in Shooting that person.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I don't know this for sure but they way I read the report my co worker was not with in taser range so that would have to be taken into account as well.

 

[marv]

I notice some use of the words "less lethal" in this thread. I put that phrase in the same category as "a little bit pregnant". Dead is dead no matter how you say it or sugar coat it.

 

[JRH6856]

I notice some use of the words "less lethal" in this thread. I put that phrase in the same category as "a little bit pregnant". Dead is dead no matter how you say it or sugar coat it.

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

 

[o Unforgiven o]

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"

I was dissuaded from buying a TASER because of the process involved, how the hell did a "homeless vagrant" obtain one? I think your coworker was mistaken.