View Full Version : Bring a stun gun to a gun fight?

January 8, 2006, 02:46 PM
I heard an interesting story this week. It made me think. Not that far from here 2-4 teenagers were attacking people with a bat and stun gun. There was disparity of force because they attacked a lone person in all three incidents. So if someone tries to rob you with a stun gun are you justified to draw and shoot them even though it's not a lethal weapon? The bat sure is though. Say it was just a stun gun? So what do you people think?

January 8, 2006, 03:06 PM

A bat?

Yep. That's a deadly force (potentially) weapon.

"Your honor, when I saw thata bat brandished by the person robbing me, all I could think about were all the people that are beaten to death every year, and, I feared for my life."

Stun gun?

Yep. If you're being robbed, you can only assume that when you are being threatened with a weapon for the purposes of it doing great bodally harm.

"Your honor, all I could think about when I saw that stun gun was all the people that are killed by tasers every year, and, I was scared for my life."

I think it goes down to a disparity of foce. You can't be expected to combat a bat or a stun gun barehanded.

Capt. Charlie
January 8, 2006, 05:37 PM
So if someone tries to rob you with a stun gun are you justified to draw and shoot them even though it's not a lethal weapon?
This is a good, real-world question. Robberies with stun guns aren't common, but they do happen. The question by which justification will be measured is, "Did you have reasonable cause to fear for your life?" Every scenario will be different, but what's thrown into the mix is that the BG using one has the opportunity to go from non-lethal force to lethal force, using your own gun.

The question will be, what indicators were there that suggested he would go lethal? Prior history in the area for robbery/homicide? Verbal threats of death? Masked or unmasked? (remember, masks hide identity, & unmasked felons might be more prone to eliminate witnesses). Is the guy a meth freak?

In any event, articulation of your reasons will be crutial, along with whether or not God's on your side when they pick the jury ;) .

Blackwater OPS
January 8, 2006, 05:56 PM
A baseball bat is a given, but with a stun gun I personally would not use deadly force as I am familiar with he effect of a stun gun and I am confident I would be able to use my unarmed self defense skills to defend myself against one BG with a stun gun. If you meant a "taser", (fires probes) that is another story, then I would use my weapon. And if the guy pulls out OC spray forget it, that stuff HURTS!!!

January 8, 2006, 06:15 PM
if the guy has a taser pointed at me, i am not going for my gun. why? same circumstances as if he has a gun. he has the upper hand. unless he is withing range of a unarmed strike, he will fire before you have a chance to. then you will be on the ground, because thats waht happens when most people are hit with the taser. the only reason i stayed on my feet was because 2 guys were holding me so i didnt fall on my face. let me tell you it is the most paimful 5 seconds (seems way longer) of your life. 100x worse than oc, but it has no residual effects, other than muscle pain, similar to a good weight lifting session, only every singel muscle gets juiced. now, a hand stungun you can keep them off you if you know what you are doing, so that i would just move his arm/knock him down if i can, get some distance then draw and do what i had to do at that time, depending oh what he does.

January 8, 2006, 06:31 PM
You should respond with deadly force in defense of life only (IDOL). It depends on the severity of the situation.

If it's just a handheld stun gun used as a melee weapon, I have a good chance of getting away especially if I have some OC spray. No deadly force.

Now if it's a tazer, I would treat it as if it were a firearm. I'd throw my wallet, keys, whatever they want in their direction (opposite of my escape path) while backing away. My objective is to not let them discover my weapon so as to allow them to use it against me. Now if they start saying things to the tune of "get on your knees" or "turn around", it's time to quick-kill double tap both of them because complying to such demands puts your life in definite danger. This situation merits the use of deadly force in defense of your life.

We cannot anticipate every manner in which we may find ourselves in a confrontation. However, I know for certain that if you shoot down a person while there still remains a clear path of escape you run a high risk of being crucified on the legal cross atop a hill of state politics and media influence.

January 8, 2006, 06:34 PM
It was a taser not a stun gun.

January 9, 2006, 07:33 PM
Not a single 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

If one feels the conditions put one in a serious danger of death or great bodily harm, one is justified in using lethal force. (At least in the parts of the world I inhabit.) If one reasonably (and that is the key) thinks one will be tazered and then beaten with the bat, one is fear of death or great bodily harm.

The problem will be justifying your actions to the police officer investigating, the district attorney and the jury. And don't ever try to BS anyone. You never know what witnesses exist you didn't know about. Forensic evidence just keeps getting better and better. If the first cop finds you lied about anything it goes downhill from there.

As with many circumstances, keeping a sharp lookout and avoiding this sort of thing is the best defense.