TexasCHLforum.com

Police are asking for help in finding two men accused of using a stun gun on a College Station resident whom they robbed. Officials responded to the 900 block of Kalanchoe Court at about 10 p.m. in reference to a report of robbery. A man said a pair approached him as he exited a vehicle in the driveway of his home, officials said. One culprit pulled out a weapon that stunned the homeowner in the neck and face, according to a police report. The two men took $90 in cash from the homeowner and fled toward Wolf Pen Park, police said. http://www.theeagle.com/police/Report-s ... -in-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This incident occured a few streets away from where my girlfriend lives and he fled toward where we normally walk our dogs. My question is if you would be justified in using lethal force against someone that pulled a stun gun on you since it is considered non-lethal force. I think you would be considering you never know if you have an underlying cardiac problem that could make a stun gun lethal. I was just wondering if anyone else has any insight into whether or not it would be justified.

aggie10 wrote:Police are asking for help in finding two men accused of using a stun gun on a College Station resident whom they robbed. Officials responded to the 900 block of Kalanchoe Court at about 10 p.m. in reference to a report of robbery. A man said a pair approached him as he exited a vehicle in the driveway of his home, officials said. One culprit pulled out a weapon that stunned the homeowner in the neck and face, according to a police report. The two men took $90 in cash from the homeowner and fled toward Wolf Pen Park, police said. http://www.theeagle.com/police/Report-s ... -in-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This incident occured a few streets away from where my girlfriend lives and he fled toward where we normally walk our dogs. My question is if you would be justified in using lethal force against someone that pulled a stun gun on you since it is considered non-lethal force. I think you would be considering you never know if you have an underlying cardiac problem that could make a stun gun lethal. I was just wondering if anyone else has any insight into whether or not it would be justified.

Well, stun guns have killed people, and you can't know for sure that it will not kill you.

Is it a weapon that can possibly cause Serious Bodily Injury? Maybe.
Will incapacitating you allow the other person to be able to inflict serious bodily injury on you while you are unconscious? More than likely.
If you are carrying a handgun, will this then give them an easy method of causing death or serious bodily injury to you, or others? Definitely.

I'm pretty sure a police officer wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone running at them with a stun gun, if they were alone in a one-on-one scenario, for that third reason specifically.

The use of deadly force is justified to prevent robbery or aggravated robbery.

A stun gun is not per se a lethal weapon, but like a fist or boot, its use can lead to serious injury. For example, the person who is stunned can fall and crack his head or break a bone in his arm.

I'm inclined to think that if the intended victim produced a handgun, the robbers would set a track record getting out of there.

- Jim

dicion wrote:Well, stun guns have killed people, and you can't know for sure that it will not kill you.

Is it a weapon that can possibly cause Serious Bodily Injury? Maybe.
Will incapacitating you allow the other person to be able to inflict serious bodily injury on you while you are unconscious? More than likely.
If you are carrying a handgun, will this then give them an easy method of causing death or serious bodily injury to you, or others? Definitely.

I'm pretty sure a police officer wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone running at them with a stun gun, if they were alone in a one-on-one scenario, for that third reason specifically.

If someone sticks a stun-gun in my direction they are going to get shot. I consider that deadly-force and a threat to my life.

dicion wrote:Well, stun guns have killed people, and you can't know for sure that it will not kill you.

Is it a weapon that can possibly cause Serious Bodily Injury? Maybe.
Will incapacitating you allow the other person to be able to inflict serious bodily injury on you while you are unconscious? More than likely.
If you are carrying a handgun, will this then give them an easy method of causing death or serious bodily injury to you, or others? Definitely.

I'm pretty sure a police officer wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone running at them with a stun gun, if they were alone in a one-on-one scenario, for that third reason specifically.

I agree too.
While I don't really think I'd be killed or seriously injured by a stun gun, and I don't plan to try to convince a jury that I thought I would be, I'm more concerned about what happens after he stuns me. Someone trying to use a stun gun on me is trying to render me defenseless. If he's trying to do that, I think it's reasonable to assume he intends to rob me or worse. So IMO, deadly force would be justified. I'd probably draw the pistol and, given time and space, allow him the chance to back down. But if he failed to break off the engagement once I had my weapon out, or if he was just too close to wait and see what happened (someone planning on using a stun gun on you is probably not going to broadcast his intent from ten yards away, but rather wait until he's within arm's reach) then I would feel justified in shooting.

Is this the new version of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" ... bringing a taser to a gun fight?

austinrealtor wrote:Is this the new version of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" ... bringing a taser to a gun fight?

Robbers don't plan on being in gunfights. Most of them get away with the crime by picking their victims carefully.

In this case, I'm willing to bet that the victim had poor situational awareness. Someone who approaches you in the driveway of your home at 10 p.m., is obviously up to no good.

- Jim

austinrealtor wrote:Is this the new version of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" ... bringing a taser to a gun fight?

Well, if someone were to use a stun gun in a mugging or whatever, he's probably going to wait until he's close enough to grab you. When he takes his stun gun out of his pocket, it's likely too late for you to draw. Boom, you're on the ground and he's taking your wallet, watch, car keys, probably finds your gun and takes that. Unless he really screws up, you're not going to have a chance to use your weapon.

mgood wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Is this the new version of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" ... bringing a taser to a gun fight?

Well, if someone were to use a stun gun in a mugging or whatever, he's probably going to wait until he's close enough to grab you. When he takes his stun gun out of his pocket, it's likely too late for you to draw. Boom, you're on the ground and he's taking your wallet, watch, car keys, probably finds your gun and takes that. Unless he really screws up, you're not going to have a chance to use your weapon.

Maybe so, but that's how bg's get paid, close the distance, get their weapon into play, and control the situation.

That's why we need bridge skills (empty hand, pre-fight skills, etc..) to improve our odds agains these ambushes.

mgood wrote:Well, if someone were to use a stun gun in a mugging or whatever, he's probably going to wait until he's close enough to grab you.

Same as a knife, fists, etc.

boomerang wrote:

mgood wrote:Well, if someone were to use a stun gun in a mugging or whatever, he's probably going to wait until he's close enough to grab you.

Same as a knife, fists, etc.

Right.
I guess what was rattling around in my head that I didn't quite get typed was that unless we have very good situational awareness, we can only react. The bad guy has the initiative and that puts us at a disadvantage from the get-go, gun or no gun. If he hasn't done anything to you yet, you're not justified in shooting, or even showing your weapon. If he's already done it and leaving, it's difficult to justify shooting since the threat is ended. (Yeah, to defend property, which he's getting away with, but that's a can of worms in itself and has been discussed in other threads.) So we're hoping we have an opportunity to access our weapon during the fight. Unless your situational awareness is really on, your concealed handgun may do you no good.

Not sure how relevant that is to the OP, but that's along the line of what I was thinking when I typed what I did above.

Edited to add: This should not be construed as saying that carrying a concealed handgun is pointless. Far from it. I'm just stressing the importance of being aware of what's going on around you and at the same time pointing out that having a pistol does not make one invincible and might, in many conceivable situations, not even be useful. Having a weapon gives you a chance to fight back. Nothing more, nothing less. Making the best of whatever chance is offered is up to each individual.

I'm pretty sure a police officer wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone running at them with a stun gun, if they were alone in a one-on-one scenario, for that third reason specifically.

A couple of years ago in Austin there was a case where an APD officer shot a guy she and her partner were wrestling with because she thought the guy had grabbed a Taser. IIRC, the case went south for other reasons, but shooting a guy who was thought to be armed with a Taser didn't seem to be all that much of an issue. (There was some discussion on another forum that if a civilian with a Taser justified a cop using lethal force, what about a cop escalating to a Taser? Some of the arguments got pretty convoluted and heated.)

If someone draws a Taser, I don't think I'm going to have time to figure out if it is a Taser or something else. All I can see is that he is drawing a weapon.