Less than lethal weapons and escalation of violence

[Neanderthal]

So a good question asked in another thread and it got locked. Lets try again.

A perp is using a tazer on you. It is less than lethal and we all know it. So how does one escalate the violence to deadly weapons vs. the perp and not face murder charges?

[Ninety]

Less than lethal is the key term. Deadly force is to be used against deadly force

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

[Bt Doctur]

Tasers are deadly to persons with heart issues.So attempting murder with a taser,
SHOOT AWAY UNTIL NEUTRALIZED

[CSACANNONEER]

No such thing as "less than lethal". There is "less lethal" but, all of the so called "less than lethal" weapons can be lethal. So, they are not "less than lethal" just "less lethal".

[Ninety]

No such thing as "less than lethal". There is "less lethal" but, all of the so called "less than lethal" weapons can be lethal. So, they are not "less than lethal" just "less lethal".

Thank you for the correction.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

[teg33]

You got to consider "imminent danger". If you strongly believe that you're in imminent danger and there's no other options to descalate the situation (example run away, etc), use your gun to stop the threat.

Let say, a perp threaten you with a knife or a tazer because he want to rob you (he initiate the threat). Both of you at the dead end alleyway with wall on your back, you warn him to back off but he continued the threat, you can use your gun to stop the threat.

But if you are the one that initiate the threat because you don't like the guy and he use a tazer to defend himself yet you shot him, it's a murder.

So the key is, who initiate the threat and what the options to descalate the threat.

[Squidward]

From what I've read, everyone agrees to shoot the assailant with a knife; before being stabbed.. I submit that the Taser is more debilitating than the knife. A slash or stab may not immediately take you out of the fight. A tasing will do so long enough for you do become completely defenseless.

[blkside]

I think you need to understand, the taser if anything is not my concern, the actions after it are. The defenseless after affect leaves you vulnerable to more aggression.

My take - you pull out anything other than a business card or cell phone (No wii remotes) and you are likely to get shot.

[teg33]

A taser is the same like pepper spray. They are not designed to stop the threat like gun, but to buy time for the user to run away from threatening situation.

[003]

Please delete

[RickD427]

No such thing as "less than lethal". There is "less lethal" but, all of the so called "less than lethal" weapons can be lethal. So, they are not "less than lethal" just "less lethal".

^^^^THIS^^^^

In addition, there are a couple of flaws in your approach (That's probably why your last thread on this subject was so quickly locked).

LEO's do not simply defend themselves against weapons. We defend ourselves against threats. There's a big difference between these two things.

One of the biggest challenges is in properly assessing the threat (and getting all of the details right) in what is very often an extremely short period of time. The U.S. Supreme Court gave a very good treatment to the subject of threat assessment, and the corresponding requirements placed on LEO's to conduct threat assessment, in the case of Graham v. Conner. The net effect of that case is that LEOs must make reasonable assessments, but can not be expected to make perfect assessments in rapidly evolving field situations (like being attacked with a TASER). I think that you would do well to read this case, the context of your question suggests that you're not familiar with it.

When an armed LEO is aggressed by a person with what would ordinarily be a "less lethal" weapon, you have to consider what is the objective of that person. That is necessary to quantify the threat they pose. It's not really a rational thing for person to aggress a LEO with a TASER. It would be reasonable to conclude the objective is to incapacitate the officer and then to gain control of the officer's weapon. That creates a reasonable threat of deadly force against the officer, even though the instrument of that force would ordinarily be considered as "less lethal."

Please note my example involves a LEO. The same logic would apply to an armed citizen. Also note that it may be possible that the person had some other objective in mind, other than the seizure of the officer's weapon. That's where Graham v. Conner comes into play.

The best solution here is simply not to be attacking LEO's with any kind of weapon. It's just not a wise thing to do.

[Patrick Aherne]

Why is he using the TASER? Is it to commit a violent felony upon your person? Is he using it to cause fear, or use force against you to rob you? Think about the crime, not merely the instrumentality. Also, if you have a legal question, I recommend consulting an attorney.

[Supertac916]

You have to be in fear of imminent danger of great bodily injury or death to use self defense. If it's grey, than you'll be put on trial and a jury of your peers will have to decide, whether equal force or excessive force was used in defending yourself.

There are several scenarios that I can think of where you would have the right to defend yourself with a firearm and others that you would not. It's dependent on the overall circumstances.

[jester45]

My take - you pull out anything other than a business card or cell phone (No wii remotes) and you are likely to get shot.

A bit extreme IMO. Btw, I purchased my beagle in Lake Elsinore.

[jester45]

^^^^THIS^^^^

In addition, there are a couple of flaws in your approach (That's probably why your last thread on this subject was so quickly locked).

LEO's do not simply defend themselves against weapons. We defend ourselves against threats. There's a big difference between these two things.

One of the biggest challenges is in properly assessing the threat (and getting all of the details right) in what is very often an extremely short period of time. The U.S. Supreme Court gave a very good treatment to the subject of threat assessment, and the corresponding requirements placed on LEO's to conduct threat assessment, in the case of Graham v. Conner. The net effect of that case is that LEOs must make reasonable assessments, but can not be expected to make perfect assessments in rapidly evolving field situations (like being attacked with a TASER). I think that you would do well to read this case, the context of your question suggests that you're not familiar with it.

When an armed LEO is aggressed by a person with what would ordinarily be a "less lethal" weapon, you have to consider what is the objective of that person. That is necessary to quantify the threat they pose. It's not really a rational thing for person to aggress a LEO with a TASER. It would be reasonable to conclude the objective is to incapacitate the officer and then to gain control of the officer's weapon. That creates a reasonable threat of deadly force against the officer, even though the instrument of that force would ordinarily be considered as "less lethal."

Please note my example involves a LEO. The same logic would apply to an armed citizen. Also note that it may be possible that the person had some other objective in mind, other than the seizure of the officer's weapon. That's where Graham v. Conner comes into play.

The best solution here is simply not to be attacking LEO's with any kind of weapon. It's just not a wise thing to do.

I've seen LEO's use a taser to silence a person, it was a homeless person in my college town of Isla Vista, Santa Barbara. Students around lost it and officers tased two students who merely voiced their objections. What officers didn't know was the homeless man was well liked and respected by the students in the area, he was a UCSB graduate and veteran from the 60's he also suffered from minor mental problems mostly a sense of abandonment. What do you do when the aggressor is an uncompromising police scumbag? I guess raising your voice is enough of a threat to be violently suppressed when expressing anti government sentiments in a educational public setting.