NewShooter
Member
How much voltage is needed to be effective?
Do they make them out metal so if your batteries go dead you at least have a club?
Do they make them out metal so if your batteries go dead you at least have a club?
Stun Batons
- Thread starter NewShooter
- Start date
- Status
NewShooter
Member
Unarmed Intruder
OK, the best defense for a gun is another gun. But what if the intruder is unarmed and twice your size. If you shoot him you'll be the one on trial. A knife or a bat would still be a deadly weapon against an unarmed man. So what do you do? I'm thinking stun baton. Drop him, tie him up and by the time LEO get there he should be concious with no permanant damage. What do you guys think?
If I have posted in the wrong section maybe a Mod would be kind enough to set me straight. I really need recommendations on what voltage is needed and who sells a quality product. Thanks
OK, the best defense for a gun is another gun. But what if the intruder is unarmed and twice your size. If you shoot him you'll be the one on trial. A knife or a bat would still be a deadly weapon against an unarmed man. So what do you do? I'm thinking stun baton. Drop him, tie him up and by the time LEO get there he should be concious with no permanant damage. What do you guys think?
If I have posted in the wrong section maybe a Mod would be kind enough to set me straight. I really need recommendations on what voltage is needed and who sells a quality product. Thanks
I have no experience about stun batons, but I can speak about the use of force
continuum. The requirements for potentially lethal self-defense response vary from state to state. In a few states, for instance, one can use lethal force to protect property. In some states, the only time one can legally use such force is when your "back is to the wall"- ie, facing a deadly threat with no ability to retreat. Typically, to warrant the use of deadly force, your assailant must have
the:
means
desire
ability
to inflict serious or deadly harm to you or your family. If you, for instance, are hunting in the woods, and you pass a fellow hunter, who gives you a friendly wave, that hunter has both the means (a firearm) and ability (within range) to hurt you. He does not, however, possess the desire. If you were recently in New Orleans, and a crazed man clenching a knife in his teeth was trying unsuccessfully to swim to your motorboat, that man would possess both the means and the desire to hurt you, but not the ability...etc.
Now, if you are facing someone twice your size, who appears to have a serious grudge against you, you have a "disparity of force". If you cannot retreat, this large individual would indeed seem to have the means (physical force), desire, and ability (he can apply the force he has to your body) to cause grievous bodily harm to you, and as such, lethal force could legally be employed.
Hope this helps,
John
continuum. The requirements for potentially lethal self-defense response vary from state to state. In a few states, for instance, one can use lethal force to protect property. In some states, the only time one can legally use such force is when your "back is to the wall"- ie, facing a deadly threat with no ability to retreat. Typically, to warrant the use of deadly force, your assailant must have
the:
means
desire
ability
to inflict serious or deadly harm to you or your family. If you, for instance, are hunting in the woods, and you pass a fellow hunter, who gives you a friendly wave, that hunter has both the means (a firearm) and ability (within range) to hurt you. He does not, however, possess the desire. If you were recently in New Orleans, and a crazed man clenching a knife in his teeth was trying unsuccessfully to swim to your motorboat, that man would possess both the means and the desire to hurt you, but not the ability...etc.
Now, if you are facing someone twice your size, who appears to have a serious grudge against you, you have a "disparity of force". If you cannot retreat, this large individual would indeed seem to have the means (physical force), desire, and ability (he can apply the force he has to your body) to cause grievous bodily harm to you, and as such, lethal force could legally be employed.
Hope this helps,
John
jojo
Member
Very well put JShirley
jojo
jojo
jojo
Member
Sorry TMM, but thats it's not that easy.
There are many things that go into the use of force. As JShirley stated previously "desparity of force" does make a difference just as it does if they're armed or not.
Try shooting, or seriously injuring someone that was not armed, and is the same approximate size, during an encounter and see if you don't end up in serious trouble.
jojo
There are many things that go into the use of force. As JShirley stated previously "desparity of force" does make a difference just as it does if they're armed or not.
Try shooting, or seriously injuring someone that was not armed, and is the same approximate size, during an encounter and see if you don't end up in serious trouble.
jojo
One must be able to explain why (in such a case) the opponent was considered a deadly threat. Prior knowledge, extreme behavior, etc could all be taken into account. (Rather interestingly, some of what I'm saying now was covered in an ASP certification course I took years ago.)
If one knows the opponent has a history of martial arts, for instance, that could explain what would otherwise be a disproportionate response. If you just watched an attacker bite the neck off a beer bottle, that could also warrant an extreme response. Otherwise, yes, using deadly force against an opponent of about equal size may not be defensible- *unless* the defender has a disability. A friend and forum member here (who can address this if he wishes) is missing the tops of three vertebrae at the top of his back. A hard blow there will kill him. He could probably explain in court why he used deadly force to defend himself against a physical assault that would not otherwise warrant such a response.
John
If one knows the opponent has a history of martial arts, for instance, that could explain what would otherwise be a disproportionate response. If you just watched an attacker bite the neck off a beer bottle, that could also warrant an extreme response. Otherwise, yes, using deadly force against an opponent of about equal size may not be defensible- *unless* the defender has a disability. A friend and forum member here (who can address this if he wishes) is missing the tops of three vertebrae at the top of his back. A hard blow there will kill him. He could probably explain in court why he used deadly force to defend himself against a physical assault that would not otherwise warrant such a response.
John
NewShooter
Member
I believe you guys are making my case for me for getting the stun baton. But I would still like to know how much power it needs to have and who makes a quality product. I know theres a few LEO's on here and I was hoping one might have some info to offer.
losangeles
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 360
Good post, New Shooter. While I have the firepower and blade myself for SD, it'd be good to have a non-lethal alternative for some situations.
Omni04
Member
is there a reason why you are interested in a stun baton, apart from a taser or a stun gun? Is it the fact that you can still use it as a club?
NewShooter
Member
I just figured that you dont have to get as close with a stun baton as with a stun gun. The taser is a little more pricey.
abaddon
Member
When you referred to the perpetrator as an "intruder" I assumed you were talking about someone breaking into your house. If it's burglary we're talking about then that changes the situation. My understanding is that the mere act of an aggressor breaking into a person's house is enough to warrant lethal force. The idea is that if someone is breaking into the house then he's a threat to your life. Different states probably interpret this differently, of course, but that's my understanding. Not a lawyer or nothing.
- Status