|
Stan Deatherage said:
( January 4th, 2012 @ 7:57 pm )
John's the man on the proper use of deadly force. I'll bet my life on it.
|
I agree with John 100% on who, what, where, when on stun gun usage & good alternative to firearms for LE. I have one in my vehicle and its there in case of an up-close encounter such as attempted entry/carjacking scenario. But as John also pointed out, they would not be my choice for a home invasion robbery or any other threat where distance is desired. If someone breaks into my home while I'm in it, the shotgun is the first on my list when the alarm goes off.
|
I'm no authority but thanks. Don't mean to imply they are not dangerous, but if I had to defend my home or family from an intruder(s), the stun gun would not be my weapon of choice. If a LEO has to arrest a physically violent unarmed, possibly intoxicated, person, I would rather they use the stun gun and leave their firearm holstered. I no longer have a dog in it either that's why I don't hesitate to say LE are responders, just like EMS personnel. Protect yourself till they get there!
|
You are my authority on all matters pertaining to lethal weaponry. I really don't have a dog in this hunt other than I want the authorities to have all the lethal, or near lethal, force that is necessary for them to keep me and my family safe from the bad guys.
|
While I do agree that this type of weapon, used by trained LEO's are dangerous, I can hardly agree they should be classified as "deadly", as you have stated. The statute refers to a firearm or other "dangerous" weapon, that endangers or threatens a life. I personally would take 100 hits from a stun gun at center mass rather than one .40 caliber hollow point. My reason is that I may die before the 100th hit by the stun gun, but by that point it would have been used far outside of the parameters that LEO's are trained to follow. Any jerk with a trigger finger and 20/100 vision could hit me center mass with the .40 caliber from the same distance that this weapon was used at. In this particular case, criminals were using the dangerous weapon. I doubt they had much training that was approved by the manufacturer and/or medical professionals.
I believe this decision, if it survives any appeals and forces LE to restrict the use of the Stun Gun to the same level of the continuum as their service weapon, we will see more officers hurt and more criminals shot. The use or threatened use of the Stun Gun as a lower level of force has probably saved countless more lives and injuries than we will ever know. |
Baptist Hospital settles Whistleblower case, revealing a major scandal in our State | Government, State and Federal | Barack Obama 2012: The Amazing Story of the Incredible Shrinking President, Part II |