Interesting Example of Taser vs. Firearm

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
The Kitsap Sun has an interesting story that I learned about via Instapundit/Don Surber.

Apparently police tried to subdue a man around 1:15 a.m. In the ensuing struggle, they tased him, failed to get compliance and the suspect tased at least one of the officers before escaping. Both officers suffered minor injuries.

Unfortunately for the suspect, he escaped into the home of a nearby resident who was armed and put an end to the shenanigans by shooting the suspect in the stomach once.

However, I thought it was interesting from an efficacy of self-defense point of view. Here you have two trained police officers with equipment, body armor, etc. using a taser to try and subdue the bad guy. Despite some significant advantages over the bad guy that your average homeowner would not have, the situation did not go well for the officers. In contrast, the average homeowner seemed to do fairly well with a handgun when facing the same bad guy.
 
After reading the article, I see no reason stated why the responding Officers would have been justified to use lethal force. Hence, a Taser was used, with less than ideal results.
However, comparing the results of a faulty Taser deployment to a gunshot wound to the abdomen is nonsense. I, for one, would much rather be Tased than shot.
 
What a poorley written article... They talk about the home owner shooting the bad guy but only early on in the story.

Sometimes tasers just dont work on people for a number of reasons. A good ole choke hold or a billy club to the head might have been more effective in this case.
 
a billy club to the head
Click to expand...

Also deadly force. If they were justified in using "a billy club to the head" then they were justified in shooting him. :eek:

Perhaps the officers could have had better training, or perhaps things just went completely haywire, as they are wont to do in combat or "serious social occasions." Murphy's Law reigns supreme! ;)
 
The officers faced different use of force rules than the homeowner, as a result, they used different tactics. In addition, the officers were seeking to control and detain the suspect rather than just stop any threat he offered to them, so the comparison isn't perfect; but it does make a compelling real-life example of why Tasers and other less-lethal alternatives aren't as effective as firearms at stopping a threat.

I thought it might be a handy story to share as I often come upon people who are uneasy with firearms in self-defense and have some unrealistic expectations about how well things like tazers and stun guns work in real life.
 
Until they make a 15 shot, highly lethal electronic weapon, I have no interest in carrying one.

Basically, if its not a firearm, then it better be at least as effective as the weapon Captain Kirk used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top