imminent threat vs lethal threat

Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a Michigan CPL and carry .38 j-frame mostly. I recently purchased a Taser Pulse+ and having a devil of a time finding certified training in my state. Someone in a youtube video explained the threshold for Tasing someone is lower as long as that person is a "imminent physical threat." Has anyone heard of this difference? Google results bring up "imminent danger."

Honestly, I don't plan on using the Taser against human attackers. I bought it for loose dogs in my neighborhood. I don't like the fact the Pulse resembles a gun and only having one shot.
 
Register to hide this ad
Deploying a Taser isn't any different than striking someone with a baton, kick or fist. So, if you need to defend yourself and you have a Taser, save some wear and tear on your knuckles.
 
Last edited:
A Kiwi Perspective

I carry a Taser on duty at all times. I sometimes wear a Glock 17 (which otherwise rides in a lock box in the passenger footwell).

Our perspective, which is generally mirrored elsewhere in the world, is that the Taser is a "less than lethal" option of force and it can be deployed defensively when an assaultative situation arises; ie being assaulted or threatened with assault.

Paraphrased, the G17 can only be justified in defence of self or another, to arrest or prevent escape, under conditions of death or GBH and where it is absolutely necessary and no other practical alternative exists.

The only time I have drawn my Taser was after lesser use of force options proved inadequate. I used my expandable baton to break open the door of a mobile home, the driver being our of control/angry/aggressive after sliding off the road, driving off after a request to exit the vehicle and and coming to rest on the wrong side of the road, on a hill, facing oncoming traffic around a corner, during darkness on an unlit highway with a 100 km/h (60 mph) speed limit.

His reaction to breaking in was aggressive enough that O/C Spray was used and found ineffective, so I drew the Taser and he became compliant.

The G17 would not have been appropriate unless he had armed himself with a weapon (impact or edged).

Interestingly our batons, which can easily impart a fatal injury, are considered down the escalating scale of force options than the Taser.

My belief is that if you are threatened, or circumstances objectively give you cause to consider you are being threatened, with less than lethal force then a Taser/stun gun may be the appropriate response. If you fear death/GBH then the .38 is appropriate.
 
I have attended Taser training as a part of a group involved in site security. It is not complicated so keep on searching for it - don't know if it is available online.

Outside of its role in a building or group situation, or you are an LEO trying to to stop someone to arrest, I think it has limited usefulness. It will subdue an assailant and allow you to (rapidly) exit the area, but getting good effective contact with the wires is not guaranteed and the target may try to rip them out, or they may be wearing heavy clothes that stop contact. Food for thought.
 
I would think pepper spray would be a better choice for a dog. Probably a human as well, unless you want to leave the taser behind. Big difference between "subdue" and "escape" or causing someone or something to retreat and go away.
 
I have a Michigan CPL and carry .38 j-frame mostly. I recently purchased a Taser Pulse+ and having a devil of a time finding certified training in my state. Someone in a youtube video explained the threshold for Tasing someone is lower as long as that person is a "imminent physical threat." Has anyone heard of this difference? Google results bring up "imminent danger."

Honestly, I don't plan on using the Taser against human attackers. I bought it for loose dogs in my neighborhood. I don't like the fact the Pulse resembles a gun and only having one shot.

You say you "carry .38 j-frame mostly". Does that mean you carry a different gun the remainder of the time or is that where the Taser fills in?

State gun laws allow the use of a firearm when the threat of great bodily harm or death is imminent. Doesn't restrict its use to human targets.

Considering the failure rate of tasers on human targets that DON'T HAVE THICK COATS OF FUR all over them, and the relative speed of dogs vs humans I would not recommend adding one to my edc...or even occasional carry. You miss with that ONE shot or get a hit in which the taser prongs don't stick?....and now you find yourself being mauled while scrambling to bring the weapon to bear that should have been used to begin with. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not as anti taser as many here. I firmly believe tasers have greatly reduced injuries to both LEOs and suspects. They've probably also reduced the number of deaths from officer/suspect confrontations. Unfortunately, the failure rate in which they fail to produce the desired result is also very high. They do have a pretty good deterrent effect and that should be taken full advantage of, especially considering in most cases there's only one shot.

My best taser capture was when, solo, I confronted a chronic burglar on scene. I ordered him prone under threat of taser deployment (no, that's not how I termed it at the time), while I purportedly held my hand behind my back grasping my taser. After hesitation, he complied and I was able to take him into custody. After handcuffing I advised him that I was glad he complied as I'd forgot and left my taser on my dresser. He had previously experienced a taser ride. So, the point is use the deterrent, it's often there. Most ne'er-do-wells know what a taser is and don't want to take the ride.

I've also seen a number of failures or partial failures. Misses or partial misses are common. Without GOOD contact with both probes you won't get results. Frequently, even with good contact, the suspect will go down and roll and in doing so dislodge a probe, ending the effect. Other times a determined subject, by power of will, can continue to function while under the effect of the taser, although at greatly reduced efficiency. I would think winter clothes would make them pretty non-effective but that's not something I've had to deal with.

So, IMHO, for civilian use, the deterrent effect should be utilized. It should actually be deployed only at a range assuring proper probe placement. It's use as a contact ECD should be understood and trained for. Once deployed, beat feet, as the effect is short lived. Don't depend on it. It's not a substitute for a gun. It's better than nothing.

I think pepper spray works better on dogs. It's harder to hit a dog with a taser. Pepper spray doesn't work great on dogs either but it can, at times, produce the needed effect. Stream sprays are much better than aerosol products unless you're trying to clear a whole room or crowd.

I won't delve into the topic of a tasers entertainment value other than to mention that some subjects that manage to continue to function under the effect of a taser do a pretty good Frankenstein walk imitation. Then there's those that are running full tilt when tagged.
 
I won't delve into the topic of a tasers entertainment value other than to mention that some subjects that manage to continue to function under the effect of a taser do a pretty good Frankenstein walk imitation. Then there's those that are running full tilt when tagged.

So, a LEO told me from his personal experience in training that getting tased is "like getting kicked in the nuts by an 800 lb gorilla".
Accurate?
 
So, a LEO told me from his personal experience in training that getting tased is "like getting kicked in the nuts by an 800 lb gorilla".
Accurate?

At citizens police academy they gave us the opportunity to experience being tased. It's not as bad as that.
 
At citizens police academy they gave us the opportunity to experience being tased. It's not as bad as that.

I certainly doubt you got the full ride. Most cops don't get the full ride in their training class. Not many people, if getting the full dose, can function through it. It does hurt. In many cases it works fantastically.

However, I recall in training for the Taser's predecessor, the Nova stun gun, the instructor asked for a volunteer to demonstrate the Nova's effectiveness. There were no volunteers until the class took up a collection of about a hundred buck or so. We then had a volunteer.

The demonstration started with the instructor behind with both arms wrapped around the volunteer and the Nova applied to the mid chest area while held by both hands. The instructor started the demonstration by activating the Nova.

Several seconds later (Maybe 15 to 20 or so. I don't remember.) and after much groaning, grimacing and straining, the volunteer managed to take the Nova away from the instructor. He was a big boy but the instructor wasn't a mini-cop either.
 
Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

At least apple and orange both refer to fruit.

Imminent and lethal have zero correlation other than the fact that they are both words.

Imminent means: it is going to happen.
Lethal means: if it does happen, you are dead.

Other than being placed in the same post, these two words have no similarity to each other
 
Last edited:
Back
Top