Why Taser use agaiinst lethally armed threats can be ill-advised

[MikeG]

Gunshots foil armored-car robbery at Phoenix Walgreens

Good guy won so the press probably won't remember this the next time an officer shoots someone instead of exploring less lethal options.

Executive version: Bad guy tries to rob armed guard with a Taser (model/type not listed - press may call any electrical weapon a taser). Armed guard responds appropriately with revolver. Bad guy injured, though it's not clear if he was shot or just car accident after pursuit.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in both criminal and civil court. I would like to hear County Attorney say lethal force was justified against bad guy with less lethal weapon. Nice to see the bad guy setting the example instead of having to hear of an officer that uses a taser on an armed subject and gets shot.

[retdetsgt]

Something that can incapacitate you no doubt justifies deadly force. I doubt there will be a problem in criminal court and I doubt many lawyers would be interested in taking a case for the robber.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

An article from AZ Central calls it a "stun gun" so there's a disparity in the information (big surprise there). You article also calls the armored car guard's weapon a "service revolver" while there's no indication of WHY it's calle that. The AZ Central article didn't distinguish.

Phoenix police: Man tried to rob armored-car guard using stun gun

[Trip]

Something that can incapacitate you no doubt justifies deadly force. I doubt there will be a problem in criminal court and I doubt many lawyers would be interested in taking a case for the robber.

Good insight. That one went into the back of my head.

[retdetsgt]

Good insight. That one went into the back of my head.

Surprisingly enough, most laws are based on common sense. Sometimes lawyers can override that, juries still usually have it in the long run.

[Trip]

Surprisingly enough, most laws are based on common sense. Sometimes lawyers can override that, juries still usually have it in the long run.

Now that was priceless insight. Truly. See, RDS, one gets on RP for three months and then one day, POOOF, somebody says something priceless like this.

[Norm357]

Gunshots foil armored-car robbery at Phoenix Walgreens

Good guy won so the press probably won't remember this the next time an officer shoots someone instead of exploring less lethal options.

Executive version: Bad guy tries to rob armed guard with a Taser (model/type not listed - press may call any electrical weapon a taser). Armed guard responds appropriately with revolver. Bad guy injured, though it's not clear if he was shot or just car accident after pursuit.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in both criminal and civil court. I would like to hear County Attorney say lethal force was justified against bad guy with less lethal weapon. Nice to see the bad guy setting the example instead of having to hear of an officer that uses a taser on an armed subject and gets shot.

Same thing happened here in Atlanta a few years ago. Bag guy tried to hold up an armored car guard with a stun gun in a hospital elevator. The guard shot and killed the bad guy. It was very quickly determined to be a good shoot.

[MikeG]

Same thing happened here in Atlanta a few years ago. Bag guy tried to hold up an armored car guard with a stun gun in a hospital elevator. The guard shot and killed the bad guy. It was very quickly determined to be a good shoot.

Good. The bad guy here was charged with armed robbery. That's a justification. He has a few I think.

What I want to see is how the prosecutor works with the stun gun under the "deadly weapon" or "dangerous instrument" definitions in the statute to justify armed robbery charge. My reading of the statute is that it is out of date and should probably include incapacitating weapons as "dangerous instruments" explicitly. But it doesn't in AZ and the closest that my lay reading of it is being capable of of actually causing "serious physical injury". Maybe the fall after being hit with a Taser is a risk to a limb?

I don't want one prosecution of a robber to enable a bunch of "excessive force" claims because of the characterization of a Taser by a prosecutor so he can meet an out of date statute.

From AZ
"Deadly weapon" means anything designed for lethal use, including a firearm. (shouldn't include Taser)

"Dangerous instrument" means anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. (Does this cover Taser? I dunno. Should be changed to include incapacitating weapons explicitly.)

"Serious physical injury" includes physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb. (we don't treat Taser's as if they create a reasonable risk of death. And they didn't actually cause an injury in this case. )

Armed Robbery: 1. Is armed with a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly weapon; or
2. Uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or a simulated deadly weapon.

[Trip]

What I want to see is how the prosecutor works with the stun gun under the "deadly weapon" or "dangerous instrument" definitions in the statute to justify armed robbery charge. My reading of the statute is that it is out of date and should probably include incapacitating weapons as "dangerous instruments" explicitly. But it doesn't in AZ and the closest that my lay reading of it is being capable of of actually causing "serious physical injury". Maybe the fall after being hit with a Taser is a risk to a limb?

I'd like to see how the prosecutor deals with it too