Jail time

[skyrover]

Blaster72 said:

skyrover said:

None. But they might save prevent rapes/save lives in some situations.

Or be used on the person carrying them.

Makes no difference.. if it doesn't work they are already knackered.

However there is a chance it will work, and thus a chance of escape.

[Blaster72]

Interesting piece on the various States in the US, seems it's jail time over there in lots of places for carrying them too

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/cri...

Bonkers that it's legal in some of those states to carry a firearm but not a taser type device.

[jdw100]

zarjaz1991 said:

StottyEvo said:

Have I gone insane or something? It's a taser... Someone zaps you on the back of the arm with it, you should "ahhh ya bd" it stings for a few seconds then you get over it.

Surely its far less dangerous than a paintball gun that people pay to shoot each other with, for a bit of a laugh and childish fun

Have you ever seen one being used? It's....not like that....

Surely he must have seen a film, or the news, or read a paper?

Guns eh? What's all the fuss about? Just a few bruises - not like being shot with an arrow?

[Evanivitch]

Blaster72 said:

Interesting piece on the various States in the US, seems it's jail time over there in lots of places for carrying them too

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/cri...

Bonkers that it's legal in some of those states to carry a firearm but not a taser type device.

In many US States the mindset is that if you feel so threatened as to respond with force then you'd better be looking to kill and not incapacitate your attacker. For example, knee capping an intruder can be legally punishable, but 2 to the chest is commended.

[blindswelledrat]

Under the circumstances 5 years is a horrific sentence for nothing more than stupidity.

BUT, presumably we all agree with the stiff sentence generally for possessing these kind of weapons?
I feel sure that every single person who is caught with one is going to say "It was a bit of a laugh. I bought it abroad and thought nothing of it. I was definitely not going to use it". Shame for this bloke that it seems it might be true but if stupidity is a defence then nobody would ever actually be convicted.

[Pesty]

jdw100 said:

zarjaz1991 said:

StottyEvo said:

Have I gone insane or something? It's a taser... Someone zaps you on the back of the arm with it, you should "ahhh ya bd" it stings for a few seconds then you get over it.

Surely its far less dangerous than a paintball gun that people pay to shoot each other with, for a bit of a laugh and childish fun

Have you ever seen one being used? It's....not like that....

Surely he must have seen a film, or the news, or read a paper?

Guns eh? What's all the fuss about? Just a few bruises - not like being shot with an arrow?

The ones police use or the ones you buy in turkey made in China for $10

Big difference

[V40Vinnie]

At the end of the day a stun gun is a firearms offence and there fore carries a massive punishment

[AJL308]

Evanivitch said:

Blaster72 said:

Interesting piece on the various States in the US, seems it's jail time over there in lots of places for carrying them too

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/cri...

Bonkers that it's legal in some of those states to carry a firearm but not a taser type device.

In many US States the mindset is that if you feel so threatened as to respond with force then you'd better be looking to kill and not incapacitate your attacker. For example, knee capping an intruder can be legally punishable, but 2 to the chest is commended.

Almost and it's the same here.

It's not about a strict intention to kill an attacker. It's about stopping an attack in as little time as possible when that attack is at such a level of severity that it is likely to very seriously harm the victim.

Essentially the only way in which you can stop a determined person in a very short time frame is to incapacitate them which, by definition, usually requires the infliction of very serious injury. You have to cause damage to the central nervous system and that is something from which death is likely to result.

Shooting people to wound them (like in the arm or knee-cap), even if you can do it, also runs a very high risk of them dying. The point is that doing that is far less likely to immediately stop them continuing with an attack. So, if it isn't immediately necessary to stop an attack there isn't a justification in risking killing someone by knee-capping them. That is simply revenge.

The reason why some states allow firearms to be carried but not tasers is that people know that there is a high risk of killing someone with a firearm but don't necessarily appreciate the danger of a taser. The latter may be more likely to be used when the circumstances don't warrant risking killing someone. Some police departments don't issue tasers (or only do in specific circumstances) because of the risk to the officer if he uses a taser and kills someone. If the officer pulls a taser rather than his gun then it will be argued by the prosecution that the situation clearly didn't warrant using something which might kill someone or the officer would have used his gun. Similarly, if the officer had a taser available and he shot the suspect with his pistol the prosecution will argue that his client could have been 'pacified' with the taser and that shooting him was disproportionate. If the officer only has a gun then the decision isn't there to make.

[AJL308]

skyrover said:

It pretty much is... Your more likely to die from a bee sting.

You have figures for that, then? No, of course you don't because you just made it up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i...

"Discussing the suggestions that the threat from terrorism is over-estimated, Mr Anderson wrote: “During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”

So, five and not just from bees. I'm betting that there will be a st load more bee stings each year that people getting tasered.

[Halb]

Blaster72 said:

Interesting piece on the various States in the US, seems it's jail time over there in lots of places for carrying them too

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/cri...

Bonkers that it's legal in some of those states to carry a firearm but not a taser type device.

The NTA need to get onto that.

[BlackLabel]

Another idiot caught with a stun gun.

Article said:

A HOLIDAYMAKER who brought illegal stun guns back to Scotland as gifts for “the boys” was jailed for five years today.

Niall Dinsmore was caught with the weapon stash in his luggage at Edinburgh Airport after returning from a trip to Bulgaria.

Dinsmore, 28, was said to be “shocked” to discover they were classed as firearms.

The offence carries a minimum five-year sentence unless “exceptional circumstances” can be proved.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/idiot-holidaymaker-who-bought-stun-9127403

And one more case this week albeit the chap appears to have got off lightly here:

article said:

A man who had a stun gun disguised as a mobile phone has been ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work.

Sam Lymer, 32, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for sentencing after admitting being concerned in importing two stun guns and pepper spray, contrary to a restriction.

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/unpaid-work-order-for-man-32-who-had-stun-gun/

[eldar]

BlackLabel said:

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/unp...

So the penalty is either 5 years minimum, or 5 weeks weeding. Consistent?

[BlackLabel]

Another such case.

15 months in prison for buying and using a stun gun device that didn’t even work properly. It “was not lethal and required prolonged physical contact to have any effect”.

What a silly boy.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/taser-...

[Halb]

15 months for videoing oneself tasing oneself, seems, a bit much.

[DurianIceCream]

Halb said:

15 months for videoing oneself tasing oneself, seems, a bit much.

If the state lets people off 'my mistake' then people will buy them by mistake on purpose. The state does not like anybody having weapons at all.

It does seem grossly disproportionate, considering there was no intent to do harm and no victim.

[KAgantua]

DurianIceCream said:

Halb said:

15 months for videoing oneself tasing oneself, seems, a bit much.

If the state lets people off 'my mistake' then people will buy them by mistake on purpose. The state does not like anybody having weapons at all.

It does seem grossly disproportionate, considering there was no intent to do harm and no victim.

Your friendly neighbourhood police informants bouncers keeping our streets safe.