trust me...when you have a fat persons flab flowing over you or some stupid college student hit you w/ their backpack or block the door and you try to get off...you would understand fully.

Recently when I was returning from Burbank to boston..I upgrade (very luckly) since it was packed w/ people who by all rights should have been forced to buy 2 or 3 seats due to their girth.

don't buy a taser

esp back there

dont worry, while I do think of it...I would never do it, but would love to see someone else do it just once.

I'm waiting for a whole rash of taser related crimes.

Its gonna happen 

no

I remember it used on a toilet seat at home depot though

Also, taser those fat people who think they can fit into a 18 inch subway seat.

I've known several fatsos that I would have liked to tase just for G.P. But since the law frowns on that kind of behavior, I guess "Tase a Fat Person Day" is out of the question.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer and his song about "Make fun of the handicapped week." We used to be able to laugh at ourselves but things aren't all that funny any longer and now there is no want of lawyers helping criminals sue their victims.

Its not all that simple Tom, especially in CA.

There are several concepts in the law which apply to the "self defense" concept in general one of which is equal and resonalble force. Just like cops have a "force continuum, civilians do too.

IOW you can't blow someone away for calling your wife a whore or even spitting on her.Ifsomeon produces a knife or other deadly weapon you are pretty safe. However, I was thinking of  the kind of scenario where a woman feels threatened by a guys general behavior, no weapon produced, she zaps him, he has a bad heart and croaks.

She will probably get off but she will probably need a lawyer and some money and time spent to do it.

I just see more cases coming down the pike with regard to tasers and self defense as well as criminal activity. What we are seeing now resides in the realm of LE because they are the ones who have the divi es now. In future as they become more prolific, there will be all kinds of cases from 245's to 187's even 148's. Just watch.

And OB, the tasers in use now are much improved from the old ones, with date, time and serial no. stamped "markers", etc. as well as greater range capabilities, etc. The ones on sale for around a grand at 2nd amendment are much more sophisticated than what has been generally available to the public.

An easy 20 ft. effective range with "darts" as electrodes make them much different than the older models and contact "stun" gun devices of the past.

Its going to take some time but I think you will see a bunch of cases crop up regarding civilian usage.

In addition to the above, OB, if you are a retired 832 trained peace officer, then you are in a little different position regarding you lifetime CCW than the average joe. You can now carry in other states, and your defesne as being able to properly recognize a threat to yur person is much easier case to make to LE or in court if it goes that far.

Its like the old saw: "you shoot someone outside your domicile, you better be prepared to drag them inside."

What a crock. That would be the WORST thing you could do! With technical crime scene personnel and techniques today, that would be determined in a minute and you would then have some real 'slainin'  to do.

A response to the GI in CA and his problems/actions. This is an example of why cops hate 415's:

"Sad business, but CYA seems to be the rule of the day... although if I were the judge presiding, I'd try to have the case disposed of on general principles -- or if that weren't possible, then arrange for the most lenient sentencing upon conviction.

However, PVT. Nicholson would have done better to have called the cops - and maybe, if he was so motivated - acted as a meat shield (so to speak) between the husband and the two women, by fighting defensively with blocking tactics or maybe a restrain technique, according to his training.

Even then, that's no guarantee that the local cops wouldn't have charged him with some form of assault - for simply acting outside of his role as a civilian bystander who is (in their eyes) untrained and unauthorized to conduct police action.

The trouble is, that sort of thing (domestic violence response) can see emotions on both sides of the argument riled up very potently and lightningly fast - with very deadly results if weapons get involved.

Furthermore, police are much more highly trained to control their own emotional responses in dealing with a domestic violence scene than a combat soldier.

Soldiers are not really well trained at all for peacetime civilian police work, and military police work (such as is necessary in occupying a hostile foreign territory) can easily neglect to observe what we expect to be observed here as civil rights and proper police procedure.

While I can sympathize in part with PVT Nicholson, he did not think things through very well, and relied on his gut reaction (which can save lives in combat) but resulted in letting the guilty man (the abusive husband) go Scot-free.

I reckon that "posse comitatus" item just might exist for good reason."

good that is how it should be. The guy was doing is civic duty to help another person from being attacked.

Its baaack...............................

I'm tellin" ya (tried to back then)

Tasers are going to create all kinds of new "scenarios"

Some good

Some bad

And you know what bad scenarios<=>tactics produces

Yep

BAD LAW!