02-21-2017, 04:39 AM
I would agree that a stun gun, particularly an item not found in the house, is indicative of an intruder, who probably carried it to perfect an escape if his presence was detected and may have toyed with it for amusement later.
If you check the various court records you will find that there are a great many lawsuits involving stun guns. They are supposedly tested on police volunteers but they are used on suspects that are not prepared, not healthy, on otheer drugs, etc. With so much litigation you will find that the company has a reputation amongst plaintiff's tort lawyers.
Knowing that reputation, I'm sure you will forgive me for not even reading about whatever the company executives said. I don't believe anyone who works for that company when they are under oath, I certainly don't believe in anything they say when they are not under oath.
If you check the various court records you will find that there are a great many lawsuits involving stun guns. They are supposedly tested on police volunteers but they are used on suspects that are not prepared, not healthy, on otheer drugs, etc. With so much litigation you will find that the company has a reputation amongst plaintiff's tort lawyers.
Knowing that reputation, I'm sure you will forgive me for not even reading about whatever the company executives said. I don't believe anyone who works for that company when they are under oath, I certainly don't believe in anything they say when they are not under oath.