PDA

View Full Version : 12ga pepper rounds


CCRBUM
06-29-2009, 9:34 AM
hey guys with our countries economy in the poop tank and California's even further down AND Sac county doing cut backs with the police I'm looking for a good "less than lethal" set up. Don't get me wrong I've got a .357 Magnum as my primary home defense but with more and more junk about people defending themselves and getting arrested for it, it leaves me a little concerned. I don't want to put my family in a position where I can no longer take care of them (in jail). So I'm trying to track down some 12ga pepper rounds to keep as a secondary method in the event of a brake in and the guy on the other end does not have a gun. I have to be careful too due to living in an apartment complex so that is why I'm thinking the pepper rounds would work well enough to slow them down and allow me to take control of the situation. If push comes to shove though I have no problem putting them down with the .357... I'm just trying to be smart about this! So any idea of where I can pick some up or does anyone have some around Sac that I can buy some off of you? Thanks!

CSACANNONEER
06-29-2009, 9:46 AM
I would STONGLY advise you against using a "less than lethal round" against a BG! It could cause many more legal problems for you than it would solve. Chances are that you will end up in jail for a longer period of time too!

J-cat
06-29-2009, 10:09 AM
Wrong.

If a BG forcibly breaks into your house, the Penal Code allows you to use deadly force period. You will not go to jail.

If, however, you elect to engage a BG elsewhere, a can of OC or a taser is alot more practical than 12 GA pepper rounds.

wildcard
06-29-2009, 10:11 AM
Dude.. the moment you pick up that 12 gauge and fire.. it doesn't matter what projectile comes out of it. Let me just say that when the BG recovers from the pepper round with a blind eye or something, he'll be telling the jury about how he was just coming over for a cup of sugar and posed no threat. The family you were trying to protect will be working to pay his settlement.

Either use use some real bullets or nothing at all.

J-cat
06-29-2009, 10:12 AM
Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.

oldschool88
06-29-2009, 10:18 AM
Ya, dont' use those. You will most likely be the one in trouble with the law. If you weren't in enough danger to use lethal force than you weren't in enough danger to fire a firearm at a person. That is the way they will see it.

If you have a clearly unarmed intruder you can just hold him at gun point untill the cops arrive. If he runs you send the cops his way. If he stays you let the cops take him. And if he attacks you can defend yourself.

Plus having a first round less lethal puts you at risk. If he pulls a gun while you are drawn down with a less lethal he has the advantage. There are too many ways for this to go wrong. If you really want you can get a tazer or something like that but I would just stick with the basics.

CSACANNONEER
06-29-2009, 10:19 AM
Wrong.



I'm not understnding why you keep posting "Wrong" after posts which seem to be agreeing with your idea of using deadly force as opposed to "less than lethal ammo in a firearm. It seems to me that we agree that the only way to go when using a firearm for SD is to use "normal ammo" ie. deadly force. Please explain what you mean by "Wrong".

Casual_Shooter
06-29-2009, 10:21 AM
It's sad that we have to worry about whether or not to use lethal means of protecting ourselves in our homes. :(

wildcard
06-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.

Lawsuits are civil.
Juries are people and can be made to believe anything. Heck, OJ Simpson is innocent LOL.
And welcome to California. BG needs to pose a threat of violence. Without going into the legal issues, you can not simply shoot a person trespassing into your home unless you don't mind jail.

felixthecat1
06-29-2009, 3:24 PM
It's sad that we have to worry about whether or not to use lethal means of protecting ourselves in our homes. :(

+1 :(

kalguns
06-29-2009, 3:59 PM
You shoot someone you WILL get sued no matter what the circumstance.

CCRBUM
06-29-2009, 9:12 PM
I appreciate all the info guys. It sounds to me like i need to just stick with the .357 and hope I don't have to use it. I have a hard time living out here and dealing with the politics... where I come from back east the farmers use to keep punk kids off their property with rock salt loaded into a 12 ga :D and if you went to the police they would tell you that you got what you deserve haha. So seeing how you can get in more trouble then the BG for protecting yourself is crazy to me. But thanks for the info guys! I hope we can all avoid having to be put in a position of compromise but if we are may justice be on our side!

J-cat
06-29-2009, 9:22 PM
Lawsuits are civil.
Juries are people and can be made to believe anything. Heck, OJ Simpson is innocent LOL.
And welcome to California. BG needs to pose a threat of violence. Without going into the legal issues, you can not simply shoot a person trespassing into your home unless you don't mind jail.

Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???

J-cat
06-29-2009, 9:25 PM
You shoot someone you WILL get sued no matter what the circumstance.

So? Ever hard of a summary judgment?

jdberger
06-29-2009, 9:41 PM
Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???

Ever heard of Bernard Goetz?

mattman
06-29-2009, 9:41 PM
Have lethal force at the ready. Just use you escalation of force rules SHOUT, SHOW (YOU WEAPON), SHOVE, SHOOT and you will be fine.

J-cat
06-29-2009, 10:14 PM
Ever heard of Bernard Goetz?

In NY, you are mandated to retreat. NY does not have PC 198.5. Goetz used excessive force.

jdberger
06-29-2009, 10:17 PM
Goetz used excessive force.

Not according to the jury (in the criminal trial). Nor was that the opinion of the jury in the civil trial.

J-cat
06-29-2009, 10:56 PM
Shooting someone while they are cowering on the ground is excessive force.

Why did he sustain a civil judgment, then?

jdberger
06-29-2009, 11:17 PM
Goetz was convicted of illegally carrying a gun.

Goetz never shot anyone "cowering on the ground". Cabey was sitting in a seat, where he had fallen after Goetz shot at him the first time.

Goetz lost the civil judgment because he was "reckless and intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on Cabey who was paralyzed due to the shooting. Cabey also had (arguably) the best two civil rights attorneys in the country. Cabey was awarded $43 million. So far, Goetz has paid nothing.

J-cat
06-30-2009, 8:50 AM
Goetz never shot anyone "cowering on the ground". Cabey was sitting in a seat, where he had fallen after Goetz shot at him the first time.


What's the difference in terms of excessive force? Sitting down, lying on the ground, whatever. Did not the civil jury find him liable due to his decision to fire again coupled with his stupid comment?

And What does this have to do with home defense? Does the OP plan on carrying his 12 GA on the train?

1mean76
06-30-2009, 11:41 PM
my dad always told me if someone comes into the house and is not welcome you shoot to kill cuz dead men tell no lies

weezil_boi
07-01-2009, 12:19 AM
To the OP...

Its very nice of you to have such concern for an intruder. My own hierarchy is perhaps more harsh, but I am quite comfortable with it.

I am concerned with ( in this particular order ):

1. The safety of my family - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force

2. The safety of myself - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force

3. The safety of my neighbors and possible bystanders - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force


4. The legal consequences of my actions - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using legal and responsible methods - including the appropriate application of force, even lethal force

5. The safety and well being of the intruder- if at all possile, stopping the immediate threat without lethal force. He will have no idea whats in your shotgun... so if wont stop for a 12 gauge, he desrves whatever I have in the tube.

In my world, theres just no room for bean bags or pepper in shotguns.

But I hope I'll never have to prove it ;)

CCRBUM
07-01-2009, 8:36 AM
weezil_boi - Don't get my wrong my primary concern is for my family. I just want to make sure I go about it the best and smartest way possible :) . I know that in the heat of the moment I'm not going to negotiate with myself on the best tactic so I figure it's better to work it all out and have it in place now haha :)

wildhawker
07-01-2009, 11:29 AM
I would STONGLY advise you against using a "less than lethal round" against a BG!

What he said.

If you find yourself in a situation where you or others' lives are in danger, you have a moral obligation to intercede with enough force to halt the attack and regain control. Less-than-lethal cartridges are for crowd control; unless you find yourself with a Cal Berkeley protest against berber carpets in your living room, leave the pepper and rubber buck at the store.

A .357, while potent and unquestionably devastating, gives me pause as a HD weapon. I'd prefer to have a better level of comfort with regards to where any stray bullets may end up.

Take all this with a grain of salt, but here are some interesting shotgun and HD/load-related articles.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm (testing rock salt)
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm (shotgun HD loads)
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/home_defense_shotgun_ammo.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm (shotgun)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm (rifles, shotguns, walls)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot42.htm (precision shooting buckshot)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu91.htm (re buckshot)
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

ZakAttackMan
07-01-2009, 12:52 PM
my dad always told me if someone comes into the house and is not welcome you shoot to kill cuz dead men tell no lies

:thumbsup:
If ever you have to use a firearm you dont want anything coming back at you

highpowermatch
07-01-2009, 1:40 PM
get some 38sp snake shot for the 357, first two rounds snake shot, if that does not stop them then the 4 rounds of 357 mag hp will do the trick. Also the guys at frontsight say you never want to project the intent to kill, just stop, goes over in court much better than execution. Best to get you're info from professional self defense trainers.

Redhawker
07-01-2009, 3:16 PM
Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???

If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.

highpowermatch
07-01-2009, 3:18 PM
If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.

In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.

Beelzy
07-01-2009, 5:15 PM
In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.


True that!

To the OP: if you are going to pull the trigger on someone, do it right.
Using less than lethal methods in this day and age could be construed as
torture or cruel and unusual punishment. ;)

CCRBUM
07-01-2009, 5:16 PM
geeze... what a messed up system we live in :D. good idea with snake shots! I've never given any though to that. I do plan on picking up a box of hydro shock for it though to keep at the ready... right now I just have half jacket hollow point. any advice on a nice round to use? I know federal premium hydro shock is nice but other than that I'm not sure. my apartment only has two walls that are adjacent another apartment. the other way is into a hall with a stone wall on the other side and the 4th leads out to the parking lot and a canal. Wall 3 and 4 are also the only potential entrances, mainly 3 due to being on the 3rd floor and it being the front door.

1mean76
07-01-2009, 5:22 PM
:thumbsup:
If ever you have to use a firearm you dont want anything coming back at you

its about time someone agrees with me lol

wildhawker
07-01-2009, 10:49 PM
get some 38sp snake shot for the 357, first two rounds snake shot, if that does not stop them then the 4 rounds of 357 mag hp will do the trick. Also the guys at frontsight say you never want to project the intent to kill, just stop, goes over in court much better than execution. Best to get you're info from professional self defense trainers.

Sorry, if the threat is enough to warrant taking a shot it's enough to warrant a shot capable of immediately ending the encounter. I don't want to find out if the BG is going to stop after my 1-2 rounds of birdshot pissed him (them) off/scared him(them) into a gunfight. Further, we're talking multiple on-target hits with a handgun under duress- not a reasonable expectation from the general population.

Let's be clear, we're not discussing execution here. If you take a life after the threat of harm has been mitigated you are very likely going to jail.

J-cat
07-02-2009, 8:40 AM
If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.

If the law presumes you are in fear of your life, then you will prevail in both a criminal and a civil action.

J-cat
07-02-2009, 8:43 AM
In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.

and give him CPR too...

I once took a class taught by a veteran LAPD detective who said the best 9mm load for self defense was a "183gr. JHP"

highpowermatch
07-02-2009, 9:40 AM
and give him CPR too...

I once took a class taught by a veteran LAPD detective who said the best 9mm load for self defense was a "183gr. JHP"

That will do the trick, all they were saying is that in civil court the better of a person you look the less chance that you will loose everything. I am pretty sure I wouldn't go as far as the CPR...lol

macadamizer
07-02-2009, 1:14 PM
If the law presumes you are in fear of your life, then you will prevail in both a criminal and a civil action.

Wrong.

The presumption of fear simply shifts the burden of proof. Without the presumption, the shooter has to prove they were in fear of their life; with the presumption, the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was not in fear of their life.

The presumption doesn't create an automatic win; it just means that the burden of proof for the defense shifts to the prosecution. You can still be found liable for the shooting, even in your own house, if the prosecutor has evidence that proves that you had no reason to fear for your life.

EDIT: Forgot this part. If there is no criminal trial, then there will still be a civil trial, and the shooter will have to prove that the shoot was a good shoot -- if he can do that, then there will be no civil liability. There could be other reasons other than a "good shoot" that the criminal case didn't go to trial. So, one might draw an inference that the shoot was good because there was no criminal trial, but it doesn't automatically cut off civil liability. Now, if there is a criminal trial, and the shoot is found to be a good shoot in court, that will cut off civil liability.

J-cat
07-03-2009, 9:29 AM
Wrong.

The presumption of fear simply shifts the burden of proof. Without the presumption, the shooter has to prove they were in fear of their life; with the presumption, the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was not in fear of their life.

The presumption doesn't create an automatic win; it just means that the burden of proof for the defense shifts to the prosecution. You can still be found liable for the shooting, even in your own house, if the prosecutor has evidence that proves that you had no reason to fear for your life.

EDIT: Forgot this part. If there is no criminal trial, then there will still be a civil trial, and the shooter will have to prove that the shoot was a good shoot -- if he can do that, then there will be no civil liability. There could be other reasons other than a "good shoot" that the criminal case didn't go to trial. So, one might draw an inference that the shoot was good because there was no criminal trial, but it doesn't automatically cut off civil liability. Now, if there is a criminal trial, and the shoot is found to be a good shoot in court, that will cut off civil liability.

Here's the statute:

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.


Where does it say the presumption is rebuttable?
So I cap a dude who broke into my house. I cap him front center of mass with a pepper round. Please articulate how HE will prevail in a civil suit.

macadamizer
07-03-2009, 9:53 AM
Here's the statute:



Where does it say the presumption is rebuttable?
So I cap a dude who broke into my house. I cap him front center of mass with a pepper round. Please articulate how HE will prevail in a civil suit.

All presumptions are rebuttable. A presumption is just that, a presumption. Not an absolute. If the statute granted absolute carte blanche to take out an intruder in your house, it would say so. It doesn't. The statute gives you the benefit of the doubt, so it forces the prosecution to prove that you weren't reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm -- which might be hard to prove in a lot of cases.

As far as how he might prevail, hard to say. I don't have Witkin in front of me here. But if he were able to prove that you were not in fear of death or great bodily harm, then you shooting him with a pepper round -- or any round, lethal, non-lethal or otherwise (if there is such a thing!) -- is assault with a deadly weapon, and presumably he could prevail in a civil suit for damages. How might he prove that? Maybe evidence that he wasn't armed, along with other evidence (testimony from an accomplice or other witness, video or audio recordings, something like that) that would show that a reasonable homeowner would have known that he wasn't armed, wasn't threatening, maybe retreating or surrendering. That would likely be sufficient to overcome the presumption and make it a bad shoot for which the BG could recover civil damages.

The presumption in 198.5 is pretty good protection for homeowners, but it doesn't mean that every shoot in defense of your house is a good shoot. There must be evidence to the contrary, but if there is evidence, it can rebut the presumption.

Blue
07-03-2009, 9:59 AM
Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.

Until the BG survives, and lawyers up and sues your ***.

J-cat
07-03-2009, 10:03 PM
All presumptions are rebuttable. A presumption is just that, a presumption. Not an absolute. If the statute granted absolute carte blanche to take out an intruder in your house, it would say so. It doesn't. The statute gives you the benefit of the doubt, so it forces the prosecution to prove that you weren't reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm -- which might be hard to prove in a lot of cases.

As far as how he might prevail, hard to say. I don't have Witkin in front of me here. But if he were able to prove that you were not in fear of death or great bodily harm, then you shooting him with a pepper round -- or any round, lethal, non-lethal or otherwise (if there is such a thing!) -- is assault with a deadly weapon, and presumably he could prevail in a civil suit for damages. How might he prove that? Maybe evidence that he wasn't armed, along with other evidence (testimony from an accomplice or other witness, video or audio recordings, something like that) that would show that a reasonable homeowner would have known that he wasn't armed, wasn't threatening, maybe retreating or surrendering. That would likely be sufficient to overcome the presumption and make it a bad shoot for which the BG could recover civil damages.

The presumption in 198.5 is pretty good protection for homeowners, but it doesn't mean that every shoot in defense of your house is a good shoot. There must be evidence to the contrary, but if there is evidence, it can rebut the presumption.

So how do you prove I'm not in fear of my life when I shoot you? The law says I'm in fear by virtue of your break-in. Are you suggesting I need to see a weapon in your hands? Do you have to attack me?

goodlookin1
07-03-2009, 10:31 PM
Here's my suggestion:

If someone actually breaks into your residence, have a loaded weapon at the ready, having the first shot chambered be a blank and the rest with normal rounds. The theory behind this is if you go to shoot and the first blank doesnt make the intruder go running, then it is safe to assume they intend to hurt you or your family. You should then be safe in the eyes of the court having more than "presumption" that your life was in imminent danger and that you NEEDED to take the intruder down so as to not have harm come to you or your family.

GrayWolf09
07-03-2009, 10:42 PM
Lawsuits are civil.
Juries are people and can be made to believe anything. Heck, OJ Simpson is innocent LOL.
And welcome to California. BG needs to pose a threat of violence. Without going into the legal issues, you can not simply shoot a person trespassing into your home unless you don't mind jail.


That's why it is generally best to only have one version of the truth presented to the jury -- yours. Use the shotgun but with lethal loads. The advantage of a shotgun is that a near miss counts as a hit depending on the distance.:52:

macadamizer
07-03-2009, 10:44 PM
So how do you prove I'm not in fear of my life when I shoot you? The law says I'm in fear by virtue of your break-in. Are you suggesting I need to see a weapon in your hands? Do you have to attack me?

Read what I wrote. If there is evidence that you were not in fear of your life when you took the shot, the presumption will be rebutted. How much evidence, and what type of evidence? That all depends on the jury.

If you read carefully what I wrote before, the answer is there. You just don't want to see it, you want to believe you have carte blanche to play Dirty Harry in your house, that you can gun down any intruder regardless of the circumstance. Good luck if you ever find yourself in that position -- hopefully in your case the prosecution won't have sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.

J-cat
07-03-2009, 11:00 PM
You have a propensity to read into things. Are you a psychologist?

Peter W Bush
07-03-2009, 11:29 PM
Here's my suggestion:

If someone actually breaks into your residence, have a loaded weapon at the ready, having the first shot chambered be a blank and the rest with normal rounds. The theory behind this is if you go to shoot and the first blank doesnt make the intruder go running, then it is safe to assume they intend to hurt you or your family. You should then be safe in the eyes of the court having more than "presumption" that your life was in imminent danger and that you NEEDED to take the intruder down so as to not have harm come to you or your family.

IF the BG has a gun, im pretty sure the bullet in the chamber is NOT a blank. If somebody breaks into your house and you are in enough fear for your life that you draw a firearm and are forced to use lethal force to protect yourself or your family, YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A BLANK IN YOUR FIREARM. Nor should you use 2 rounds of snake shot. Its just for that-snakes. After your 2 snake shots go into the BG and he doesnt stop, your JHP or FMJ or whateverthehell that you shoot him/them with will probably be considered excessive force. You just shotsomebody three times. I dont get what is so complicated.

IF SOMEBODY BREAKS INTO YOUR HOME AND YOU ARE IN REASONABLE FEAR OF YOU OR YOUR FAMILYS LIFE, pepper shots, LLT, snake shot, BLANKS (:confused:) wont really help.
Use the same calibers with the same ammo that your local LE agency uses.

wildhawker
07-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Some of what I'm reading here is utterly stupefying (and outlandish). If you are not ready and willing to a) take necessary steps to defend your life and the lives of others, b) train your mind and body in preparation of a violent encounter and c) defend your actions in court, you may want to consider alternatives to firearm ownership for the purpose of defense.

macadamizer
07-04-2009, 8:15 AM
You have a propensity to read into things. Are you a psychologist?

I am not a psychologist.

You wrote above, "The law says I'm in fear by virtue of your break-in." But that's not what the law says. The law says it presumes you are in fear when someone breaks into your house -- a resumption that can be rebutted by evidence. You wrote that after I pointed out that a presumption is rebuttable. I guess either (a) you don't believe me, or others who have posted in similar threads, (b) you misread what I wrote, or (c) you already have your beliefs in place, and aren't going to be dissuaded by a discussion on an internet thread. I guessed (c) in my post above, that's all.

bruceflinch
07-04-2009, 8:32 AM
Here's my suggestion:

If someone actually breaks into your residence, have a loaded weapon at the ready, having the first shot chambered be a blank and the rest with normal rounds. The theory behind this is if you go to shoot and the first blank doesnt make the intruder go running, then it is safe to assume they intend to hurt you or your family. You should then be safe in the eyes of the court having more than "presumption" that your life was in imminent danger and that you NEEDED to take the intruder down so as to not have harm come to you or your family.

How about 1st round lethal & 2nd round blank. You still have to fire at least 2 shots! :43: If you are shooting a revolver, you have time to swap the cases.
Just sayin'....:whistling: