Non-Lethal?

[SMOKEYMOUNTAIN]

Have you guys ever thought about using non-legal rounds? And how do they work exactly? Are normal shottys able to transition to non-lethal or are non-lethal shotguns made/modeled differently?

I only ask this b/c it would be nice to load your shotty with 1 or 2 non-lethal rounds and follow up with 00 buckshot and/or slugs.

On a tangent, where can I get a mag clips for an Hawk 982 and how do shotgun mags work exactly? Any additional modding I would have to do?

[BigDogatPlay]

There is no such thing as "non-lethal". The technology is correctly called "less lethal". It can still kill given the right circumstance or mis-application.

Any shotgun can fire any manner of less lethal ammo. I've seen guys who stoked their HD guns with rubber buckshot, which at close range can be just as lethal as the real deal. I've known other guys who kept beanbag rounds. For LEOs the use of less lethal ammo in a firearm is, for all intents and purposes, the same threshold as deploying conventional ammo.

LEOs have need of less lethal because they can be and are called upon to stop someone from doing something that is potentially injurious to themselves or to others. Less lethal becomes a force option to inflict enough pain for the person to comply without permanent injury to any involved.

For a citizen defending their lives they are not trying to gain compliance, they are fighting for their lives and the lives of others around them. That is a completely different playbook and it demands to fullest application of force, when called for, to end the threat.

As a LEO I was trained in the deployment of less lethal. I understand when it can be or should be deployed. But if I am in a situation where some gremlin is in my house intent on doing harm to me or to my wife, said gremlin is going to get the full force and effect of whatever weapon I can get my hands on, and I will keep fighting until the fight is done.

If you mean can you get a box magazine to hang off the tube of your pump gun... I am sure they are made. I'm not interested in them as to me they are just something to go wrong.

[Bug Splat]

Legally you are better off blowing the intruders head off than pelting him with a rubber bullet in the butt. Bad guys sues and puts you in jail, takes your house and cars and you can never own a firearm again.

A firearm should only be pulled when you are dead sure that your life is about to end and its either you or him. Shoot to kill and leave only one side of the story. Words of a 30 year Sheriff Deputy and Army vet in the family.

[robcoe]

dont bother. They are expensive, require special training and open you up to legal problems. 00 buckshot is a much better option for HD.

[aippi]

There is no special training need to load a 12ga less then lethal shell in you pump shotgun and fire it.

I was an Instructor for Def-Tech and have certified hundreds of Officers to use this stuff, but not because it takes any training, but because they had to know that it could be lethal, it does break skin and it can kill someone. It was CYA training for LEO's same as anything they use in the line of duty.

I keep my first HD round 00 rubber buck and have for years.

[Navyguy0023]

No offense to the OP but it seems like these non-lethal threads come up pretty often. In the military I have used non-lethal and it has its place, but I cannot for the life of me come up with a good reason I would need to use it as a private citizen. Well maybe one situation where I would use it and that is against malicious neighbors pets, maybe.

[Ballistic043]

first, as an instructor, you should know common sense from common stupidity. why on earth anyone would use a less lethal round for home defense, is beyond me.

first off, you are relying on a less lethal round to kill someone simply because its happened before. in that case lets all throw rocks from now on, because rocks have inevidably killed people some time in history.

are you even thinking about what will happen in court? how you justify using a lethal weapon with less lethal ammo? what if the perp survives? you are screwed in civil court if you do kill him with that stupid stuff. and if you dont, then you may be the one dead because you shot rubber at someone at 1100 fps.


officers are protected from prosecution in some of those circumstances. you, as a civilian are most likely not. tread carefully

[eccvets]

I would only use non-lethals to play airsoft with my friends. In all other cases, if you shoot someone with a non-lethal, you are gonna get sued big time. For me, I use magnum 00 buckshot and/or slugs!

[bigmark408]

BG gets a choke in the chest.

[SMOKEYMOUNTAIN]

I beg to differ.

Whenever a court looks to any affirmative defense regarding a self-defense claim, they look to two elements in order to prove a prima facie defense which shifts the burden of proof back to the plaintiff:

(1) In the totality of the circumstances, was the defendant in reasonable fear of imminent threat of great bodily injury/death or that of a close family member; AND (here's the rub)

(2) Did the defendant, using the reasonable person standard, use proportionate force to neutral the imminent threat?

Therefore, this inquiry directly address the 2nd prong of the CL affirmative defense of self-defense (which applies in CA). Although the Castle Doctrine applies within the home (with the bright light being any external door/window of your house), you will be hard pressed to convince a jury of 12 from complete acquital for blasting an unarmed 15 yr old boy trying to steal some ipods. You obviously won't get M1, but voluntary homicide is not out of the question. And naturally, the civil claim for wrongful death will naturally follow if you kill the perp.

That being said, when you load your first round or two with a non-lethal, you are proving to the courts (and most importantly the jury) that your are a reasonably-minded, responsible citizen that is not looking to vigilante justice, but merely to end threats with the LEAST amount of force.

I've never been shot with a non-lethal, but I'm sure one well placed direct burst to the abdomen/lower body will take out 95% of all perps, giving you the time to rack another round of lethal and call the police. The perp will know you aren't playing games and if he does try and press you, you can unload the lethal on him fully justified.

I understand the HD counter-argument, which is compelling, but having a less legal first option gives you more of an adaptable variety of options and allows you to address a wider myraid of potentially dangerous encounters, MOST of which are NOT life threatening.

My 2 cents.

[Rigma]

Aside from the less-than vs. traditional shot debate...

How likely is the assumption that someone taking a nasty load of rubber 00 will assume that they have just been "shot" in traditional terms and stay down?

I just wonder in the "heat of the moment" if the person getting drilled with a less-lethal round will be inflicted with enough force to go down and have in their mind "oh crap...I'm buggered...am I gonna die?," or will have so much adrenaline pumping that the fight or flight response will be so loud in their brain that they will continue at you, away from you, or whatever their brain happens to be telling them at that moment.

If the less-lethal round incapacitates then I'm all for it. If not, then its a liability. If it's a maybe...that worries me.

[Ballistic043]

pepper spray, bean bag rounds, rubber buckshot, none of them have a 100 percent effectiveness. they work very well, but not always. keep this in mind and ask yourself if you want to gamble with something like your life

[CSACANNONEER]

If you are going to fire a firearm at another human, that would be considered "using deadly force", whether or not you had it loaded with 3.5" slugs, rock salt or confettie. So, is it worth gambling with your life to, maybe save the life of your attacker?

BTW, I don't know anything about "shotties" other than they shoot 6mm plastic BBs and would be considered "less leathal". As far as shotguns go, my regular shotguns fire less leathal rounds without any problems. I have used rubber buckshot to chase off wildlife which was trying to raid chicken coops. The owner did not want the wildlife killed. Of couse, I always had another way of protecting myself when using less leathal rounds.

[cannon]

I beg to differ.

Whenever a court looks to any affirmative defense regarding a self-defense claim, they look to two elements in order to prove a prima facie defense which shifts the burden of proof back to the plaintiff:

(1) In the totality of the circumstances, was the defendant in reasonable fear of imminent threat of great bodily injury/death or that of a close family member; AND (here's the rub)

(2) Did the defendant, using the reasonable person standard, use proportionate force to neutral the imminent threat?

Therefore, this inquiry directly address the 2nd prong of the CL affirmative defense of self-defense (which applies in CA). Although the Castle Doctrine applies within the home (with the bright light being any external door/window of your house), you will be hard pressed to convince a jury of 12 from complete acquital for blasting an unarmed 15 yr old boy trying to steal some ipods. You obviously won't get M1, but voluntary homicide is not out of the question. And naturally, the civil claim for wrongful death will naturally follow if you kill the perp.

That being said, when you load your first round or two with a non-lethal, you are proving to the courts (and most importantly the jury) that your are a reasonably-minded, responsible citizen that is not looking to vigilante justice, but merely to end threats with the LEAST amount of force.

I've never been shot with a non-lethal, but I'm sure one well placed direct burst to the abdomen/lower body will take out 95% of all perps, giving you the time to rack another round of lethal and call the police. The perp will know you aren't playing games and if he does try and press you, you can unload the lethal on him fully justified.

I understand the HD counter-argument, which is compelling, but having a less legal first option gives you more of an adaptable variety of options and allows you to address a wider myraid of potentially dangerous encounters, MOST of which are NOT life threatening.

My 2 cents.

Logical reasoning but don't blow it by saying "shottie" on the witness stand.

[pyromensch]

just an opinion, in any situation where you need to use force, of a weapon to defend you and yours, "less lethal", even though it has the situation to be lethal, will be viewed upon, by the district attorney, and or jury, as an attempt by the homeowner to to render the least possible infliction of injury, to defend yourself, whether or not the perpetrator dies as a result.
and remember, it does not matter whether the perpetrator, lives or dies, as to whether you will be sued, because in all likelyhood, he/she/they will have relatives that will pursue that option