HD use; less lethal options

[Splinter]

I strongly urge anyone here, especially living in california, to seek legal counsel on this matter. This is not an issue of tactical preference/strategies. The only issue that should be examined is the legality of using a firearm with direct intent to inflict non lethal harm. The law is pretty clear on how and when a firearm can be used in defense. Bean bags and rubber bullets are NOT mentioned.

[joedogboy]

@ Splinter -

Nobody who supports the OP's choice in using "less lethal" ammunition has suggested that the legal requirement for the use of a firearm in self defense is different when using a less or more lethal means.
What some have suggested is that it will help to reduce your liability in cases of negligent/unintentional discharge, or if you have neighbors behind walls that are less than bullet-proof.

Generally speaking, if you are justified in shooting, you are justified to fire a .22LR, a .44magnum, a load of 00 buck or a load of rubber buckshot. You are also justified in shooting for center mass, the face, the arms/legs, or the groin. However, just as where you shoot the intruder can make a difference with the jury, what you choose to use may also make a difference. Once you neutralize the threat, and survive the encounter, anything that makes it easier to convince the jury that you are a "good guy" is welcome.

On the other hand, it could be argued that a dead perp is less likely to say anything to dispute your version of events. But keep in mind that there will often be physical evidence that will expose any deception or covering up that you try to do, so maybe their testimony isn't that much of a threat to you, after all.

[subijitsu]

- LL 1'st round is a way of demonstrating to LEOs/a court, I tried not to kill him; I really did want to just stop him to protect myself (definition of self-defence, yeah?). Most courts think if you have a gun in the house, yer lyin' in wait for someone to innocently fall into your trap.

- LL 1'st round may give you an edge in having your weapon(s) confiscated and hauled off to jail (especially if 1 shot made the fiend turn tail or maybe lie on the ground and wait for LEO's). I would think LEO's are more likely to leave you be (for the most part) if they pick up a breathing bad guy or run after him when you point in the direction he ran vs having to call the meat wagon).

Unfortunately, I dont think it works that way. If you shoot someone in the act of self defense you are still shooting someone. The main focus will be on whether the shooting was justified. If the DA finds that the shooting was unjustified it wont really matter if you were shooting 00 buck or jelly beans. I am no lawyer but would hate to see someone rely on this and end up getting thrown in jail or sued by the intruder or both.

- LL 1'st round gives you that potential "mistake forgiveness".

- LL 1'st round gives you the over-penetration advantage (resolve situation in 1 shot and no projectiles leaving the premises).

Both valid reasons that are of course personal preference (as we can see here ).

- LL 1'st round gives you the potential advantage of not having the bad guy bleed out on your carpet ...

Funny, but that is why I have tile. j/k

[ricochet]

The main focus will be on whether the shooting was justified. If the DA finds that the shooting was unjustified it wont really matter if you were shooting 00 buck or jelly beans.

I've edited your text for brevity. Yur right; don't count on it but it could lighten the sentence/punishment.

Re you comment about the tile; LMAO

[ricochet]

@ Splinter -

Nobody who supports the OP's choice in using "less lethal" ammunition has suggested that the legal requirement for the use of a firearm in self defense is different when using a less or more lethal means.
What some have suggested is that it will help to reduce your liability in cases of negligent/unintentional discharge, or if you have neighbors behind walls that are less than bullet-proof.

Generally speaking, if you are justified in shooting, you are justified to fire a .22LR, a .44magnum, a load of 00 buck or a load of rubber buckshot. You are also justified in shooting for center mass, the face, the arms/legs, or the groin. However, just as where you shoot the intruder can make a difference with the jury, what you choose to use may also make a difference. Once you neutralize the threat, and survive the encounter, anything that makes it easier to convince the jury that you are a "good guy" is welcome.

On the other hand, it could be argued that a dead perp is less likely to say anything to dispute your version of events. But keep in mind that there will often be physical evidence that will expose any deception or covering up that you try to do, so maybe their testimony isn't that much of a threat to you, after all.

I like your logic in this thread ...

I yam, I yam a good guy :-)
ric

[Splinter]

@ Splinter -

Nobody who supports the OP's choice in using "less lethal" ammunition has suggested that the legal requirement for the use of a firearm in self defense is different when using a less or more lethal means.
What some have suggested is that it will help to reduce your liability in cases of negligent/unintentional discharge, or if you have neighbors behind walls that are less than bullet-proof.

Generally speaking, if you are justified in shooting, you are justified to fire a .22LR, a .44magnum, a load of 00 buck or a load of rubber buckshot. You are also justified in shooting for center mass, the face, the arms/legs, or the groin. However, just as where you shoot the intruder can make a difference with the jury, what you choose to use may also make a difference. Once you neutralize the threat, and survive the encounter, anything that makes it easier to convince the jury that you are a "good guy" is welcome.

On the other hand, it could be argued that a dead perp is less likely to say anything to dispute your version of events. But keep in mind that there will often be physical evidence that will expose any deception or covering up that you try to do, so maybe their testimony isn't that much of a threat to you, after all.

Im not even going to attempt to address your first paragraph as you clearly did not read the countless post stating exactly the opposite of what you said.

I will repeat my suggestion. You clearly have not spent much time in court. You are welcome to your interpretations and to guess what might happen. Most people, I would hope, want to know what the reality is. You clearly do not know what will happen, as you repeatedly state. You feel that LTL may or may not be viewed favorably. So, clearly, you have no idea. That is why I urge anyone considering the use of a firearm to defend themself or their family to learn the legality and consequences of their actions/methods. You are welcome to risk everything you have on a guess.

[inbox485]

Im not even going to attempt to address your first paragraph as you clearly did not read the countless post stating exactly the opposite of what you said.

I will repeat my suggestion. You clearly have not spent much time in court. You are welcome to your interpretations and to guess what might happen. Most people, I would hope, want to know what the reality is. You clearly do not know what will happen, as you repeatedly state. You feel that LTL may or may not be viewed favorably. So, clearly, you have no idea. That is why I urge anyone considering the use of a firearm to defend themself or their family to learn the legality and consequences of their actions/methods. You are welcome to risk everything you have on a guess.

Any insights you care to share?

[aippi]

If you use that weapon in defense and face a criminal or civil action any attorny who represents you will breath a great sigh of relief when he discovered you first use a LL to try and get this person out of your house. You tried and it failed and you used deadly force. A jury in this case is going to be thinking "what the heck else the man could have done, he tried not to take a life. He bought, trained with and prepared to use this LL munition hoping it was all that was needed. This man is not some gun nut killer".

If you use that weapon, the weapon, the ammo, how many other weapons you have, what they look like, how ofter you use them and every thing else if going to be put out there. I am a criminal defense investigator and work for attornys. I know to what extent they go to. Man, if they are smart they will ask you, under oath about gun clubs, memberships and maybe even gun forums on the net. That shoot them twice and one to head will go over great with a jury if they can find that comment and put it back to you. To win their case they have to paint you as some kind of gun nut killer. Hard to do when you used LL first.

Of course this doesn't matter for the guys that said shoot them twice with a shot gun and then one in head. They may not face criminal charges but civil is a whole new ball game.

What if some one posted on here that Tazers are legal in his state and he prefers to use that. Is he a Dunce, a clown a Marshmellow? I would advise him strongly against it, very strongly, but it is his right. Putting his decision down is not right. It is his decision wrong as it may be and he has to deal with what becomes of it, not me.

[themailman]

NO! You stop the threat and you kill it until you and your family are safe. This is a rediculous thread.

[aippi]

You are right mailman. The only problem is that others are going to decide if this was a threat or an errant percevied threat on your part. We are not talking about using all LL on a threat but as a first round. Everything behind it is lethal. The objective is not to kill but to stop the threat and if it takes three or even more rounds of lethal 00 buck to do that then any of us will do it, we are ready and prepared to do what is necessary. We are not trying to kill, we are defending ourself from a threat to our life or a threat to anothers life. If the perp just happens to die, then it was just not his day.

It is not a rediculous thread. It is a thread about options and how they play out in the real world where mistakes are made, people are charged even when in the right and guys like me can make a quick wrong decision. This is about reality. If you are not concerned about that then don't participate in the thread. Others want to explore all the options that have to do with using firarms in self defense. They are not rediculous, they are being very responsible. It think they are very genuine and are more likely to do the right thing at the right then the "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" crowd.

[rugershooter]

The evaluation of whether to take the second shot is the time to rack the slide & re-acquire the target. If the target doesn't have hands up (surrendering), is not on the ground or is not obviously turning tail (in other words, still a threat); the 2'nd one's a comin'. Remember, I took the 1'st shot when I decided to use lethal force. And, of course, I will be emptying the tube at all zombies and then grabbing my backup weapon.

I was really expecting more meaningful discussion (there have been several) vs the overly opinionated, name calling, bickering few that I've attracted with this post. We're all entitled to our opinions but when someone is "retarded" for not adopting the opinion of someone else, it's pretty immature (why the insults?). And to some; grow a skin and don' be so defensive (no pun intended :-)

For those truly interested in the reasons I'm considering (vs the peanut gallery that wants to pick 'em apart).

- LL 1'st round is a way of demonstrating to LEOs/a court, I tried not to kill him; I really did want to just stop him to protect myself (definition of self-defence, yeah?). Most courts think if you have a gun in the house, yer lyin' in wait for someone to innocently fall into your trap.

- LL 1'st round gives you that potential "mistake forgiveness".

- LL 1'st round gives you the over-penetration advantage (resolve situation in 1 shot and no projectiles leaving the premises).

- LL 1'st round may give you an edge in having your weapon(s) confiscated and hauled off to jail (especially if 1 shot made the fiend turn tail or maybe lie on the ground and wait for LEO's). I would think LEO's are more likely to leave you be (for the most part) if they pick up a breathing bad guy or run after him when you point in the direction he ran vs having to call the meat wagon).

- LL 1'st round gives you the potential advantage of not having the bad guy bleed out on your carpet ...

I'm hearing about synthetic 00 vs. rubber 00. Like a rubber ball, rubber 00 is going to retain energy (to reform and bounce) whereas synthetic will strike and flatten out similar to a spit wad to disperse all energy on the target. Contrary to popular belief, I do want to keep him away from me (no wife or kids in the scenario; I think those variables may require 100% lethal force). I haven't been able to find more info or a manufacture of synthetic 00.

ric

Essentially, you said that once you've decided to shoot, the person would only have the fraction of a second that it takes you to cycle the action to show that he's not a threat anymore. Whether or not your other reasons for using LL are valid, I don't think it would give you that "mistake forgiveness" unless you took more time to evaluate the threat. Otherwise, you'd still be shooting him with lethal 00 buck almost immediately after shooting him with LL.
Basically what I'm getting at is that in order for LL to really give you that "mistake forgiveness", you need to take more time to evaluate the threat before firing live ammo at him. It wouldn't be an issuse with a full mag of live ammo, but that short amount of evaluation time mitigates any "mistake forgiveness" that frontloaded LL rounds would give in that type of a sitution.

[inbox485]

Essentially, you said that once you've decided to shoot, the person would only have the fraction of a second that it takes you to cycle the action to show that he's not a threat anymore. Whether or not your other reasons for using LL are valid, I don't think it would give you that "mistake forgiveness" unless you took more time to evaluate the threat. Otherwise, you'd still be shooting him with lethal 00 buck almost immediately after shooting him with LL.
Basically what I'm getting at is that in order for LL to really give you that "mistake forgiveness", you need to take more time to evaluate the threat before firing live ammo at him. It wouldn't be an issuse with a full mag of live ammo, but that short amount of evaluation time mitigates any "mistake forgiveness" that frontloaded LL rounds would give in that type of a sitution.

My experience with LL ammo is limited to watching videos. I might get some to play around with one day, but for now I'm content with the videos. That said, sometimes it works and the person pretty much instantly doubles over, and sometimes the guy doesn't even flinch. The same way you would see if a lethal shot had effect before you would shoot again, I'd think you could see that difference after a LL round.

[rugershooter]

My experience with LL ammo is limited to watching videos. I might get some to play around with one day, but for now I'm content with the videos. That said, sometimes it works and the person pretty much instantly doubles over, and sometimes the guy doesn't even flinch. The same way you would see if a lethal shot had effect before you would shoot again, I'd think you could see that difference after a LL round.

Which is why it's even more important to make sure the threat is stopped after firing that first LL round. What's the point of using LL for "mistake forgiveness" if you're going to fire a live round at the guy as fast as you can cycle the action? If people want to use LL for home defense, that's perfectly fine; but they should do it right.

[ricochet]

One point to consider. With my nerve/muscle condition, the time to cycle and re-acquire is not the fraction of a second that might be typical (2 or 3 times that). I feel it's long enough to evaluate a threat.

ric

[ZombieTactics]

A few random thoughts in no particular order:
I am always bothered by the notion of "progressive loads" for the simple reason that it assumes something unrealistic... a predictable scenario. I recall that when I was younger this kind of thing appealed to me as being unbelievably enlightened and indicative of a truly superior "tactical mindset", but now it's sort of "meh, that was silly of me".

The idea of something like a beanbag or rubber buck as a "first shot safety" hedge against accidentally shooting the wrong person seems tremendously short-sighted to me now.

If one can reliably predict whats going to happen, and know for a fact that only the first shot was the one that might be in error ... maybe this would make sense. It's just not like that though. "Dynamically Random Crap" happens. The possible scenarios abound, and there are probably as many (maybe more) where you don't want that first round to be LL as there are where you do.

As such, I prefer to load my HD shotgun with a single type of shell and train accordingly.