Bean bag or rubber bullet shell?

[inbox485]

a friend back on leave for xmas from cavs got me a box for xmas present... I already have my HD load so I took this stuff to the range and was actually surprised how well it patterned... at 10 yards all 4 projectiles hit chest cavity of zombie target all 25 times. I wouldn't use this stuff to replace the accuracy of the slug, or if I were worried about overpen... but like the box says the 3 buck balls are there as an "aim compensator"
I myself, prefer training - and that's why I use what I use.

I'm sure it varies from batch to batch since the slug itself acts as the spreader for the pellets, but the batch I tried put the three pellets at the edges of the thoracic cavity at 10 yards (IIRC). At any rate, it was quite a bit wider than the buckshot I was shooting the same day. Since the dispersion is predictably triangular, I wouldn't consider it to be an aim compensator the same way a (relatively) wide patterning buckshot load would be. To me at least it seemed like a 1 oz slug with three liabilities stacked on top.

Training aside (which I do agree with BTW) one of the huge advantages of long guns over handguns for HD is how easy it is to aim. Even screwing around shooting one handed un-sighted, I don't have a hard time keeping an entire pattern on a target at 10 yards. Properly mounted, with a flash sight picture, I don't think I've ever missed. When I finally got my wife to take a 20 minute HD SG primmer, she was 5 for 5 hitting the dead center of an 8" plate at 7 yards, and those were the first five buckshot loads she had ever fired. 20 minutes prior she didn't even feel comfortable picking up a shotgun.

I guess in the end, while I have heard entertaining stories about making fight stopping hits at ranges where buckshot has some aim compensation advantage over the rifle, I've never seen a house with those types of ranges, so when I hear of "aim compensation" for HD, I usually think gun shop FUD, and when I see it on packaging, I think mall ninja marketing.

[MasterYong]

In all fairness birdshot covers a wide range. Rem HD is a #2/#4 mix. It would probably do nicely against juice containers. It would probably hurt like a mofo. The wound would be one I wouldn't wish on anybody. It might even result in death at some future point. But like other sub par options, the recipient will either run off screaming ow, ow ow, or get really pissed and beat your face in. If you get really lucky, they will fall over and convince themselves they are dying because they saw it on TV.

That's my point.

I don't see how someone could choose a round (and then recommend it to others) unless they've thoroughly tested it. I prefer HD rounds that fully penetrate, have enough mass to transfer a decent amount of energy, and destroy vital organs / tissue / muscle / tendon and get the job done. If it can do it in one shot, that's even better.

[TheKlawMan]

That's a really good idea KlawMan... so if your guy is coming at you with a knife - then surely you should pull out your kitchen knife and go to work?

no.

the "force" used to stop something that will kill you - is LETHAL force.

you keep using the teen kid as an example - sorry but if there is a teen kid in your house trying to jack your blender, taking a shot at him with a LL round will land you in some serious ****.
conversly, if that kid realizes you saw him, turns around to show you his "glock FoTay" and says "come at me bro" - then you are well justified in putting a slug in his face.

There I agree, that using a rubber munition at close range on a scrawny unarmed kid will "land you in some serious ****". In that situation I would let him take the blender.

But there you go again suggesting that I had suggested it would be a good shoot with LL if the kid was only stealing property. I made it quite clear that I was talking about stopping the kid if he was starting up the stairs towards you and your family, there must be imminent danger.

I also agree if the apparently unarmed kid sudenly pulls a glock that he is going to at least get whatever is in the tube and if was LL it will be immediately followed up with the first out of the mag if there is even the remote chance that I or my family are still at risk (he isn't on the ground gasping for air and the glock hasn't slid across the room). I would shoot in his fact but I think a body shot is more certain.

[Reductio]

Thank you but I don't feel at all demeanded, althought your comment was clearly itended to do just that. In fact, I would love for someone to actually cite some authority to back up their assertions. If you plan on doing that, you may wish to start with explaining away the part of California law limiting one's response to a threat of imminent danger to a "reasonable response".

See http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html and especially where the SHOUSE LAW GROUP opines that "The general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use enough force to combat the force being used against you" and more. "Deadly force . . . may only be justified if you are about to suffer great bodily injury or death and if there is no other alternative.

And with no difference between a 3" slug or rubber buckshot legally, why do you keep insisting that it's somehow less force? Thanks for making the point though....

[John Browning]

Thank you but I don't feel at all demeanded, althought your comment was clearly itended to do just that. In fact, I would love for someone to actually cite some authority to back up their assertions. If you plan on doing that, you may wish to start with explaining away the part of California law limiting one's response to a threat of imminent danger to a "reasonable response".

See http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html and especially where the SHOUSE LAW GROUP opines that "The general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use enough force to combat the force being used against you" and more. "Deadly force . . . may only be justified if you are about to suffer great bodily injury or death and if there is no other alternative.

If you need more, read the jury instructions in the footnnotes around note 18 or so. I suspect many of you have just enough of an understanding of Califonia law in so far as a homeowner is entitled to a presumption of imminent danger should their home be invaded. That presumption is "rebuttable". For example, when you first realized that there was an intruder downstairs was one thing, but if you saw it was the unarmed neighbor kid and if he gave no indication of any violent intent, you can likely kiss the presumption good bye.

Remember, you can only respond with reasonable force and deadly force is not reasonable force if there is another alternative.

By the way, the reference I made to a forest recon sarg wasn't to the intruder but to the home defender. I submit that a jury is going to accept that a 5 foot 70 year old female's resort to deadly force was reasonable before it finds a shooting by Ranbow under otherwise identical circumstances.

Again, your argument contradicts itself and you're confusing the issue.

There is a legal threshold that you have to reach to resort to lethal force, and it is that you must be in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm. If you've taken any kind of CCW course, this is made plainly clear. The major issue surrounds if the fear is "reasonable." If someone is probably going to try and kill/rape you or a loved one, you have hit the threshold for the use of lethal force. Both rubber buck and 00 buck are considered lethal munitions. If you're legally Ok with one, then you're fine with the other. There are no legal benefits to less-lethal, because there is no legal distinction between them and a "normal" round. Once you reach the threshold to use lethal force, it doesn't matter if you use a knife, a gun, or a baseball bat to defend yourself. All that matters is you were in REASONABLE fear for your life or the life of another when you used the tool you had available.

The "forest recon sgt." probably uses rubber buck, but only because I've seen them use it first hand against problem bears.

[John Browning]

That's a really good idea KlawMan... so if your guy is coming at you with a knife - then surely you should pull out your kitchen knife and go to work?

no.

the "force" used to stop something that will kill you - is LETHAL force.

you keep using the teen kid as an example - sorry but if there is a teen kid in your house trying to jack your blender, taking a shot at him with a LL round will land you in some serious ****.
conversly, if that kid realizes you saw him, turns around to show you his "glock FoTay" and says "come at me bro" - then you are well justified in putting a slug in his face.

Actually, if someone has broken into your home while you're in it, that in itself constitutes a situation where you are probably in reasonable fear for your life. One only has to look at the rash popularity of home invasions to see that this is a situation where you're sadly in great danger of death or GBH.

[TheKlawMan]

And with no difference between a 3" slug or rubber buckshot legally, why do you keep insisting that it's somehow less force? Thanks for making the point though....

Support your claim that legally there is no difference between a slug and rubber buckshot. Support doesn't include Perry Mason re runs.

[John Browning]

Support your claim that legally there is no difference between a slug and rubber buckshot. Support doesn't include Perry Mason re runs.

Rubber buckshot can kill you. That is why they call it "less-lethal." You have to presume the worst case when you use it.

If you don't want to listen to reason, stop reading this thread. The people who are trying to point you in the right direction know what they're talking about.

[Mikeb]

Do you believe California law permits the homeowner to use more force than is reasonably needed to eliminate the threat and in the hypothetical just what were the overt acts giving rise to a belief that unarmed Johnny, the kid from up the street, threatened to inflict bodily harm or death? To make the scenario more interesting, assume the homeowner is a fourty year old Forest Recon sargeant standing 6' 3" and weighing 210 pounds with a history of combat experience.

Hypothetical? OK how about Lil' Billy from up the street is 6'3 210 lbs and all his friends are dead or in jail.
Sorry that just makes it more realistic from my point of view, the one I see from my window.

This stuff is not that hard to understand. You can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to you or someone else. If they are, then you can shoot them or throw pillows or jelly beans at them. The opinion here seems to be, if you feel your life is in danger
Shoot
take care
Mike

[Reductio]

Support your claim that legally there is no difference between a slug and rubber buckshot. Support doesn't include Perry Mason re runs.

1. The ONLY situation you are allowed to use a firearm as self-defense in would be a situation in which you are in fear of your life, or the life of others in your home. (PC 198 / 198.5)

2. A firearm is a firearm regardless of what you have loaded in it, or even if it's unloaded.

3. The DA could even argue that your use of rubber buckshot shows that you were NOT in fear of your life, since if you really were, you would have used lead. Charged with attempted murder, brandishing a deadly weapon, etc.

[TheKlawMan]

Once you reach the threshold to use lethal force, it doesn't matter if you use a knife, a gun, or a baseball bat to defend yourself. All that matters is you were in REASONABLE fear for your life or the life of another when you used the tool you had available.[/B]

Please go back and read what you wrote, which essentially is that once the threshold for the use of lethal is reached you can use lethal. As for what constitutes that threshold, I agree with you that it must be an objective reasonable fear. What you are missing is that should a jury not agree that yours or antoher's life was in imminent peril, you are screwed. If the jury believes that it less lethal was all that was needed, you are screwed.

What this presents is a conundrum. If you don't have less than lethal I don't think a jury is going to find your use of buck unreasonable. I have been waiting for any of you to raise the issue but it doesn't seem to have occurred to any. Of course, should you not have access to LL you may not have as great a criminal law problem, but you may have to live with having wasted a kid who turns out to indeed be unarmed. Plus look out for the civil lawsuit.

[inbox485]

Thank you but I don't feel at all demeanded, althought your comment was clearly itended to do just that. In fact, I would love for someone to actually cite some authority to back up their assertions. If you plan on doing that, you may wish to start with explaining away the part of California law limiting one's response to a threat of imminent danger to a "reasonable response".

See http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html and especially where the SHOUSE LAW GROUP opines that "The general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use enough force to combat the force being used against you" and more. "Deadly force . . . may only be justified if you are about to suffer great bodily injury or death and if there is no other alternative.

If you need more, read the jury instructions in the footnnotes around note 18 or so. I suspect many of you have just enough of an understanding of Califonia law in so far as a homeowner is entitled to a presumption of imminent danger should their home be invaded. That presumption is "rebuttable". For example, when you first realized that there was an intruder downstairs was one thing, but if you saw it was the unarmed neighbor kid and if he gave no indication of any violent intent, you can likely kiss the presumption good bye.

Remember, you can only respond with reasonable force and deadly force is not reasonable force if there is another alternative.

By the way, the reference I made to a forest recon sarg wasn't to the intruder but to the home defender. I submit that a jury is going to accept that a 5 foot 70 year old female's resort to deadly force was reasonable before it finds a shooting by Ranbow under otherwise identical circumstances.

I don't have the time or credentials to write a legal paper, but if you do some searching, it comes up often enough with lots of references to law, case law, and court examples. But to summarize, in CA you are justified in using deadly force to stop any felony (where felony has been interpreted in the English Law sense to mean forceful and/or violent felony). In CA, you are presumed to have had a fear of great bodily injury when somebody breaks into your house. That assumption can be overcome by the prosecution if and only if they can prove that you knew that you were not in such danger at the time you took defensive action. That law was written with the intent that you might not be able to freeze time and analyze ever nuance of the situation. Basically if a stranger breaks into your house, you can legally assume the worst until you know otherwise. The 20/20 hindsight analysis doesn't seem to fly in CA courts for HD. Outside the home, you lack the presumption and must prove eligibility for an SD exemption, so that is where all the 20/20 hindsight analysis nightmares come into play.

None of that says you can't or shouldn't take extra precaution in verifying your target before shooting. You have to figure that out for yourself. If you understand how far behind the curve you put yourself by using rubber for your first round up, it is your choice. It does make the front end of the gun "safer", but that can be just as bad as good. Obviously if it comes down to evaluating reasonable use of force against an empty handed assailant, a jury will favor grandma over rambo. But the law is sufficiently in favor of the home dweller that it can't even be a question unless the prosecution can prove that you knew that the assailant was in no position to harm you (think butt naked, empty hands smells like alcohol and passed out on the floor for an example of what it would take to prove something like that). Even if the intruder is empty handed, but could have a concealed weapon, you have the legal protection to assume the worst and act accordingly.

[TheKlawMan]

Hypothetical? OK how about Lil' Billy from up the street is 6'3 210 lbs and all his friends are dead or in jail.
Sorry that just makes it more realistic from my point of view, the one I see from my window.

This stuff is not that hard to understand. You can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to you or someone else. If they are, then you can shoot them or throw pillows or jelly beans at them. The opinion here seems to be, if you feel your life is in danger
Shoot
take care
Mike

You raised a valid point, Mike. The character of the hood is a major factor that a defense attorney should argue to demonstrate that a homeowner reacted reasonably.

[inbox485]

Please go back and read what you wrote, which essentially is that once the threshold for the use of lethal is reached you can use lethal. As for what constitutes that threshold, I agree with you that it must be an objective reasonable fear. What you are missing is that should a jury not agree that yours or antoher's life was in imminent peril, you are screwed. If the jury believes that it less lethal was all that was needed, you are screwed.

What this presents is a conundrum. If you don't have less than lethal I don't think a jury is going to find your use of buck unreasonable. I have been waiting for any of you to raise the issue but it doesn't seem to have occurred to any. Of course, should you not have access to LL you may not have as great a criminal law problem, but you may have to live with having wasted a kid who turns out to indeed be unarmed. Plus look out for the civil lawsuit.

This goes back to the presumption you have under law. If somebody chooses to break into your house while you are home, it isn't exactly a coin toss that they mean you harm. If they just wanted to steal stuff they would do it when the house was empty. And if you end up shooting somebody's choir boy while they were "unarmed" instead of simply getting into a much more proper fist fight with them (during which you just might loose, and die), you might feel bad, or you might just realize that the choice to break into an occupied home wasn't yours. The same "unarmed" kid could also pull and shoot a concealed handgun in about as much time as you could react and shoot back. A stale mate in a gun fight is not a good solution.

[TheKlawMan]

I don't have the time or credentials to write a legal paper, but if you do some searching, it comes up often enough with lots of references to law, case law, and court examples. But to summarize, in CA you are justified in using deadly force to stop any felony (where felony has been interpreted in the English Law sense to mean forceful and/or violent felony). In CA, you are presumed to have had a fear of great bodily injury when somebody breaks into your house. That assumption can be overcome by the prosecution if and only if they can prove that you knew that you were not in such danger at the time you took defensive action. That law was written with the intent that you might not be able to freeze time and analyze ever nuance of the situation. Basically if a stranger breaks into your house, you can legally assume the worst until you know otherwise. The 20/20 hindsight analysis doesn't seem to fly in CA courts for HD. Outside the home, you lack the presumption and must prove eligibility for an SD exemption, so that is where all the 20/20 hindsight analysis nightmares come into play.

None of that says you can't or shouldn't take extra precaution in verifying your target before shooting. You have to figure that out for yourself. If you understand how far behind the curve you put yourself by using rubber for your first round up, it is your choice. It does make the front end of the gun "safer", but that can be just as bad as good. Obviously if it comes down to evaluating reasonable use of force against an empty handed assailant, a jury will favor grandma over rambo. But the law is sufficiently in favor of the home dweller that it can't even be a question unless the prosecution can prove that you knew that the assailant was in no position to harm you (think butt naked, empty hands smells like alcohol and passed out on the floor for an example of what it would take to prove something like that). Even if the intruder is empty handed, but could have a concealed weapon, you have the legal protection to assume the worst and act accordingly.

You don't need to quote cites. My knowledge of crim law is somewhat old, but you seem to know of what you speak and also write quite well. Add to the hypothetical mix, and I suspect you have spent time either answering or asking hypos, that the greiving widow, the mother of poor Johnny, is the sister of an appellate court justice.

As for what the prosecution can prove, I haven't and will not touch on that but in evaluating my comments you should assume that the prosectution can establish all the facts and circumstances of those hypotheticals.