Bean bag or rubber bullet shell?

[John Browning]

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.

There is no conundrum in reality. The only conundrum here seems to be between your attempts to validate your opinion and that reality.

This honestly couldn't be any more simple. If you are in a reasonable fear for your life or the lives of others, you can use lethal force. Both a LL and buckshot round are lethal force. If you shoot someone without a reasonable fear, then you are screwed. Nobody here has ever said anything different.

In fact, I think that using a LL round actually works against you in mindset. Someone will most certainly be more likely to use a LL round than buckshot, because just as you were confused, they have trouble understanding that it is less-lethal force. It is still lethal force, and still needs the same threshold as anything else you can shoot out of a gun.

In summary:

- There are no discernible legal advantages to LL rounds.
- The benefits of LL rounds underpenetrating come with overwhelming tactical disadvantages.
- The only discernable benefit to LL is that you can use it in a situation where you are justified in using lethal force, but are morally/ethically unable to do so.

If you find yourself in the third situation, I think you should think long and hard about using a firearm for self defense. A firearm, in a life and death situation, becomes a tremendous liability if you are not able or willing to use it when it becomes clear you have no other reasonable alternatives.

[TheKlawMan]

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.

No where or way did I advocate getting into a wrestling match. Even Ranbow can unexpectedly take to the gut a knife that comes out of nowhere. Time and agian I have said my personal decision is to remain at the top of the stairs and shoot if the intruder approaches the bottom of the stair case. The only issue is whether or not to use LL.

[inbox485]

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.

No not really. I've dealt with lethal assaults with less lethal means. It doesn't mean that I wasn't in peril of life or limb. It just meant that I felt confident in dealing with it without involving the coroner. Using LL ammo does show a measure of restraint especially since you could have ejected it if you felt the circumstances exceed the use of LL ammo.

My first detraction from it is if somebody really breaks in and goes strait for you that LL round might cost you your life. Not worth it to me. My other detraction from it is that if I had an LL round, and the circumstances became clear that LL was a fools errand, ejecting that round could be used as evidence that I had plenty of time to ponder the situation, and choose lethal force even though the choir boy clearly had no intention to actually shoot me. LL ammo has redeeming qualities for HD. I just think the shortcomings out weigh the benefits.

[TheKlawMan]

No not really. I've dealt with lethal assaults with less lethal means. It doesn't mean that I wasn't in peril of life or limb. It just meant that I felt confident in dealing with it without involving the coroner. Using LL ammo does show a measure of restraint especially since you could have ejected it if you felt the circumstances exceed the use of LL ammo.

My first detraction from it is if somebody really breaks in and goes strait for you that LL round might cost you your life. Not worth it to me. My other detraction from it is that if I had an LL round, and the circumstances became clear that LL was a fools errand, ejecting that round could be used as evidence that I had plenty of time to ponder the situation, and choose lethal force even though the choir boy clearly had no intention to actually shoot me. LL ammo has redeeming qualities for HD. I just think the shortcomings out weigh the benefits.

I just saw this and it only confirms what I thought from a quick read of your other post; you not only have a good grasp of the law but utilize good sense.

[inbox485]

No where or way did I advocate getting into a wrestling match. Even Ranbow can unexpectedly take to the gut a knife that comes out of nowhere. Time and agian I have said my personal decision is to remain at the top of the stairs and shoot if the intruder approaches the bottom of the stair case. The only issue is whether or not to use LL.

Sorry if I put words in your mouth. Wasn't my intent. Consider then two scenarios. They both start with noises indicative of a forceful break in. For reasons that are your own, you take a defensive position at the top of your stairs and draw a mental line in the sand at the bottom of the stairs. (I don't know your house or circumstances, so we'll collectively just assume this is the best possible solution for you). (I also don't know what your visibility from the stair case is, but I'll just assume it is limited.

1a - juvenile approaches the the bottom of the stair case. His hands are outstretched and empty and he starts coming up. You have LL ammo and take the first shot strait in the gut. Juvenile grits his teeth and continues. Do you take a second lethal shot?

1b - you only have buckshot, and you yell a verbal warning. it is ignored. When do you shoot?

2 - juvenile approaches the stair case. At first visibility he has a gun in hand and starts shooting. Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of those you may be protecting on pain compliance? Can you afford the delay in response time to get the lethal round in the chamber and fire if pain compliance fails?

To me the sacrifice I'm willing to make for the sake of certainty, is I won't keep an HD firearm without a light, and I will verify the target before putting my finger on the trigger. I know that is slower than shooting into the shadows and pinning down noises like clay pigeons, but I accept that. That is as far as I will go. Once I have verified a target wasting the time to see if pain compliance is good enough just doesn't cut it for me since I don't know ahead of time if the guy will round a corner to charge or to simply start shooting.

Think about how the police use LL ammo. It is never pre-loaded into duty weapons. Most departments explicitly forbid it ever being in a duty weapon. When a range limited threat is non-compliant, they get a designated LL deployment device, and with lethal backup, they approach, verbally challenge and then take the shot if needed. They also use it for general riot control. I've never seen it used for any other purpose.

[eccvets]

No not really. I've dealt with lethal assaults with less lethal means.

you just got lucky plain and simple. not everyone can play ninja and get out of it without a scratch in real life. Internet ninjas need not apply!@!@!


I mean I can say I took out 6 muggers with a basketball and my shoe and then I jumped across a lake of alligators to save this chick and that would be the same as you saying I've dealt with lethal assaults with less lethal means.

[inbox485]

you just got lucky plain and simple. not everyone can play ninja and get out of it without a scratch in real life. Internet ninjas need not apply!@!@!


I mean I can say I took out 6 muggers with a basketball and my shoe and then I jumped across a lake of alligators to save this chick and that would be the same as you saying I've dealt with lethal assaults with less lethal means.

It wasn't luck, and I'm not a ninja. Long story so I see no reason for the details. I read the situation and while failure to handle it adequately would cost me, I felt I could deal with it reasonably without resorting to lethal force myself. It was a moral decision I made for myself. Had I felt otherwise, I had lethal force, and while the aftermath may have been a bit more complicated than a 30 second field interview that didn't even include my name, I doubt I would have had significant legal troubles had I decided otherwise.

Internet armchair quarterbacks need not apply...

[TheKlawMan]

Sorry if I put words in your mouth. Wasn't my intent. Consider then two scenarios. They both start with noises indicative of a forceful break in. For reasons that are your own, you take a defensive position at the top of your stairs and draw a mental line in the sand at the bottom of the stairs. (I don't know your house or circumstances, so we'll collectively just assume this is the best possible solution for you). (I also don't know what your visibility from the stair case is, but I'll just assume it is limited.

1a - juvenile approaches the the bottom of the stair case. His hands are outstretched and empty and he starts coming up. You have LL ammo and take the first shot strait in the gut. Juvenile grits his teeth and continues. Do you take a second lethal shot?

1b - you only have buckshot, and you yell a verbal warning. it is ignored. When do you shoot?

2 - juvenile approaches the stair case. At first visibility he has a gun in hand and starts shooting. Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of those you may be protecting on pain compliance? Can you afford the delay in response time to get the lethal round in the chamber and fire if pain compliance fails?

To me the sacrifice I'm willing to make for the sake of certainty, is I won't keep an HD firearm without a light, and I will verify the target before putting my finger on the trigger. I know that is slower than shooting into the shadows and pinning down noises like clay pigeons, but I accept that. That is as far as I will go. Once I have verified a target wasting the time to see if pain compliance is good enough just doesn't cut it for me since I don't know ahead of time if the guy will round a corner to charge or to simply start shooting.

Think about how the police use LL ammo. It is never pre-loaded into duty weapons. Most departments explicitly forbid it ever being in a duty weapon. When a range limited threat is non-compliant, they get a designated LL deployment device, and with lethal backup, they approach, verbally challenge and then take the shot if needed. They also use it for general riot control. I've never seen it used for any other purpose.

No problem.

You will note that I don't suggest loading an LL until you determine it is appropriate. Unless I am convinced that the "choir boy" is unarmed, it never gets loaded. I load it only if time permits and then just before firing. If I am not certain he is unarmed, I am chambering buck. The racking of that round is all the warning they are going to get

1a. The lethal is on its way as soon as I see the juvenile hasn't stopped. The fact that he continues to advance suggest he is loaded on something and is intent on getting at me or my family.

1b. I shoot immediately.

2a. I see a gun and I pull the trigger.

I also advocate weapon lights. That and I am setting my home up with a few remotes designed to flood areas of the downstairs while keeping my postion on the landing in darkness.

All I am saying is the less lethal is an option to use in special select circumstances

[inbox485]

No problem.

You will note that I don't suggest loading an LL until you determine it is appropriate. Unless I am convinced that the "choir boy" is unarmed, it never gets loaded. I load it only if time permits and then just before firing. If I am not certain he is unarmed, I am chambering buck. The racking of that round is all the warning they are going to get

All I am saying is the less lethal is an option to use in special select circumstances

If you have some means of keeping it handy, I can't see it hurting anything. If you were asked why you choose not to use it, you could say for the same reason you didn't use your shoe - it didn't seem appropriate. I can't envision how in my home I would find a use for the stuff. If I ever have to deal with a riot, I could see wanting to have some handy. Some people have either advocated / suggested or asked about front loading the first one or two rounds with LL. That is where I would disagree. I also don't believe in racking, but that is another thread entirely.

[FatalKitty]

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.

While this may be true and what many believe - I will not be killing any random person entering my home. if I see them first then I have an advantage - I have retreated to my bedroom with my woman behind him, her dialing 911 and myself with a shotgun and her with the XD9mm - if anyone then comes in the door then they are dead - if they leave with all of my stuff... good for them.

[TheKlawMan]

Forget Less Lethal

After considering what everyone had to say, especially comments by inbox48, and doing some research on less lethal munitions, I concluded not to use less lethal. My decision has nothing to do with any reassesment of California law, which I had correct all the time. More of a risk benfits analysis.

[Cokebottle]

While this may be true and what many believe - I will not be killing any random person entering my home. if I see them first then I have an advantage - I have retreated to my bedroom with my woman behind him, her dialing 911 and myself with a shotgun and her with the XD9mm - if anyone then comes in the door then they are dead - if they leave with all of my stuff... good for them.

Ya, that option is going to depend on the layout of the house.

In my case, allowing the intruder to get to the top of the stairs could put him in any of a number of "less safe" directions to shoot... including through my closet into the back bedroom (which is currently vacant), or across the landing, and over the roof of the unit next to me and directly into the living room of the unit across from that unit.

A buddy has a similar situation (but a much larger house). Allowing an intruder to move more than halfway up the stairs would put him in a position that, from his bedroom, he would be shooting toward his kids' bedrooms. His only option would be to retreat to halfway down the hallway, which puts him in a fatal funnel with no cover.

[FatalKitty]

Ya, that option is going to depend on the layout of the house.

In my case, allowing the intruder to get to the top of the stairs could put him in any of a number of "less safe" directions to shoot... including through my closet into the back bedroom (which is currently vacant), or across the landing, and over the roof of the unit next to me and directly into the living room of the unit across from that unit.

A buddy has a similar situation (but a much larger house). Allowing an intruder to move more than halfway up the stairs would put him in a position that, from his bedroom, he would be shooting toward his kids' bedrooms. His only option would be to retreat to halfway down the hallway, which puts him in a fatal funnel with no cover.

this is why everyone shoot look at their house and needs before deciding on a plan of action.

[pyromensch]

Originally Posted by pyromensch
just going to play "devil's advocate". given the above statement is true, what would a jury of your peers, think, if you used "less than lethal" ammo, in a situation, and the intruder died?

and remember, all the "simple" rules go out the window, in california

There's no such thing as less-than-lethal ammo: it's less-lethal ammo because it CAN kill, hence why discharging a firearm in self-defense needs to meet reasonable fear regardless of what ammo is in the gun.

That said, it may buy you brownie points with a civil jury, though I wouldn't bet on it.

sorry, i mis-stated the ammunition.
however, in a criminal case, if the DA decides to pursue it against you, forensics will be able to figure out every aspect of the situation, including what you had for dinner, and if you were justified in discharging a firearm in self defense. and personally, i would take your "brownie points" any day, because no matter what the outcome of a criminal case, (if it happens), there will surely be a civil case.

as to another comment, one shot of LL ammo, will cause the attacked to "pause", or delay, for a longer period of time, than it would to rack another round of lethal ammo, and be ready to fire. from the top, to the bottom of a staircase, (let's say 21 ft), the subject getting hit in the gut, is not going to just clench his teeth, and keep coming, without reaccessing his/her decision.

[slider76]

For those of us not in law enforcement, bean bags are for sitting (if they're big) or hacky sacking (if we're hippies), not for deadly force encounters. If you deploy a firearm, it is a deadly force encounter.

It's always important to remind ourselves that the hard part of the fight starts after the smoke clears (if we're still around, that is).