Bean bag or rubber bullet shell?

[BC9696]

The Border Patrol was given orders to use non-lethal ammunition as their first round...it cost agents their lives. The bad guys didn't reciprocate, they used lead and the BP officers died.

For me, live ammo is the choice for protection of my family. If there are multiple perps in my home and one of em gets his head blown off...the others will probably flee as fast as they can but if they see their buddy knocked down by a beanbag I figure they'll think, "Game on!" I won't risk the lives my my family in this manner but that's just me. I fault nobody for abiding by their own personal code. I hope you never need to fire anything in a home defense situation.

[CSACANNONEER]

Is storing a sg with a round chambered a good idea, even it the safety is on?

While I'm home, I keep a few shotguns out of the safe with a round in the chamber and, I don't believe in mechanical safeties. So, one in the chamber without any safty on except the one between my ears.

[Cokebottle]

As for breaking down doors, you are talking about something very different than hd. Just remember the test is are you in "reasonable" fear of "imminent" danger and that depends on circumstances.

That fear is assumed when there has been forcible entry into your home.
Is it a "get out of jail free" card? Of course not.
Is it a legitimate criminal defense? Yes, it is.

If the BG is just across a 14 foot room, he is likely in the Zone.

If he is within 20-30ft, he is in "the zone."

If it is a skinny kid who is well lit up and obvioulsly is unarmed,

And how is one supposed to know that he is unarmed?
How is one supposed to know that his intentions are not to commit bodily harm?

If I'm at the top of the stairs with a 12ga, and he is moving in my direction, no reasonable person would believe that he is there to sell boy scout cookies.
He is going to be stopped from moving any closer to my wife, by whatever means I have available.

[TheKlawMan]

That fear is assumed when there has been forcible entry into your home.
Is it a "get out of jail free" card? Of course not.
Is it a legitimate criminal defense? Yes, it is.

If he is within 20-30ft, he is in "the zone."

And how is one supposed to know that he is unarmed?
How is one supposed to know that his intentions are not to commit bodily harm?

If I'm at the top of the stairs with a 12ga, and he is moving in my direction, no reasonable person would believe that he is there to sell boy scout cookies.
He is going to be stopped from moving any closer to my wife, by whatever means I have available.

There is no point in arguing this. For a crim law attorney's view on the issue, see http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html . I cannot say if that article is correct or not, in whole or part.

The key is not what you believed but if the objective person would reasonably have believed there was an imminent threat that they or antoher would be harmed and if they responded with reasonable force.

I submit that if one were awakened by a noise downstairs in the middle of the night and they took their sg with them to investigate, but it was cleat that a skinny kid was on his way out the door with their TV, they are in big trouble if they fire on the bg. Why? While it is a question of fact a prosecutor has a strong chance of convincing a jury that you were not in imminent peril.

If the kid having heard you on the landing was to however drop the TV and pull what appeared to be a gun, that is a different story. If he pulls a knife and it was clearly a knive, that is another. If it is too dark to tell, the scenario changes.

Should your first shot be a less lethal munition, your response will seem more reasonable even if you have to follow up with buck.

But let's say charges are dropped or you are found not guilty. Good luck with the attorney's bills. Then you get to defend the civil suit.

We all have to decide how to act in such a difficult situation and I am not saying any of you are choosing the wrong path. Me, I will take the time to id the bg and am thinking about making the initial shot rubber. Probably load the mag so that the first two into the tube are #4 and the last 4 are double ought. which leaves me the option of top loading a less lethal, a #4, or a double ought.

[agent.5]

The answer is that you really do not know for sure if the skinny kid has a gun. But I can promise you that it will cost you well over 35K or more in major cities to defend yourself if a DA decides to prosecute you. So, while you may sound tough to shoot first and ask questions later, you better back that with a big checking account.

[FatalKitty]

There is no point in arguing this. For a crim law attorney's view on the issue, see http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html . I cannot say if that article is correct or not, in whole or part.

The key is not what you believed but if the objective person would reasonably have believed there was an imminent threat that they or antoher would be harmed and if they responded with reasonable force.

I submit that if one were awakened by a noise downstairs in the middle of the night and they took their sg with them to investigate, but it was cleat that a skinny kid was on his way out the door with their TV, they are in big trouble if they fire on the bg. Why? While it is a question of fact a prosecutor has a strong chance of convincing a jury that you were not in imminent peril.

If the kid having heard you on the landing was to however drop the TV and pull what appeared to be a gun, that is a different story. If he pulls a knife and it was clearly a knive, that is another. If it is too dark to tell, the scenario changes.

Should your first shot be a less lethal munition, your response will seem more reasonable even if you have to follow up with buck.

But let's say charges are dropped or you are found not guilty. Good luck with the attorney's bills. Then you get to defend the civil suit.

We all have to decide how to act in such a difficult situation and I am not saying any of you are choosing the wrong path. Me, I will take the time to id the bg and am thinking about making the initial shot rubber. Probably load the mag so that the first two into the tube are #4 and the last 4 are double ought. which leaves me the option of top loading a less lethal, a #4, or a double ought.

You have a tube mag full of ammo that will come into the chamber at increasing levels of lethality - what do you do when an imminent threat appears? remember, but you're own words - you must be in fear of imminent danger of life/limb - so what do you do, tell the BG to hold on a sec while you rack your shotgun 3 or 4 times with your finger off the trigger to activate the slidelock? or do you just start pumping lead into the guy hoping your first rounds do enough damage to stop him from firing back at you, moving, or coming into contact with you long enough to end up shooting him with something that will save your life?

seriously, whoever told you to do this is retarded - if you've got a shotgun for home defense and it's your GO TO weapon in case you're seriously ****ed with no way out... then it better be full of something that will save your life.

people get all confused with so many options for ammo type that the shotgun is capable of - when a handgun/rifle serves as a great self defense tool... why overthink it? use something that you KNOW will work

[Cokebottle]

The key is not what you believed but if the objective person would reasonably have believed there was an imminent threat that they or antoher would be harmed and if they responded with reasonable force.

"Reasonable force" = "Stop the threat"

I submit that if one were awakened by a noise downstairs in the middle of the night and they took their sg with them to investigate, but it was cleat that a skinny kid was on his way out the door with their TV, they are in big trouble if they fire on the bg.

Of course. This is California and our Castle Doctrine does not allow us to use deadly force to protect property (in Texas, it does).

If the kid having heard you on the landing was to however drop the TV and pull what appeared to be a gun, that is a different story. If he pulls a knife and it was clearly a knive, that is another. If it is too dark to tell, the scenario changes.

Doesn't matter whether he pulls a knife or not.
If he is moving toward me, he will not be allowed to get within 10ft of me.

Should your first shot be a less lethal munition, your response will seem more reasonable even if you have to follow up with buck.

Doubtful.

Probably load the mag so that the first two into the tube are #4 and the last 4 are double ought. which leaves me the option of top loading a less lethal, a #4, or a double ought.

You won't have the time to make that decision and take that action.
If you take the time to make that decision, you will be the one being carried out in a body bag.

[eccvets]

You are right cowboy. Just surround your house with claymores and spring guns, don't waste a split second identifying your target, but execute anyone so foolish as to enter your home uninvited. Then explain to a jury, perhaps a criminal jury and a civil one, how you were in "imminent" danger of death or great bodily harm from the unarmed 122 pound son of the widow women living down the block, you were in imminent danger all the time he was never nearer to you than seven feet from the bottom of the stairs and you remained behind partial cover on the upstairs landing.

if ya break in to my house, you pays your monies and you takes your chances. I say good luck cuz I got 3 slugs with 6 00buck mag shots behind it which are comming at you asap! I'd rather be tried by 12 rather then carried by 6. You can do what you want and remember to have that great dirt nap when your wrong...

[TheKlawMan]

That fear is assumed when there has been forcible entry into your home.
Is it a "get out of jail free" card? Of course not.
Is it a legitimate criminal defense? Yes, it is.

Try a hypothetical. You, a combat veteran, load up the family car with camping gear for a hour, but at the last minure you stay behind. It appearing that the house is empty, little Johnnie 12 year old breaks in via a window in the middle of the night. Hearing the sound of glass breaking you grab your 500 and stealthily go to the top of the landing. Even in ambient light, you recognize little Johnnie carrying the TV toward the window where he begins to pile up treasure. He is clearly alone and there is no sign of him having any kind of a weapon. Do you seriously think either a judge or a jury is going to find you had reasonable grounds to fear that your person was in imminent danger or, if they so find, that it was reasonable to blast the back of Johnnies head off? Could you have remained safe at the top of the stairs and called 911? If he began to take a step onto the bottom of the stairs, and now you have no doubt he is both alone and unarmed, do you blast away?

And how is one supposed to know that he is unarmed? How is one supposed to know that his intentions are not to commit bodily harm?

You have things backwards. You need reasons to believe they are armed and intend to injure you per the objcetive test. In the above hypo do you seriously think the trier of fact and law will find that you the hyptohetical reasonable person would have believed they risk of imminent hark was there so as to justify taking Johnie's life?

If I'm at the top of the stairs with a 12ga, and he is moving in my direction, no reasonable person would believe that he is there to sell boy scout cookies.
He is going to be stopped from moving any closer to my wife, by whatever means I have available.

Change the hypo to where your wife also stayed home and the kids went camping with Uncle Ed and Aunt Nellie. It isn't enough that he isn't there selling boy scout cookies. Why was it necessary to fire to stop Johnnie when he was at the foot of the stairs, you saw nothing to suggest he was armed, and had yet to evidence any intention of doing anything but robbing you?

"Reasonable force" = "Stop the threat"

It is what is reasonably needed to stop the threat.

Of course. This is California and our Castle Doctrine does not allow us to use deadly force to protect property (in Texas, it does).

Yes. You have to deal with California law if you kill someone in California, but set the law aside. At what point is taking a life justified in order to protect property. An apple from a lunch pail? A $30 watch? $600 camera. A new Porsche? I don't know what the law is, but at some point could the loss of property be so devastating so as to warrant the taking of a life. For example, the theft of a horse and water in areas of the old west placed a man's life in serious danger.

Doesn't matter whether he pulls a knife or not.
If he is moving toward me, he will not be allowed to get within 10ft of me.

No one is suggesting that youu should allow him to get withing 10 feet, but if you could stop him without the use of deadly force before then you had best use it if circumstances permit. If he keeps coming, that in itself suggests he is intent on wreaking bodily harm.

Doubtful.

You have a piss poor attorney if they can't convince the trier of fact that you attempted, by using less lethal ammo, to only use the minimal force reasonably needed to protect from imminent peril.

You won't have the time to make that decision and take that action.
If you take the time to make that decision, you will be the one being carried out in a body bag.

How the heck do you know if I am going to have a split second or several minutes to make that decision and just how long do you think it takes to top load a round?

[FatalKitty]

How the heck do you know if I am going to have a split second or several minutes to make that decision and just how long do you think it takes to top load a round?

if you have time to load your weapon with something lethal, then your life wasn't in danger.
if it was in fact in danger, and all you had was less lethal - we'll you're screwed

[TWoods450]

anyone looked into this stuff.

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/shotshells/home-defense/home-defense-loads.aspx

with that being said in my shotgun is loaded some remington #1 buckshot.

[TheKlawMan]

if you have time to load your weapon with something lethal, then your life wasn't in danger.
if it was in fact in danger, and all you had was less lethal - we'll you're screwed

That is a crock and you know it. Try answering the question, which was how long does it take to top load a round, when the mag is already loaded with lethal. (I keep my 870 with the forearm aft so that I can drop a round in directly through the open ejuction port. All I have to do to fire is slide the forend forward and squeeze the trigger. If that doesn't do the job I have 6 more lethal rounds in the magazine.)

[FatalKitty]

That is a crock and you know it. Try answering the question, which was how long does it take to top load a round, when the mag is already loaded with lethal. (I keep my 870 with the forearm aft so that I can drop a round in directly through the open ejuction port. All I have to do to fire is slide the forend forward and squeeze the trigger. If that doesn't do the job I have 6 more lethal rounds in the magazine.)

I can go from cruiser safe to slug changeover and shot on target at 50 yards in less than the time it'll take you to **** your pants... that's not the point.
when there is someone that is trying to hurt you (running at you with a knife, or pointing a gun at you)
you will NOT be able to do what you need to do. i don't care how many times you've done this in your bedroom as practice.

if you've got lethal ammo in the gun already, why the **** are you going to take the time to put a LESS lethal round in there, when you KNOW that the only reason you are firing that gun is to save your own life.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD
less lethal is for TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS - not armchair commandos who think their house is a fortress.

I've kicked down many doors where the people inside thought they had their **** together and they did not, and they had ammo in the chamber with my name on it.

[Twoodland]

It disgusts me that there has to be a huge on going discussion as to how to "get away" with defending yourself.

[Cokebottle]

He is clearly alone and there is no sign of him having any kind of a weapon. Do you seriously think either a judge or a jury is going to find you had reasonable grounds to fear that your person was in imminent danger or, if they so find, that it was reasonable to blast the back of Johnnies head off? Could you have remained safe at the top of the stairs and called 911?

As I mentioned before, we cannot use deadly force to protect property. You keep bringing this up, and I (nor anybody else) is claiming this.

If he began to take a step onto the bottom of the stairs, and now you have no doubt he is both alone and unarmed, do you blast away?

I don't know that he is unarmed, regardless of the lighting.

You have things backwards. You need reasons to believe they are armed and intend to injure you per the objcetive test. In the above hypo do you seriously think the trier of fact and law will find that you the hyptohetical reasonable person would have believed they risk of imminent hark was there so as to justify taking Johnie's life?

If there has been forcible entry, it is assumed that you are in fear for your life.

You do not ONLY have to be in fear that the intruder will kill you, you may also be in fear of great bodily harm.

But in the situation that you describe, I would likely be proned out at the top of the stairs, so I have a reasonable amount of cover.
I would likely provide one verbal warning. If the intruder continues to move up the stairs, he's going to get shot.

We have no duty to retreat when within our own home.

Change the hypo to where your wife also stayed home and the kids went camping with Uncle Ed and Aunt Nellie. It isn't enough that he isn't there selling boy scout cookies. Why was it necessary to fire to stop Johnnie when he was at the foot of the stairs, you saw nothing to suggest he was armed, and had yet to evidence any intention of doing anything but robbing you?

If he is moving toward me/us, and he is an intruder, I am not going to take any chances with my life or the life of my wife.
Our lives ARE worth more than that of some punk that has broken into my home.

It is what is reasonably needed to stop the threat.

Absolutely.

At what point is taking a life justified in order to protect property.

Never. And I have never said that it is.

You are the one that keeps bringing this up. It is not even a part of the discussion.

The discussion is whether the use of "less than lethal" ammunition is a good idea, and it is not. If a shooting is justified, whether using a bean bag, or a .50BMG, the shooting is justified, and if the intruder dies, it is justifiable homicide. If the shooting is not justified, it doesn't matter whether you shot him with a .50BMG or a .17 pellet gun. You are going to have some legal problems.

How the heck do you know if I am going to have a split second or several minutes to make that decision and just how long do you think it takes to top load a round?

Have you ever been in that situation?

Educate yourself and seek out and learn from those who have.
This isn't TV, and you won't have "several minutes."
If you have "several minutes," then most likely a shooting is not justified.

What it boils down to is that "less than lethal" can still be lethal. It can still kill. Discharge of "less than lethal" is going to be treated by the criminal and civil system no differently than conventional ammunition.