Bean bag or rubber bullet shell?

[FatalKitty]

For the 4th time you evaded answering how long it takes to top load round. When I was a Marine in Nam we learned to deal with making decisons under extreme stress. As for there being nothing chambered, again take a look at what I wrote. The mag is full and the rack is back. I only have to grab the gun and slide the forestock forward and it is locked and loaded. Only if time permits do I consider using a less lethal. Also I would expect the dog's howling to waken me, not the wife.

actually I answered that in a post you already quoted.
I'm pretty damn good at it myself, could do it very fast, and effective, under stress and blind.
I still don't take that risk by playing games with the live's of loved ones.

you're not doing anything but putting lives at risk by opting to use something you have no experience with

[Cokebottle]

There you go confusing the issue, again. Didn't you already say that there is not such thing as "less than lethal" ammunition but some is merely less lethal. Actually, I believe someone said that if a LEO is armed with a sg it is preferred that his partner backs him up with a rifle in case they encounter someone in body armour. As for what LEOs are doing, I submit that anyone who thinks that they are going to be able to perform as well as a squad of professionals is in lala land, but in this situation I have lethal in the tube ready to go.

Are you sure you aren't talking about backing up a LEO aremed with a sg laoded with nothing buy LL? At the most I am taling about mine being loaded with nothing but lethal, with the possible exceptiion of the first in the tube.

Again, I have told you that I don't even load a less lethal unless the circumstances permit and then the first round out of the magazine will stop them cold if the less lethal doesn't do the trick. Why do you have to twist the facts to make an argument?

I'm not twisting anything to make an argument.

You keep arguing that the best was to approach home defense is with an unloaded (unchambered) shotgun, with an "on the spot" option to go to LL when chambering.

I'm saying that is not going to work in the real world, and even if it does, you are going to be in exactly the same legal position if you shoot someone with LL as you would be if you hit them with a slug.

Either the shoot was good or the shoot wasn't good.
If the shoot was good, the shoot was good.
If the shoot wasn't good, you're looking at either murder or attempted murder no matter what you shot them with.

[TheKlawMan]

I'm not twisting anything to make an argument.

You keep arguing that the best was to approach home defense is with an unloaded (unchambered) shotgun, with an "on the spot" option to go to LL when chambering.

I'm saying that is not going to work in the real world, and even if it does, you are going to be in exactly the same legal position if you shoot someone with LL as you would be if you hit them with a slug.

Either the shoot was good or the shoot wasn't good.
If the shoot was good, the shoot was good.
If the shoot wasn't good, you're looking at either murder or attempted murder no matter what you shot them with.

I think it is time to agree that we disagree.

[Reductio]

I think it is time to agree that we disagree.

Go ahead...

But for everybody else reading this, Cokebottle is 100% right on the assessment of the legalities.

[novalondon]

Here is the true face of all of this ;
Law Enforcement has to up the ante in stages;
verbal commands,chemical or taser,hands on, bean bag or similar if available and then deadly force.
Home defense; Whatever it takes to stop the intruder in order to keep you and yours safe.
In home defense, you are the victim as is your family, overt acts to make you believe you and yours is in danger of bodily harm or death constitutes a overwhelming reply with the highest level of force you can bring to bear.....Deadly Force, straight away shoot to KILL not to injure or to scare.
Police have levels to accend to, (if), pisswads actions allow.
P.O.S.T. firearms instructor and 25 yrs a LEO here now retired.

[Cokebottle]

Here is the true face of all of this ;
Law Enforcement has to up the ante in stages;
verbal commands,chemical or taser,hands on, bean bag or similar if available and then deadly force.
Home defense; Whatever it takes to stop the intruder in order to keep you and yours safe.
In home defense, you are the victim as is your family, overt acts to make you believe you and yours is in danger of bodily harm or death constitutes a overwhelming reply with the highest level of force you can bring to bear.....Deadly Force, straight away shoot to KILL not to injure or to scare.
Police have levels to accend to, (if), pisswads actions allow.
P.O.S.T. firearms instructor and 25 yrs a LEO here now retired.

I agree with everything you said except the bolded red.
Shoot to stop the threat. If the intruder is convulsing on the floor and is no longer a threat, you cannot execute him.

[TheKlawMan]

Here is the true face of all of this ;
Law Enforcement has to up the ante in stages;
verbal commands,chemical or taser,hands on, bean bag or similar if available and then deadly force.
Home defense; Whatever it takes to stop the intruder in order to keep you and yours safe.
In home defense, you are the victim as is your family, overt acts to make you believe you and yours is in danger of bodily harm or death constitutes a overwhelming reply with the highest level of force you can bring to bear.....Deadly Force, straight away shoot to KILL not to injure or to scare.
Police have levels to accend to, (if), pisswads actions allow.
P.O.S.T. firearms instructor and 25 yrs a LEO here now retired.

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.

[John Browning]

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.

This isn't meant to sound demeaning, but it is going to sound that way. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to self-defense in the home and the law. If someone has broken into your home while you're in it, that act in itself leads to you being in reasonable fear for your life. It doesn't matter who has broken in, if it is Johnny down the street, or Yogi the Forest Recon sargeant, whatever that is.

Cokebottle has already laid out the legal realities, so I don't have to go over it again. I just wanted to point out to the others reading this thread that Cokebottle is spot on, and you're playing legal make-believe as you go.

It bottles down to this. If you're legally justified in shooting someone with a bean bag, then you can shoot them with a .22 or a 75mm pack howitzer. There is no situation where you can shoot someone with a less-lethal round where you would not be legally within your rights to shoot them with anything else.

There is a very, very, very narrow set of circumstances that make sense to use a less-lethal round, i.e. you are legally justified in killing someone but morally/ethically don't want to. Anyone who decides to use less-lethal is gambling with their lives and the lives of those they have a duty to protect.

[inbox485]

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.

Yup. It's crap. Re-packaged birdshot. Won't penetrate to recomended levels, but will still penetrate drywall with sufficient force to wound a bystander on the other side. Winchester also has a new mall ninja round in the PDX line. It's a slug and three pellets designed to form a wide useless doughnut pattern. Also crap. Should be called the grandma hunter. Even if the slug hits dead center of mass if you are across a long hallway, the spare pellets have a fair chance of missing.

[MasterYong]

What kind of a nincompoop thinks they should use BIRD SHOT for HD???

I've seen birdshot that wont penetrate one of those "kirkland signature" cranberry juice containers.....

[inbox485]

What kind of a nincompoop thinks they should use BIRD SHOT for HD???

I've seen birdshot that wont penetrate one of those "kirkland signature" cranberry juice containers.....

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.

[Cokebottle]

If you get really lucky, they will fall over and convince themselves they are dying because they saw it on TV.

This.

Men and women survive horrific wounds in combat, yet when someone "goes postal" on an office, you have multiple fatalities.

If someone goes postal in your office, play dead. The shooter will assume that you are. When he has moved on, pack your entry and exit wounds and wait for help.

[FatalKitty]

Yup. It's crap. Re-packaged birdshot. Won't penetrate to recomended levels, but will still penetrate drywall with sufficient force to wound a bystander on the other side. Winchester also has a new mall ninja round in the PDX line. It's a slug and three pellets designed to form a wide useless doughnut pattern. Also crap. Should be called the grandma hunter. Even if the slug hits dead center of mass if you are across a long hallway, the spare pellets have a fair chance of missing.

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.

[TheKlawMan]

This isn't meant to sound demeaning, but it is going to sound that way. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to self-defense in the home and the law. If someone has broken into your home while you're in it, that act in itself leads to you being in reasonable fear for your life. It doesn't matter who has broken in, if it is Johnny down the street, or Yogi the Forest Recon sargeant, whatever that is.

Cokebottle has already laid out the legal realities, so I don't have to go over it again. I just wanted to point out to the others reading this thread that Cokebottle is spot on, and you're playing legal make-believe as you go.

It bottles down to this. If you're legally justified in shooting someone with a bean bag, a .22, or a 75mm pack howitzer, you're good to go.

There is a very, very, very narrow set of circumstances that make sense to use a less-lethal round, i.e. you are legally justified in killing someone but morally/ethically don't want to. Anyone who decides to use less-lethal is gambling with their lives and the lives of those they have a duty to protect.

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.

[FatalKitty]

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.