less-lethal ammo

[mossy]

i was looking online today for some good HD ammo for my new 500 HD set up. and clicked on the less-lethal stuff to just see what they had.why is less-lethal so expensive?? its like 2 bucks a shell, 00 and slugs dont even cost half that. how does a few rubber balls and less powder cost more than a full power shell?

[wjc]

No kittens will be harmed.

It's probably the cost of the rubber.

[Mesa Tactical]

Quantity. Far less of it made than normal ammunition, so much smaller production runs.

[KWalkerM]

i kinda want some for bears while camping

[510GUY]

Aim for the legs if you want to be less lethal.

[mossy]

Aim for the legs if you want to be less lethal.

and end up getting hit with a civil suit the size of the golden gate..... no thank you. i am not made of money, if the nice people who make shotgun ammo want me to buy cheap 1oz slugs and 00 buck then that's what i will do.

[aippi]

and end up getting hit with a civil suit the size of the golden gate..... no thank you. i am not made of money, if the nice people who make shotgun ammo want me to buy cheap 1oz slugs and 00 buck then that's what i will do.

What a rediculous statement. We call that stuff "speciality impact munitions" and it is nothing more then that. If you are using it in a defense situation it is the same as striking the threat with a baton.

So you are saying you will be sued from striking someone instead of shooting them with lead. No, you will not be. How does such mess even get started? If you are justified to use lethal force you are justified to use anything up to lethal force.

[mossy]

What a rediculous statement. We call that stuff "speciality impact munitions" and it is nothing more then that. If you are using it in a defense situation it is the same as striking the threat with a baton.

So you are saying you will be sued from striking someone instead of shooting them with lead.

no i am not saying that. 510guy said "aim for the legs if you want to be less lethal" in other words shoot the legs with 00 buck........supposing nothing hits a artery i would be in a mess of legal trouble for purposely shooting someone in the legs not meaning to kill them. my HD set up will not include less lethal rounds , i just wanted to pick up a box because they are sort of cool and a nice conversation piece.

[BigDogatPlay]

In California the standard for a citizen to use lethal force is somewhat different from the standard for a peace officer. The citizen is also not required to make an arrest as a peace officer is, which is what less lethal ammunition is intended for... to take someone into custody in a situation where lethal force is justified but less lethal means may be an alternative.

With the hordes of practicing lawyers we have here, and the wide range of prosecutorial discretion we've seen from county to county, there is a belief that the use of less lethal by a citizen is a criminal charge or a civil tort, or perhaps both, looking for a place to happen... even in what might be otherwise considered a good shoot.

It goes to the notion that peace officers employ less lethal (which has the same standard for use as lethal force) to help make arrests, while if a citizen is discharging a firearm at another person lawfully it is solely to defend their life or the life of another person that is in immediate peril.

And for what it's worth, a baton is a felony in California for a person who is not a peace officer, licensed security guard, military or federal officer. A non-authorized person hits someone with a baton here, and it will almost certainly turn into an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

That's how California is.

[JohnFLand]

There is this Internet meme on gun forums that I find totally silly -- that maiming someone instead of killing them in self defense (or defense of others) is MORE likely to get you sued -- ignoring the fact that the deceased's estate can just as easily sue for wrongful death as a wounded assailant can sue for the injury. The only "justification" I've seen for this notion is that killing leaves one less witness.

[aippi]

I assure you Big Dog that in all 50 states and territories of the United States if you are justified in using deadly force you are then justified in using any force up to deadly force. The Key is justification.

I am a Certified Def-Tech Instructor and certified on Speicalty Impact Munitions and Chemical Munitions. So yes, that qualifies me on this subject. And also makes me what I like to call, well, RIGHT.

[BigDogatPlay]

I assure you Big Dog that in all 50 states and territories of the United States if you are justified in using deadly force you are then justified in using any force up to deadly force. The Key is justification.

I am a Certified Def-Tech Instructor and certified on Speicalty Impact Munitions and Chemical Munitions. So yes, that qualifies me on this subject. And also makes me what I like to call, well, RIGHT.

And from a pure use of force perspective I do not disagree with you at all. I was taught the exact same way in the academy and in service as a peace officer. While my CV is not quite as extensive as yours on point in this area, I remember my training pretty well.

However, California's use of force laws and the case law that lies under them don't have as much in common as might otherwise be thought. And the rules for a citizen here in California are different than those for a peace officer. Let's also remember that when less lethal is deployed by peace officers it is supposed to be backed up right there with lethal force. A citizen does not have that option available to them, so if the less lethal doesn't end the threat what are they supposed to do?

The perception, yet to be fully tested here in California, is that a citizen employing less lethal might find themselves in an unwelcome pickle post incident. I don't necessarily agree with it, but considering how widely the 58 county district attorneys can and do interpret the laws around use of force by citizens, there is a great deal of trepidation about testing it.

[aippi]

Not contesting your rules, laws or anything else about your state.

Read the comment and think about it. IF YOU ARE JUSTIFIED TO USE DEADLY FORCE THEN YOU ARE JUSTIFIED TO USE ANYTHING UP TO DEADLY FORCE. If you are justified to blow a hole in a mans chest that you can almost put your fist in then you would have also been justified to have done less then that.

My post is not about whether to use specialty impact munitions it is about the ridiculous statement that you are going to be sued for that instead of killing the person.

If the munition is legal in your state then how can you be sued for using it instead of lead? What a nonsensical bunch of mess this is when people (not you dog) spread this stuff as a fact, yet can not give a single, not one, not one case of a persons being sued for using less then deadly force when the facts justified the use of deadly force.

People don't even stop and think about the mess they post. They just repeat some mess they read some where or heard from some Delta Farce Tactical Ninja Instructor in some fool course they took.

[cgates]

Well this thread got off topic rather quickly

yep, the rubber stuff is expensive for sure! Small production runs drive the price, as well as the "specialty" factor.

Since we are waaay off topic here - does anyone happen to have a case where someone used rubber balls in a defense situation which he/she could have very well used "more lethal" ammo, and got sued (and lost) for what would have otherwise been a "clean" shoot resulting in a dead bad guy?

[Quiet]

Why is less-lethal ammo more expensive?

Because, it is a specialty item that is uncommon and for a niche market.



Side note:
In CA, discharging a firearm is considered deadly force.
Does not matter what type of ammo is being shot, the same standard applies to determine when shooting another person it legal.