Close call has me considering "less lethal" ammo (rubber/ bean bag). Please read!!!

[Redsx13]

I have read a few posts about cal gunners general take on "less lethal" ammo. Basically in regards to California law, and a the general statement "never aim at something you don't intend to destroy". but I would like to bring up a scenario that has me considering a "less lethal" ammo option.

A few years back, an intruder broke into my fathers house through a bathroom window. My dad heard the noise and thankfully was able to grab his gun before he encountered the man. The intruder was hopped up on drugs he requested money, drugs, he also said he had a gun (under his coat). He told my dad that he was his spirit.

My father had the intruder at gun point and was fearing for his life. As my dad made his way to the kitchen phone to call the police the unimaginable happened, The man rushed at him. My dad acted quickly, grabbing the kitchen chair with his free hand and shoving it into the mans torso was able to hold it between him and the intruder. When the police arrived, it took all four of them to detain the subject.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there is no set way in which a robbery or break-in could occur. And you won't always know what to do if it happens. My dad is lucky, that chair may have saved his life. Had the man been able to grab my dad in that split second, my dad could have ended up dead. Possibly even by his own firearm. All because my dad had refused to shoot a possible unarmed man with a lethal round.

[Bobula]

Moral of the story is don't grab a tool you're not willing to use. Period.

[ogarcia_02]

If it took 4 people to hold him down why would less lethal rounds be effective. I'm sorry but your dad should have pulled the trigger, the situation could have ended very badly for your father.

[Cpt]

What ever happened to loading with a shotgun with rock salt as the first round, then buck shots. Was this just a movie idea or are there shells loaded with rock salt instead of pellets.

One option is to use a blank as first shot. The discharge of the blank will still hurt if the person at the end of the barrel. Then buck shot. Just my idea.

[eville]

Why risk having the time to make two shots. Use the tool or be a victim.
Judged by 12 or carried by 6? Your choice.

[ogarcia_02]

Why would you waste time with a less than lethal round? Either you need to stop an imminent danger or you don't. Rock salt won't do enough damaged to stop an intruder especially if they are tweeked out. Giving an intruder the benefit of 2 rounds gives then a second chance at getting to you or your loved ones. I doubt the scumbags would give you the same consideration.

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

You're either in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm or injury, or some other person is... or not. "Less lethal" rounds are tools used by trained persons with backup from a firearm equipped cover. Used improperly, they can injure severely or kill. They simply aren't intended for use by a single, unsupported (and most likely untrained) person. Using "less lethal" ammunition against an aggressor in your home is failure, as is rock salt, birdshot, or anything supposedly "less lethal". Either you're justified in using lethal force when you fire a shotgun at a home intruder, or you're not. There's no middle ground, no wiggle room, it's a simple binary decision set.

[kel-tec-innovations]

That was a risky gamble your dad took, I'm glad your dad was fine. Use a Taser or bear spray. Forget less lethal ammo. The time it takes to switch a loaded less lethal pistol to a lethal bullet will get you killed if the suspect was armed.

When I go check noises. I carry a Glock 22 with weapon light and a taser C2 (LED + laser) or bear spray. If the suspect wasn't armed I'd dropped him with a taser, I would avoid using a bear spray or pepper spray indoor as it turns a room unbearable from the fumes.

Switching to a Taser I can still have my hand on my glock 22 ready to shoot if suspect produces a weapon or Taser fails to stop him, happens at low percentage.

The Taser C2 is a 30 second ride, if the suspect doesn't comply give them another 30 seconds. I'm sure the first 30 second he will be begging not to tase him again, if you ever been tased for a few seconds and feels like eternity, imagine 30 seconds f that.

[ElDub1950]

The incident you described exactly explains why less-than-lethal ammo is a bad choice except for LEOs is very special situations.

I can't imagine why this makes you think a non-lethal response would have been better. As you said it took 4 officers to subdue him. Bean bags or rubber bullets would have had zero effect on him and he already announced he had a gun.

You dad was simply lucky he wasn't injured or killed.

[woods]

So your dad violated the rules of home defense and you think less than lethal rounds would have given him common sense that real bullets didn't grant him?

If you want less than lethal get him the sabre defense home kit. A large can of pepper spray mounted by the front door and a pocket size pepper spray got his night stand.

I've used sabre red and it does work on some people but any determined person will still continue on after any thing less than enough blood loss to cause unconsciousness.

That said he should have the gun in the other hand and use it correctly.

[walterwhite]

If you are not seriously ready to use the deadly weapon you have for HD, then the choice of a deadly firearm for HD may not be for you. As pointed out above there are other options.

[drewman]

Moral of the story is don't grab a tool you're not willing to use. Period.

I agree with this statement 100%.

Drew

[Dirtrider....]

Less lethal does not mean zero lethal. still a chance of death to the target of the shot specially at close range i would imagine.

[Laythor]

Your dad is a very lucky man.

I know your father is thankful that he didn't have to take a life but I promise you the bad guy was upset he didn't get to take your dad's life and escape.

[MossbergMan]

Scary story. First, no less lethal in a firearm. Firearm=Deadly Force,period. LE uses less lethal only when they are backed up by.....officer(s) wielding lethal force.

Secondly, your assailant need not be armed to justify the use of deadly force. Disparity of force issues arise here. If the incident happened in CA. P.C. 198.5 applies.

And last but not least, if you arm yourself with a gun you damn well better have your mind wrapped around the idea you will shoot someone to save a life, period.

Just because you shoot an intruder doesn't mean they are going to be killed. Over 70% of gunshot victims survive. Think "Shoot to Stop". If they should expire due to your use of deadly force it's only because you were left with no choice. They pushed over the first domino in this train so to say. I say they "got what they bought", I just did what I had to do.

I'm glad it all worked out for your Dad. He didn't have a big "crime scene" to clean up afterwards, but it could have gone the other way just as easily.

Get some training. Learn the rules of engagement for the use of deadly force in and out of the home. And if you know deep inside you (this goes for everyone) that you can't pull the trigger on a theat, don't have/use a gun. Use something else. This is not an inditement of anyones charater, some have religous or moral apprehension to the possibility of taking a human life, even at the cost of their own and that's fine.