Anyone use less than lethal ammo? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Anyone use less than lethal ammo?


wrx04
12-04-2010, 20:03
I can think of a couple pros and cons to LTL ammo in a HD shotgun. Just wanted to know what you guys think. After much thought, i think good old 00 Buck is the way to go, but i may be wrong. What do you think?

FTR, the only good reasons i can think of for LTL ammo are:
1. You can come out shooting at ANY threat, no matter what, and be justified since it likely won't kill. (even if its drunk kids trying to steal something).

2. It "looks good" in court if your first round is LTL, since you gave a them a "chance"

3. LTL rounds could still be deadly at HD range but makes you "look better" in court

4. They are a poor excuse and give the bad guy a chance of killing you first....you should have come out full force when you had the chance. Your life and the life of your family depend on it. 00 Buck from the start....period.

What do you think?

CAcop
12-04-2010, 22:28
I can think of a couple pros and cons to LTL ammo in a HD shotgun. Just wanted to know what you guys think. After much thought, i think good old 00 Buck is the way to go, but i may be wrong. What do you think?

FTR, the only good reasons i can think of for LTL ammo are:
1. You can come out shooting at ANY threat, no matter what, and be justified since it likely won't kill. (even if its drunk kids trying to steal something).

LL munitions are intermetiate force. Kind of like hitting someone with a baton. The key is they are LESS lethal not non leathal. What f you hit the kid in the noggin and kill him? Where you justified in killing him? Even as an accident? Intermediate force usually requires the defense of self and others not reaching the level of deadly force.

2. It "looks good" in court if your first round is LTL, since you gave a them a "chance"
So let me get this straight: you are presented with deadly force and your first shot is not deadly force?

3. LTL rounds could still be deadly at HD range but makes you "look better" in court
You mean if you live through the encounter right? Because you gave them the first try at killing you.

4. They are a poor excuse and give the bad guy a chance of killing you first....you should have come out full force when you had the chance. Your life and the life of your family depend on it. 00 Buck from the start....period.
This: if they need to be shot shoot them. If they don't need to be shot don't.
What do you think?

We only use less lethal rounds (less than lethal as a description is inaccurate, they still can kill) when we have someone with a firearm nearby. And if possible a third person to handcuff.

Critias
12-04-2010, 22:36
If I don't need to use lethal force on someone, I won't point a shotgun at 'em. I don't want to be worried about what I have loaded, how it's going to look in court, what a prosecuting attorney is going to say -- if I'm thinking about someone enough that they need my shotgun in their face, then they're ALL I can afford to be thinking about right that second.

DPris
12-04-2010, 23:54
1. Totally wrong.
2. See #1.
3. See #1.
4. True.
Denis

MrMurphy
12-05-2010, 00:47
It's your house.

Lethal is the option. They should not be there.

Toss in the fact that you NEVER use both types of loads in one gun.

-gunut-
12-05-2010, 05:18
No point. If lethal force is justified, throw some lead. If it isn't, you shouldn't be pointing a firearm at them. Most people who shoot in a SD scenario never see the inside of a court room. If your situation is shifty, the shotgun is going to look better than a AK. Less than lethal is not needed in civilian life. O.c. Is a different story.

David Armstrong
12-05-2010, 10:36
First, as CAcop pointed out, there is no such theng as "less than lethal" ammo, it is "less lethal." Thus, the potential for death is always present. With that in mind, no, I don't see a problem with it given that one uses the same rules of engagement that one would use for lethal force. It would need to be presented appropriately in court. I don't like it personally or recommend it, but for some folks I can see a use.

aippi
12-05-2010, 11:07
It is an option for educated gun owners who understand the issue and the application and are confident in their abilty with their weapon to have this as a first round in an HD weapon. Anyone can of course can be justified in dismissing the use of it for themself but have no right to dismiss it for others.

james plant
12-05-2010, 11:34
00 buckshot for me. I hope I never have to use it.

DPris
12-05-2010, 12:01
JD,
You should know very well that in many, if not most, jurisdictions it'd be considered deadly force & subject to the same types of restrictions, scrutiny, and potential prosecution as firing buckshot.
That's aside from the "if you live through it" factor.

It does not make you "look better" in court, or anywhere else.
It is a very bad idea, both legally & tactically.
It may be an option, along with the "I just wanna scare 'em" blank "home defense" 12-gauge loads promoted by one company, but it's a foolish one.

Educated & confident or not, it should not be encouraged in any way.
Denis

Aceman
12-05-2010, 12:15
I have to go with 'If I feel the need" to come out with the barrel leading, and I end up pulling the trigger, I intend TO STOP the target.

I would never come out blasting without knowing the target. and remember - Brandon Lee was killed with a blank. high power projectiles are dangerous period.

I do believe that people shot in your house at odd hours generally should be excused from a trial. If you find me in your house at night, I will have been highly announced - clearly in a non-threatening position, making my intention to se the toilet clear, or whatever. Anyone not in that circumstance - good luck.

DPris
12-05-2010, 12:27
Most of the rubber shot loads are intended to be used with training & in a specific way.
They are not intended for direct torso contact, but for skip-firing off a hard surface where possible, and taking out legs.

I tested a typical rubber shot load a while back, it completely penetrated a dummy wall section I built with sheetrock on both sides of a 2x4 frame.
That stuff CAN cause serious bodily injury, which is why in a non-police scenario it's generally regarded legally as the same as firing a load of regular shot.

It's not just a little sting, as many people seem to think it is.

Even if you survive the event, and are not prosecuted for using it in a situation where it was the only round fired, a civil lawsuit could easily eat you alive.
Denis

dnuggett
12-05-2010, 12:40
I intend grievous harm to the target.

Don't you mean you wanted to stop the threat? If the time ever comes that you are forced to defend yourself with deadly force it's generally accepted that it is not a good idea to state that you intended to harm the person you acted against. In actuality they intended to harm you (or so you believed) and you were forced to react in a manner in which you thought was necessary to stop the threat.

vafish
12-05-2010, 12:43
The only use I can see for LTL ammo like rubber buckshot is if you lived out in the country where discharge of a firearm is legal and you wanted to keep your neighbours dog from crapping in your yard. A load of rubber buckshot into the dog every time he came into your yard would eventually train them to stay away.

Other then that, at least by VA laws any time you point a gun at someone you must be in fear for your life or acting for a 3rd person who would be justified themselves to use a gun for self defense. If you just go pointing a gun at someone who is not a threat to you then you are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

David Armstrong
12-05-2010, 16:30
Some of you seem to be missing an important point. If you are legally allowed to use deadly force, you are also allowed to use less lethal force in that same situation. If one wishes to do that as an additional step I don't think there will be much of a legal problem. Again, I don't like the idea personally, but I don't see any real problem with it, again recognizing the appropriate standards it should be used in.

DPris
12-05-2010, 17:02
If you're in a situation that justifies deadly force, use deadly force. Don't dink around with anything less.
It's you who are missing the point.

The use of rubber buckshot in a home situation is a bad idea for more than just one reason.
It gains you no real advantage and arrives with a boatload of baggage, both in your own personal injury potential from wasting time in effectively dealing with a deadly threat, and in legal liabilities that can follow its use.

It's a feel-good, I-really-don't-want-to-hurt-anybody, I-just-want-to-scare-them-off approach.

In a deadly force threat scenario, why would you want to avoid immediately & effectively repelling the threat?
Why would you deliberately reduce your ability to do so?

Denis

Z71bill
12-05-2010, 18:41
I will only use less than lethal ammo if I am sure the BG is using LTL ammo. :upeyes:

#5xbr
12-05-2010, 18:48
ahh z71bill ya beat me to it-good call!

Draven21
12-06-2010, 19:19
LTL=pointless

Boxerglocker
12-06-2010, 20:58
Some of you seem to be missing an important point. If you are legally allowed to use deadly force, you are also allowed to use less lethal force in that same situation. If one wishes to do that as an additional step I don't think there will be much of a legal problem. Again, I don't like the idea personally, but I don't see any real problem with it, again recognizing the appropriate standards it should be used in.

I was looking at this option for a while myself... have to counsel with a lawyer/shooting enthusiast friend of mine.

My thoughts, you have a intruder in your home... you know he is unarmed but inside your property. You confront the BG, he turns tail and attempts to run out the same way he came in, with your wife's jewelry box in his hands. You take his legs out from underneath him with a single shot of LTL rubber buckshot at 5 yards.
Wrong or right??? Justified??? :upeyes:

D3S3RT_P3NGU1N
12-06-2010, 21:15
If I ever have to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger in a SD situation, I want whatever I'm shooting to put them DOWN and keep them down. From a shotgun, 00 buck has the best chance of accomplishing that

DPris
12-06-2010, 23:24
Box,
You've also missed the point of the discussions above.
In most juridictions, if not all, rubber buckshot & similar projectiles are considered deadly force.
In no state that I'm aware of are you allowed to use deadly force in defense of mere property. That principle can vary regarding different versions of the Castle Doctrine relating to entry, but you're generally not allowed to use deadly force on a person who's fleeing AWAY from you, merely to recover property.

At the point where an intruder is moving away from you, he is no longer a threat to you, and you are not justified in taking action against him that could result in his death.

You are also, as a citizen, not allowed to use deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a burglar.

Totally unjustified.

Denis

Boxerglocker
12-06-2010, 23:38
Box,
You've also missed the point of the discussions above.
In most juridictions, if not all, rubber buckshot & similar projectiles are considered deadly force.In no state that I'm aware of are you allowed to use deadly force in defense of mere property. That principle can vary regarding different versions of the Castle Doctrine relating to entry, but you're generally not allowed to use deadly force on a person who's fleeing AWAY from you, merely to recover property.

At the point where an intruder is moving away from you, he is no longer a threat to you, and you are not justified in taking action against him that could result in his death.

You are also, as a citizen, not allowed to use deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a burglar.

Totally unjustified.

Denis

Is it considered deadly force??? That was my question?
I'm a martial artist, eskrima (filipino martial arts) given the same situation I gave earlier. If I use my training and take a BG's legs underneath him in order to prevent escape with my property is that deadly force? I know given the situation. I could use the same said training to cause severe bodily harm, even kill... I'm not saying I know the answer here. I'm in it for the interest of the discussion.

DPris
12-06-2010, 23:50
Did you read all of the preceding posts?
Yes, it is considered deadly force, since it can create serious bodily injury or death.
Different ballgame, no relation to your martial artistry.
Denis

justinsaneok
12-07-2010, 00:31
Winchester white box. I got a bad case and it seems to miss everything that isn't 15' or closer it can't be lethal if it doesn't hit anything. Dead people can't sue you for not letting them kill you.

ancient_serpent
12-07-2010, 00:49
Along with having a marvelous singing voice, I'm also trained as a non lethal weapon instructor. What other people have already said hit it spot on.
At inside the house distances the less lethal munitions are inside their red zone of engagement, and as such a reasonable person would expect them to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Boxerglocker
12-07-2010, 09:11
Did you read all of the preceding posts?
Yes, it is considered deadly force, since it can create serious bodily injury or death.
Different ballgame, no relation to your martial artistry.
Denis

Yes, I have read all the previous post and I'm sorry if my analogy isn't clear enough to get the point of my question across.

I merely asking where is it that you can reference as fact that the use of a product such at this http://www.lightfieldlesslethal.com/law_highbuckshot.html or this http://www.lightfieldlesslethal.com/law_closebuckshot.html (used by a least one LEO office I am aware of) if used in the prescribed manner is considered to be lethal force?

David Armstrong
12-07-2010, 10:12
If you're in a situation that justifies deadly force, use deadly force. Don't dink around with anything less.
It's you who are missing the point.
How so? Why use something more lethal if using something that is of lower lethality works? Folks regularly are involved in situtaions that justify lethal force, but don't kill anyone, and it works out fine.
The use of rubber buckshot in a home situation is a bad idea for more than just one reason.
It gains you no real advantage and arrives with a boatload of baggage, both in your own personal injury potential from wasting time in effectively dealing with a deadly threat, and in legal liabilities that can follow its use.
There are plenty of less lethals besides rubber buckshot. But putting that aside there are several problems with your statement. First, there is a distinct advantage to solving a situation by not killing someone, even if you can. Makes things much more pleasant on several fronts. Second, how do you know it is a waste of time unless you do it? And if you do think it a waste of time, don't do it. Nothing in the book that says you have to use less lethal. Third, what legal liabilities are there? If it is a deadly force situation, pretty much anything up to and including a reasonable application of deadly force meets the legal reuirements.
It's a feel-good, I-really-don't-want-to-hurt-anybody, I-just-want-to-scare-them-off approach.
Perhaps. But is is also a I-can-stop-the-threat-and-minimize-the-potential-loss-of-resources-to-me-and-mine approach.
In a deadly force threat scenario, why would you want to avoid immediately & effectively repelling the threat?
Why would you deliberately reduce your ability to do so?
Why do you thing that the threat will not be immediately and effectively repelled? And why would you deliberately reduce the options available to you to do so? You haven't reduced anything by adding less lethal to the mix, you have increased your options available to you.

David Armstrong
12-07-2010, 10:14
I was looking at this option for a while myself... have to counsel with a lawyer/shooting enthusiast friend of mine.

My thoughts, you have a intruder in your home... you know he is unarmed but inside your property. You confront the BG, he turns tail and attempts to run out the same way he came in, with your wife's jewelry box in his hands. You take his legs out from underneath him with a single shot of LTL rubber buckshot at 5 yards.
Wrong or right??? Justified??? :upeyes:
My position would be that you would not use less lethal unless lethal was appropriate. Again, it is not less than lethal, it is less lethal. It is less likely someone will suffer death or great bodily injury, but the chance is still there and you should use it under the same rules as you would normal ammo.

vafish
12-07-2010, 15:13
My position would be that you would not use less lethal unless lethal was appropriate. Again, it is not less than lethal, it is less lethal. It is less likely someone will suffer death or great bodily injury, but the chance is still there and you should use it under the same rules as you would normal ammo.

My position is I'll just keep things simple and leave my guns loaded with lethal ammo.

If they need shooting I'll just settle for shooting them with the regular old lethal stuff.

vafish
12-07-2010, 15:18
Some of you seem to be missing an important point. If you are legally allowed to use deadly force, you are also allowed to use less lethal force in that same situation. If one wishes to do that as an additional step I don't think there will be much of a legal problem. Again, I don't like the idea personally, but I don't see any real problem with it, again recognizing the appropriate standards it should be used in.

That's not really the way the OP phrased the question.



FTR, the only good reasons i can think of for LTL ammo are:
1. You can come out shooting at ANY threat, no matter what, and be justified since it likely won't kill. (even if its drunk kids trying to steal something).



Here in VA drunk kids trying to steal something outside your home and you point a gun at them, any gun, loaded or not, and you can be arrested for assualt with a deadly weapon.

Just not allowed to point guns at people that are not a threat to you or someone else.

DPris
12-07-2010, 16:03
Box & DA,
If you're asking "Where in the Bible does it say that the use of 12-gauge rubber buckshot is considered deadly force?", I'm not going to do your research for you.
You are fully capable of following up in your own jurisdiction, wherever it is, with your local state laws and your local prosecutorial office.

It's incorporated into case law, PD use-of-force policies, and state laws from coast to coast. The original label "less than lethal", as you noticed, is generally no longer used, it's now referred to correctly as "less lethal", including the company you linked to, which should tell you something.
Less lethal ammunition has caused serious injury, and no- I'm not going to look it up for you. Do your own homework. :)

Legally, the yardstick is some form of verbiage that includes words such as likely to, or known to, cause death or serious/grievous bodily injury, and these rubber shotshells are capable of doing that. As such, they fall under the same statutes governing the use of any deadly force encounter. Most of those include a foundation of impending threat to persons, not property.
That's for a criminal prosecution against the user deemed to have exceeded the required parameters for its use. A civil action requires much less to prevail.

"...if used in the prescribed manner...", which means by those trained in its use, following use protocols, and acting in certain situations where it genuinely is a viable alternative, again a different ballgame.
Where police have a requirement to terminate an encounter in many situations to resolve those situations, you do not.
Where police may need to subdue & control a resistive subject for any one of a number of reasons, you do not.
Where police cannot walk away from a man who may be out of control but not offering them a direct threat to them, you can.
Where police have to subdue and the force necessary to do so doesn't justify deadly force, but there is a risk of police injury in merely the laying on of hands, less lethal means are perfectly acceptable, WHEN USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, DEPARTMENT TRAINING & POLICIES, AND IN CERTAIN NARROWLY PRESCRIBED WAYS.

Generally, where possible, that means using a specific type of less lethal ammunition with multiple officers present & able to step in and handcuff when the subject goes down, and to immediately radio for medical response. (Exigent circumstances are allowed for.)

Such ammunition is used in tightly controlled circumstances, and the wise department that issues the stuff also makes damn sure it's carried in a dedicated less-lethal-ONLY shotgun, to avoid a mixup in who's got what in what shotgun, and the subject getting seriously shot by the real thing.
Officers don't just get handed a handfull of LL loads & told to "Go use it wherever you feel like using it."
You can rest assured each use of LL is closely scrutinised by any department with half a brain & even a moderately competent city or county attorney who doesn't want to lose huge chunks of money on lawsuits.

Law enforcement has a totally different set of rules of engagement than you do.
They are allowed to use LL ammo as a recognized function of their mandate to subdue, as a permissable level of their continuum of force in doing so.
You are not.
In their continuum, they are allowed a wider lattitude in disparity of force than you are because they are also allowed to engage aggressively in a very wide range of circumstances that you simply aren't.
In your hands, LL is considered deadly force, in theirs it's not.
Double standard? Yes, but but totally different rules. They can be aggressive, you're pretty much required to be defensive.

The average "civilian" gets no training, does not know the legal pitfalls, does not know how to properly use the stuff, doesn't understand it, and is infinitely more likely to either misuse it or mix it up with regular loads in the same gun.

Repelling the threat?
In most homes, distances are close. If you're familiar with the Tueller Drill you know that a determined body can be all over you with knife or club in an average time of 1.5 seconds, from an initial starting distance of 7 yards, 21 feet. That's a fair distance for most houses, you're frequently much closer.
In that distance & time frame, if you determine an intruder is a genuine threat (advancing or exhibiting threatening behaviour, etc.), you will have to deal with reaction times. He may already be close, he may be moving rapidly, and you may not have time to get more than one shot off before he's standing on your chest. You want to waste that one shot in the hope that it either disabled or scared him off? I don't. You think you'll have time to fire a load of rubber, wait to see if it did what you hoped it did, and then follow up with lead?

When I was a firearms instructor for my last PD, I used to get into a regular disagreement with the instructor who conducted our baton & hands-on training. His thrust, so to speak, with a background in those two areas, was to strike & assess. That meant strike once, stop briefly to assess, and then follow up if necessary with another strike. He wanted us to incorporate that philosophy in our firearms training, and he always got told NO!

Our firearms training was then & should be now that you fire as soon as the threat is determined to be a life-threatening one, and you fire until that threat goes down. Regular live ammunition is unpredictable enough from person to person to show us we can't have the luxury of shooting once, then stopping to see if that shot changed the other guy's mind, and then firing again if it didn't.
One shot may cause the other guy to drop his gun, it may not even be noticed by him as that gun comes on target in the center of your chest.
Odds run even farther against you with rubber.
The POTENTIAL is there, the PREDICTABILITY is not.

LL ammo is unpredictable enough that I won't risk wasting my first shot on rubber if a threat inside my home is sufficiently so to justify firing at all.
You've taken time you may not have, and if your shotgun happens to carry five rounds, you may very probably have just wasted 20% of it.

I don't consider it a matter of reducing options, like I said- if a threat needs to be engaged, it needs to be engaged just as hard and just as effectively and just as SOON as I can. Such encounters can be very quick, and very close. I don't want to waste time deciding where the load has to go (legs vs torso), or firing two shots to get the benefit of one.

Less lethal in terms of deadly force is half the issue, as addressed. Effectiveness in terms of user survivability is the other half.

You seem to think you'll have loads of time to decide which type of ammunition to use. You almost certainly won't.
In such scenarios, I can tell you beyond a shadow of the slightest doubt- simplest is bestest. :)
You can't count on having time to waste a rubber charge that may or may not work, or to decide on whether to use it instead of a lead charge, or vice versa.

Yes, we do prefer not to take a life unless it's absolutely required, and nothing I say here comes from a desire to kill. But, you increase the chances of losing your own life in making things unrealistically complicated & handicapping yourself with ammunition not designed for the purpose of self-defense.

Back to your martial arts analogy, which doesn't fit.
You are a thinking, reasoning, reactive organism. A charge of rubber buck isn't.
You have training in applying a variable degree of hands on force, the rubber buck doesn't.
You are capable of adjusting (if you're any good :) ) nearly instantly to a change in position or direction or attitude of your opponent, a rubber buck charge isn't.
You can single out an individual arm or leg as appropriate & apply a measured degree of force your training has hopefully taught you will be effective in obtaining the result you want, rubber buck can't.

LL loads go where the muzzle's pointing, with the same degree of force each time. They are non-reactive. They can't be recalled or re-directed in flight like your arms, hands, and legs can.

YOU can decide just before the strike lands or the action engages whether or not it'll be lethal, the rubber just strikes & does its thing.

"Mr. Armstrong, did you launch a strike with your hand that COULD kill?"
"Yes, I did."
"Did it kill?"
"No sir, it did not."
"And why not?"
"Because I chose to use a degree of force with my hand that was not lethal."
"And how did you know it would not be lethal?"
"Because I've trained on other live bodies and observed the results, and I had sufficient time, skill, and proximity to make that instant judgement."
VS
"Mr. Armstrong, did you launch a charge of 12-gauge rubber buckshot that is known to this state to be capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm?"
"Yes, I did."
"Did it kill?"
"Yes sir, it did. BUT- I didn't MEAN to kill!"
"Were you justified in using deadly force?"
"I don't know, sir, but I didn't MEAN to KILL!"
"Were you previously aware that the use of such ammunition COULD kill?"
"Yes sir, but I didn't MEAN to kill!"
"Was the deceased a direct threat to you at the time you fired?"
"No sir, he was trying to escape through the window with my plasma TV."
"What was your purpose in shooting him?"
"To stop him from taking my TV!"
"Your Honor, the prosecution rests."

And we could go on with other similar scenarios, but that's enough for the moment.

As far as just talking about rubber buck goes, most people considering less lethal usually go for rubber buck loads because they think it'll make precise aiming less important. Beanbags are also a matter of proper training & use for police, do require more precise training, and can break a rib or stop a heart if they strike the right (or wrong) spot.
Yes, there are other types of LL loads, none of which are good choices for home defense.

Denis

Boxerglocker
12-07-2010, 17:02
Denis,

Part of doing your homework is asking for opinions regarding interpretation of the laws. The point of views behind those interpretation. I asked a simple question, is the use of LTL rubber buckshot considered or lethal force or not. I didn't give a view of whether I agreed to it or not. I was querying.
My main intent was the determining merit of the use of a first LTL load in a HD shotgun. Something that I have read published by other SD training instructors and wished to just hear other opinions.
To me, a first rubber buckshot round as you have stated may or may not actually be lethal, be regardless the situation would have to dictate a lethal response to a force.
I know what it its like to have to make a decision in a SHTF situation. I have been trained, utilized my training and continue to do so.
Like I said just wanted to hear opinions... call it a moral dilemma if you like my questioning the use of such a product. Give the BG a chance before taking his life and at the same time make it safer for those at close quarters.
I'll be having this discussion with a couple of LEO's and my attorney shooting enthusiast friend this weekend at a match.
To me this topic reads as the old "Do you carry your own reloads?" topic. Seems like everybody in this forum at this time is on the opposite side of the fence, pushed back in the far side of the yard.
Personally, I would like to hear both sides of an objective argument with facts to back it. I've searched a number of articles and yet to find a hard line stance that it would be considered lethal force to use it. There are hundreds of videos posted all over the internet of idiots shooting each other with it… I realize it's not truly the same. However, for one you can see the effectiveness of it to a degree and two, a good lawyer could and I would imagine would use such video evidence as a defense strategy siding with the not lethal force argument.
Thank you for you view and responses, respectfully.

Boxer

NDCent
12-07-2010, 17:54
I only want the court to hear one story at the hearing, mine.

DPris
12-07-2010, 18:48
Box,
As far as I'm concerned, the invader already had several chances. A chance to not break into my house. A chance not to advance on me. A chance to not offer me violence.
Why I should risk giving him any further chances to injure me or mine is beyond me.
The moral dilemma is quite clear for me. There is none.
Going out the window with a laptop (or a box of jewelry), I'm pissed, but I'm not shooting. With ANYTHING.
Advancing toward me or my wife in our own home in a belligerent & threatening manner, little bit different.

Safer for others at close quarters?
You being dead on the floor because your rubber shot failed & gave the aggressor time to get in one or more shots of his own won't help others much.

The sense I get from this whole idea is that it's a feelgood way to avoid mounting an aggressive defense that can get the wrong people killed.
If you're a football fan, how far would your favorite team get on the field if they mounted a half-hearted defense, to give "the other guys" a chance to back off & let your guys win?

If you are forced to fight for your life, or those dear to you, you don't start out with a pillow, you start out with a sledge hammer.

Denis

wrx04
12-07-2010, 21:05
That's not really the way the OP phrased the question.



Here in VA drunk kids trying to steal something outside your home and you point a gun at them, any gun, loaded or not, and you can be arrested for assualt with a deadly weapon.

Just not allowed to point guns at people that are not a threat to you or someone else.

Yeah, i didnt exactly mean shooting when you knew it was drunk kids and didnt mean if they were outside. My point is if someone is inside my house (and i dont know who it is), i take that as an immediate threat on my life. It would be awful to be startled by someone stealing your stuff (inside your house)and shooting/killing what turned out to be a young kid trying to steal something. You could make the argument that it was justified, and even if it was, it would be absolutely horrible.

I started the thread because i was curious if anyone had an argument FOR using it, but the thread has been very lopsided, and for good reason. I completely agree with the notion of using lethal ammo, and many good reasons have already been stated. I wrote the initial thread really quick and didnt put together many good/well thought out reasons....but answer a few more questions here.

If someone is in your house (late hours/uninvited/etc...)are they a threat to your life before you even see them? Are they a threat to your life if you see them, but cannot see a weapon on them? Do you give them time to run or draw a weapon? What are your "rules of engagement"?

What percentage of "intruders" are armed and are there to actually do you harm? I am not a LEO and have no idea, and can only imagine what some of the guys who make calls on those cases have seen, but i would guess not many. It just seems that you must treat ANY intruder as a threat to your life but i would think (maybe naive) that most intruders are not armed and a less lethal round would allow you to engage, disable the threat, and still give the guy a chance to live. Any guy who isn't armed is gonna stay still and do what you say (and probably crap his pants in the process:rofl:) Worst case, if he tries to draw a gun, the less lethal round will stun him enough for you to chamber another round of the real deal and have him in your sights before he can attempt to engage you.

Basically, heres my argument. Any intruder in your home unannounced is a direct threat on your life....you must assume they have ill intent. If you are in a situation where you have a family, you must engage the target and you may not have time or be able to see if he is armed before you have the chance to take him out. There is a pretty good chance that the guy is just trying to steal something, but you cant risk your life by giving the benefit of doubt, so lethal force is acceptable right there. HOWEVER, if you hit him with less lethal (remember, you feel lethal force is validated at this point) which, at the very least stuns him (MAYBE kills him but probably not). At this point, one of two things happens:

1. The guy is unarmed/not trying to harm you and your family, but just trying to steal stuff. He has just been shot (he's not sure with what) and sees a guy with a shotgun pointed at him. He probably craps himself, stays on the floor and listens to whatever you say. Saved the life of some worthless POS, but he really wasnt a threat to your life. (The unfortunate thing is a civil lawsuit might F you....pretty sad. But at least you didnt have to take a life if it wasnt necessary)

2. The guy is armed/violent, and would try to injure/kill you if you confront him. Since you came out shooting, and hit him first he is also stunned (MAYBE killed). It takes him a second or two to realize what happened, and he scrambles to draw his gun. At this point, you have already chambered a "real" round of 00 buck and have him in your sights. Any movement toward a weapon.....BANG! Game over. Bad guy dead.

FWIW, in my current situation, where its only my girlfriend and my dog, this situation wouldnt even affect me. I will not even leave the bedroom. They can steal all the stuff they want while im locked in the bedroom on the phone with the cops. If anyone tries coming through the locked door, then they will find a 12G ready to greet them. If/when i have a family, that might change.

I have no formal training, and wanted to throw a counter-argument out there.

DPris
12-08-2010, 00:26
Rules of engagement CAN vary. In some states with strong Castle Doctrines, mere presence inside your home can be justification for deadly force.

My ROEs call for a clear & articulable threat, something beyond mere presence.
Demeanor, method of entry, time of day or night, objects in hand, verbal threats, and/or advancing after being told to stop, are all factors.

The percentage of intruders actually armed varies from locale to locale.

Denis

David Armstrong
12-08-2010, 09:40
My position is I'll just keep things simple and leave my guns loaded with lethal ammo.
If they need shooting I'll just settle for shooting them with the regular old lethal stuff.
I tend to agree from a personal view.
That's not really the way the OP phrased the question
Not sure what that has to do with the answer given. There seemed to be a perception that rubber buck could/should be treated differently than regular buck for legal purposes. That is what I was addressing.

David Armstrong
12-08-2010, 09:53
from DPris:
Box & DA,
If you're asking "Where in the Bible does it say that the use of 12-gauge rubber buckshot is considered deadly force?", I'm not going to do your research for you.
You are fully capable of following up in your own jurisdiction, wherever it is, with your local state laws and your local prosecutorial office.
You might want to try again, as I am not arguing that. I have said that rubber buck should be deployed no differently than regular buckshot.
The average "civilian" gets no training, does not know the legal pitfalls, does not know how to properly use the stuff, doesn't understand it, and is infinitely more likely to either misuse it or mix it up with regular loads in the same gun.
So if they use it in the same way they would use regular buckshot there shouldn't be a prblem, right? That is my point. If regular buck would be reasonable force, then rubber buck will also be reasonable force.
You seem to think you'll have loads of time to decide which type of ammunition to use. You almost certainly won't.
I really hadn't addressed that, but actually you are wrong. In a HD situation the odds are that you will have plenty of time to select ammo. But there really isn't any need to do any selecting if one treats the ROE the same for regular and rubber buck.
And we could go on with other similar scenarios, but that's enough for the moment.
Yes, enough. If you are going to use my name at least have the courtesy to run the scenario within the parameters I have already said one should use. Nowhere will you find me suggesting that one should use rubber buck to stop a theft or when deadly force would not be appropriate.

DPris
12-08-2010, 11:12
Lumped you both together in a long response.
There's nothing I can add to what I already said.
Denis

Eyescream
12-08-2010, 15:42
My thinking is that if it's a big enough deal for me to pull the trigger, it's a big enough deal for me to not be too concerned about whether whoever's on the other end is gonna live or die.

LASTRESORT20
12-08-2010, 15:58
It's your house.

Lethal is the option. They should not be there.

Toss in the fact that you NEVER use both types of loads in one gun.

Yup..
"They should not be there."

Aceman
12-09-2010, 16:22
Don't you mean you wanted to stop the threat? If the time ever comes that you are forced to defend yourself with deadly force it's generally accepted that it is not a good idea to state that you intended to harm the person you acted against. In actuality they intended to harm you (or so you believed) and you were forced to react in a manner in which you thought was necessary to stop the threat.

Isn't that what I said? Better check my original post. Something is wrong with the quote function. Did you edit my original response???:whistling:

copaup
12-16-2010, 11:50
Its your gun and your choice, but I think its a terrible idea.

Case law, at least TN law which I'm familiar with, supports that if a private citizen (i.e. non LEO) deploys a weapon he has deployed lethal force, regardless of what the weapon is loaded with. When LE employs Less Lethal it comes with a large amount of training, policy, and case law to back it up. Less Lethal is recognized as being potentially lethal and falls just under lethal force in the force continuam. In the narrowly defined role in which we can deploy less lethal equipment (in our case a SL6 37mm launcher) by policy we are backed by officers ready to deploy lethal force should it be required and are to immediately contact medical personel for the subject once he is subdued. The scene is treated as if it is a lethal force shooting. My stance is that less lethal should NEVER be fired out of a weapon also used for lethal ammunition due to the potential of inadvertantly firing the wrong weapon or loading the incorrect shell. Having deployed less lethal ammuntion on several occasions and witnessing its use on several more, I would be unwilling to deploy it in a situation where I was at home and believed I was in danger of death or imminent bodily harm.

While I support anyone's right to defend themselves as they see fit, I personally do not see a role for less lethal ammunition in home defense. If he comes into your home and then continues towards you after you announce you are armed and will shoot then he is an obvious lethal threat and should be dealt with appropriately. If he takes the TV and starts backing out then he is not a lethal threat and you can get a new TV after you file the police report. You do not have to subdue and arrest him, therefore I do not see a role for the less lethal.

But again, its your house, your gun, and your posterior, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

leathermarshmallow
12-19-2010, 18:25
Well, since LTL can still cause harm or death at close ranges (read:inside the house) what would be the difference in it and full lead? I mean, it will achieve the same purpose right?

method
12-19-2010, 18:30
Well, since LTL can still cause harm or death at close ranges (read:inside the house) what would be the difference in it and full lead? I mean, it will achieve the same purpose right?

You have it right there in what you wrote...
LTL can cause harm or death...
Lead will....

fpgeek
12-24-2010, 23:17
We had LTL SuperSock rounds when I was on SWAT...and very clear SOPs on when to use them. Which included deadly force standing nearby in case LTL didn't work.

Run it past your attorney (because I'm not one), but from a tactical and legal perspective, LTL rounds for HD use is not something I would recommend. The response I would expect from your "good guy" assertion is, "well, if you didn't perceive an imminent threat to your life, why didn't you choose pepper spray instead of a shotgun"? In the rural parts of my area, farmers would use rock salt in their shotshells. Our prosecutors at the academy still considered that rock salt was lethal force.

Be sure to consider both criminal and civil ramifications of your HD plan.

unit1069
12-25-2010, 07:34
Any potentially deadly encounter calls for sufficient force to deal with the threat.

How does anyone know an intruder's intentions? Does the name Richard Speck ring a bell?

The point is, if you have the advantage of being armed you can alert the intruder and in most cases he will retreat if possible. That's not an unreasonable choice for those who have qualms about using deadly force.

But for those cases where the defender either can't sound an alert or the intruder is determined to persist the only alternative in my mind is for the defender to use the deadly force at his/her disposal. I would never think of loading rubber buckshot or any other LTL shells in a home defense weapon.

Dollar Bill
04-17-2012, 15:17
I know I'm resurecting a year old thread but I want your guys opinion on this subject given my circumstances: I have a 20 year old daughter going to college in Chattanooga, about 3 hours from me. She was assaulted once but is OK. She got some self-defense training, I gave her and her room mate OC gel sprayers and used a third one for them to learn how it employ it.

The problem is that neither girl would in any way want to kill anyone so would probably hesitate to use known lethal force. That said, I thought that the use of non-lethal 12 gauge ammo would possibly be the way to go. If they are confidant in using the shotgun, know they can hit their target and can resonably expect first round incapacitation without killing anyone, I believe they would use it without hesitation.

Myself, I carry a 45ACP and have a 12 gauge in the corner of the bedroom with the first round #6, the next 3 OO buck, the last 4 slugs. But the fact is, my daughter is 300 miles away and an LEO is just miutes away when seconds matter. What do you guys think?

vafish
04-17-2012, 16:01
I can think of a couple pros and cons to LTL ammo in a HD shotgun. Just wanted to know what you guys think. After much thought, i think good old 00 Buck is the way to go, but i may be wrong. What do you think?

FTR, the only good reasons i can think of for LTL ammo are:
1. You can come out shooting at ANY threat, no matter what, and be justified since it likely won't kill. (even if its drunk kids trying to steal something).

2. It "looks good" in court if your first round is LTL, since you gave a them a "chance"

3. LTL rounds could still be deadly at HD range but makes you "look better" in court

4. They are a poor excuse and give the bad guy a chance of killing you first....you should have come out full force when you had the chance. Your life and the life of your family depend on it. 00 Buck from the start....period.

What do you think?

I can only think of cons, not s single pro to a civilian using ltl at home.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

BEER
04-17-2012, 16:32
if i'm pushed to the point of using a firearm on someone why in the hell would i choose to use less than lethal options?? that makes about as much sense as an inflatable dartboard.

WoodenPlank
04-17-2012, 17:30
I can only think of cons, not s single pro to a civilian using ltl at home.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Exactly.

To the guy that asked: if your daughter wouldn't be ready and able to pull the trigger on a shotgun, then LTL is not the answer. It's still potentially lethal inside 10 yards when used improperly, will not reliably stop someone that's determined, and can even open you to liability.

The OC gel may not be a great idea indoor, either, honestly.

X-ray 4N6
04-17-2012, 17:50
Dollar Bill, I know people who have the same mindset as your daughter and there is not much chance of changing it. They absolutely just will not use ammunition which is perceived to be "genuinely lethal."

We all know that less than lethal is not the way to go, and we all know that in some cases it can be lethal, but we need to put such common sense aside here and work within the parameters.
She has the OC gel, which I don't know anything about. It might be great, might not be. If I was in that position where a loved one insists on using LTL, then I might recommend 12 gauge baton rounds in a break open shotgun. They don't produce much perceived recoil and in that package there is at least a fairly good chance she can get two shots off (because lets face it, she won't be practicing much so a pump could be a short cycle liability). Semi: maybe an FN SLP with a light piston installed could cycle the baton rounds, I don't know. There may be maintenance issues there.

These are the rounds I am talking about, I tried them in South Africa. They are hard rubber spheres, two to a case. Not ideal but the parameters aren't ideal either...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/Baton.jpg

Dollar Bill
04-17-2012, 17:54
I appreciate your input. To everyone who say "I wouldn't", that's not the point. I wouldn't use it either.

Get inside a 20 YO female med students head. If they think they can use it, stop someone without killing them, they're much more likely to use it without hesitating.

Anyone who has actually used lethal force knows the first time, even with training, there's always the thought in the back of your head that you've been taught since birth that "Thou shall not kill". When you're talking about a young woman who has been taught right from wrong from birth, that hesitation can get you hurt.

The vast majority of assaults on young women do not entail the use of a firearm. My thought process is that this will give them the edge they need to successfully defend themselves.

As to why my first load is #6, I know for a fact that my first shot will probably be rushed and not spot-on accurate. This ensures a first round hit, keeps the bad guys head down quickly and allows accurate, hard hitting follow-ups. If they are still moving, it will be down and towards an exit. Slugs punch through walls easily and can take out second assailants behind walls.

WoodenPlank
04-17-2012, 18:38
I appreciate your input. To everyone who say "I wouldn't", that's not the point. I wouldn't use it either.

Get inside a 20 YO female med students head. If they think they can use it, stop someone without killing them, they're much more likely to use it without hesitating.

Anyone who has actually used lethal force knows the first time, even with training, there's always the thought in the back of your head that you've been taught since birth that "Thou shall not kill". When you're talking about a young woman who has been taught right from wrong from birth, that hesitation can get you hurt.

The vast majority of assaults on young women do not entail the use of a firearm. My thought process is that this will give them the edge they need to successfully defend themselves.

As to why my first load is #6, I know for a fact that my first shot will probably be rushed and not spot-on accurate. This ensures a first round hit, keeps the bad guys head down quickly and allows accurate, hard hitting follow-ups. If they are still moving, it will be down and towards an exit. Slugs punch through walls easily and can take out second assailants behind walls.

Dollar, here's my question: If it's a load that we all know may or may not work, or may spectacularly backfire and kill the perp (making the emotional aftermath for your daughter MUCH worse), why do it to begin with? I'd suggest researching other options before going the route of a shotgun with LTL. Upgrading bedroom doors to heavy duty doors with reinforced door frames and dead bolts (turning the bedrooms into safe rooms), the OC gel, an alarm system with key-fob remotes that have panic buttons, and even the civilian taser all come to mind. Until or unless your daughter can come to grips with the idea of potentially taking a life in defense of her own, I'd avoid firearms completely. Spend some time with her, and build the idea into her that the idea is to STOP them, not kill them. Teach her to STOP, and that a load of buckshot is the best method available to her to do so, and you might have better progress.

As a side note, your reasons for bird shot being the first in the pipe are the best ones I have ever heard for it. While I do not agree with it, I can't fault your reasoning for it one bit.

Dollar Bill
04-17-2012, 19:40
I'd suggest researching other options before going the route of a shotgun with LTL. Upgrading bedroom doors to heavy duty doors with reinforced door frames and dead bolts (turning the bedrooms into safe rooms), the OC gel, an alarm system with key-fob remotes that have panic buttons, and even the civilian taser all come to mind.

Thanks. that's probably the best bet. The wife and I are going down there in 2 weeks to put the MK 1 eyeball on the place. My oldest daughter suggested the taser. Definitely worth looking into. The apartment manager has no problem with upgraded doors and frames. Locks on the bedroom doors would just have to be removed when they move out.

The OC is mainly for them both getting off work late at night when no one can walk them to their cars.

As a side note, the youngest is a darned good shot. She out-shot the RO with my S&W 624 the first time she shot it. The RO was a little embarrassed as he had kept suggesting she aught to try his Ruger Mk2 first. She has shot my Glock 21 although it's too big for her hands. She also shoots smallbore rifle with me when she's home.

WoodenPlank
04-17-2012, 20:04
Thanks. that's probably the best bet. The wife and I are going down there in 2 weeks to put the MK 1 eyeball on the place. My oldest daughter suggested the taser. Definitely worth looking into. The apartment manager has no problem with upgraded doors and frames. Locks on the bedroom doors would just have to be removed when they move out.

The OC is mainly for them both getting off work late at night when no one can walk them to their cars.

As a side note, the youngest is a darned good shot. She out-shot the RO with my S&W 624 the first time she shot it. The RO was a little embarrassed as he had kept suggesting she aught to try his Ruger Mk2 first. She has shot my Glock 21 although it's too big for her hands. She also shoots smallbore rifle with me when she's home.

Sounds like a good idea. I'd say the taser would only be useful for buying her time to get to the bedroom, once it has been properly reinforced, as the "ride" is still fairly short, and the perp is back in the fight as soon as it ends. We had two local deputies get killed a few years ago when an armed suspect rode out the taser and came up shooting as soon as the charge stopped firing. The upgraded doors, frames, and locks would be the first priority, unless you can get her into the mindset of being prepared to use a firearm loaded with lethal ammunition in self defense. I'd say alarm immediately following (with some way of triggering it from the bedroom), then a taser.

vettely
05-01-2012, 18:18
For LTL my dept has settled on the bean bag rounds and they have been pretty effective for their intended use.

GIockGuy24
05-02-2012, 14:16
When I lived in France I had a semi auto Franchi 12 gauge. I was told to use only rubber slugs for defense.

deadcalm4u
05-02-2012, 17:05
and remember - Brandon Lee was killed with a blank.

Wrong. There were so many levels of fail in the time leading up to his death; bullet lodged in barrel, nobody checking the condition of the revolver, etc.. then using a charged blank for the fatal shot.

WoodenPlank
05-02-2012, 19:12
When I lived in France I had a semi auto Franchi 12 gauge. I was told to use only rubber slugs for defense.

Well, it's France. Is anyone really surprised?

aippi
05-02-2012, 20:54
As much as I try to avoid this topic in open forums I can't. I advise people to call me for the six reason this is a good idea to use as you first round. That offer stands and I will simply state the best reason and it is this.

There was one perfect man and they beat the S**t out of him and hung him on a cross for being perfect. I am not him and I can make a mistake. With this munition as my first round I can live with that mistake and so can the person I used this on. Mistake are most always one round deals and this munition is more forgiving then lead. I have five other reason that are just as valid and anyone who calls can hear them. I avoid posting them in open forum because as the real killers come out with their tuff talk and BS but the above is worth stating. He has ears let him hear.

Now all you perfect men dispute the above.

WoodenPlank
05-02-2012, 21:08
As much as I try to avoid this topic in open forums I can't. I advise people to call me for the six reason this is a good idea to use as you first round. That offer stands and I will simply state the best reason and it is this.

There was one perfect man and they beat the S**t out of him and hung him on a cross for being perfect. I am not him and I can make a mistake. With this munition as my first round I can live with that mistake and so can the person I used this on. Mistake are most always one round deals and this munition is more forgiving then lead. I have five other reason that are just as valid and anyone who calls can hear them. I avoid posting them in open forum because as the real killers come out with their tuff talk and BS but the above is worth stating. He has ears let him hear.

Now all you perfect men dispute the above.

I can see reasons for using it as the first round, even though they are reasons I would not agree with for my needs. If you're not willing to back up that LTL with high-speed lead, though, you probably shouldn't be using a firearm for self defense, though.

aippi
05-02-2012, 22:07
He can tell Jesus or Satan what my second round was as he will be meeting one of them immediately if he fails to DEE DEE atter the Specialty Inpact round hits him.

WoodenPlank
05-03-2012, 13:49
He can tell Jesus or Satan what my second round was as he will be meeting one of them immediately if he fails to DEE DEE atter the Specialty Inpact round hits him.

Unfortunately, I have seen people advocating LTL that did not back it up with lethal ammo.

Sent from the USS Sulaco, while nuking the site from orbit.

bsg1
05-03-2012, 17:05
LTL; not for me.

BEER
05-03-2012, 18:42
uncalled for post. disregard.