It's my interpretation of the quote in the original post. He said that Critical Defense is not designed to do this, this, and this, and if you tried to do those things then you're probably going to jail. Such a comment made flippantly on a forum would not be taken so seriously, but it's an official comment from a major manufacturer that apparently tries to explain why the product doesn't do some things that their competitors do.
Problem is, this spokesman is not wrong. At least not entirely. Once again, a civilian will use a gun under different circumstances than an LEO. An LEO has a duty to confront armed lawbreakers in order to neutralize the threat they represent to the general public. An armed citizen has almost the opposite duty: the duty to retreat, if possible, and to use lethal force
only when his own life, or the life of an innocent third party is directly threatened.
It's a well known fact that most shootings are over with only a few rounds expended (which is why 5 shot j frame revolvers remain such a viable self defense choice). As a civilian, you have to clearly identify a threat as serious enough to justify using lethal force, and generally, this is only going to happen when a bad guy approaches and confronts you (e.g. attempted mugging, attempted rape, etc.). Would be muggers and rapists don't generally stand several meters meters away, behind cover, draw down on you, and demand that you hand over all your money, or lie down and submit to being raped. I've been a cop for ten years, and a detective for seven, and I've never seen such an assault take place. Almost
invariably, the violent assaults on citizens that I've investigated involve the suspect approaching to within arm's length of the victim, even when the suspect uses a gun. The lone exceptions to this I am aware of are
all gang-related: drive bys and other murders and attempted murders, and the suspect was targeted because he was a rival thug who had offended the suspect in some way, or was a rival drug dealer and the suspect decided to eliminate his competition.
Law abiding citizens just don't get targeted in this way. That's not to say it could
never happen. But it
really is highly unlikely. And since it's just not realistically possibly to arm yourself against
every possible threat that
could happen, you arm yourself against what you are most likely to face, and try to be as flexible and adaptable as you can.
So an armed citizen really is unlikely to have to shoot through barriers, into vehicles, etc., and to what extent he may ever have to do so, critical defense ammo will likely perform well enough in that role. But if you chase down and shoot fleeing suspects, or suspects who barricade themselves behind cover, you likely
will go to jail, and thugs who attack honest citizens normally do so up close, where critical defense ammo is designed to perform.
Frankly, it sounds more like an excuse to me, and even condescending in a way, telling people what they will or won't have to do in order to defend themselves with firearms.
This is one case where I think you are overreacting. He's merely pointing out the likeliest threat, and he's right about it being the likeliest. He's also right about shooting through barriers and into vehicles being something that a private citizen may have a hard time justifying in court, to a jury of ordinary citizens who don't know much about guns, or tactics, and will wonder why you, the shooter, didn't take an avenue of escape, opting instead to continue the confrontation.