Less Lethal Shotgun rounds against humans/animals yea or nay?

[Obturation]

If you plan to shoot something, plan for it to die. "Less leathal" isn't non-lethal and can still kill , you don't know how the target will react either, a pissed off dope fiend may just go crazy and then you've got that to deal with. As far as shooting animals with less lethal, that's just wrong, kill the thing or capture it and relocate . I see police applications for less lethal and that's about it but if they aren't comfortable with the perp dying by accident a tazer or something is better. I'll stick with hot lead.

 

[dfariswheel]

Legally there's no difference between less-lethal and lethal ammo.
If you fire a weapon at a human there's no difference under the law no matter what type of ammo you fire...... you fired a weapon at a human.

 

[entropy]

I'm going with nay vs. Humans. A paintball gun would be a better option, and might still get you an assault charge.

I do use a non-lethal shotgun load for deterring deer around my property. Have also used it once on a large aggressive dog. It is a standard 1 1/8oz size shotcup filled with Airsoft pellets over a BPGS base wad. I won't quote my charge of Red Dot as it is off book, but it is significantly lighter than a standard trap load. Proceed at your own risk. It is unsuitable for close range use, the airsoft pellets will penetrate corrugated cardboard to 15 yards or so. At longer ranges it is very effective at moving pests along.

I used to used 'bird bombs' (bottle rocket in an eclipse hull) for that, and scaring rafts of coots off our decoys. They'd go out about 75 yards at max (45 Deg.) elevation) Used a Dragon's Breath to scare a couple kids making out in the road in front of a friend's cabin once. They fired up that F150 and were never seen back there again.

 

[Carpman62]

If I am going to pull a gun on someone or something, I am going to kill it!

Dead men tell no tales, and watching an animal crawl off to die a lingering death is uncalled for!

If you are not going to kill "it" outright, then leave your guns locked up and out of your hands!

 

[FL-NC]

Nope. If I shoot something with a gun, I plan on it being permanent. A couple stories about less lethal shotgun rounds- 1- We somehow ended up with some rubber slugs on an ammo resupply pallet overseas. No idea why, since we didn't ask for them (sometimes I think "they" just randomly threw things on pallets that were just sitting around- like the rifle smoke grenades we got on the same trip). Anyhow, we decided to mess with these rubber slugs. I took a shot at a E type (20 x 40) sillouette center mass at 25 yards with a Mossberg 590. Hit it square in the forehead. Tried again at the same aiming point, and completely missed the whole thing. Team leader tried next, and hit the tire wall. The slug bounced back and hit him in the foot. We decided that there was some serious accuracy issues with these things, so we quit firing them and disposed of them next demo shot.
On another deployment, I found some 40MM rounds (for the M203/M79/M320 GL) that were also a rubber projectile, with the consistency of a nerf football. They were of German origin. I never fired one at anyone- everyone I fired a GL at that trip got H.E.- but I always wondered what it would look like if someone got hit by one.
After I retired and was working at a friend's gun shop for a while, someone came in asking about less lethal shotgun rounds (which we didn't sell). Seems he had a black bear snooping around his home, that he didn't want there, but he didn't want to kill it either, so he figured he would just smack it with a rubber slug or shot. I convinced him that hurting/enraging that critter may not be the best idea, and that he would be better off finding a different method to scare it off, like a air horn.

 

[JJFitch]

Legally there's no difference between less-lethal and lethal ammo.
If you fire a weapon at a human there's no difference under the law no matter what type of ammo you fire...... you fired a weapon at a human.

The less lethal weapons are designed for "control" use only. Most were designed from the beginning as a tool to be used with riot control tactics. Remember that authorities want the riot to disperse and arrest the instigator. The tactics include an announcement and a means of the rioters to leave!

According to the training I received the "bean bag" and "baton" launchers are designed for riot control and not defense.

I've used the bean bag (county jail riot) and they do work out to 15 yards. The other effective riot deterrent is the "pepper ball launcher", think paint ball gun! The best riot deterrent ever!

The effectiveness is probably the reason they were banned in the Marxist Mafia run cities!

Smiles, leave.

 

[cota]

no plain and simple.

 

[jeepnik]

Legally speaking...where are we covered in the eyes of the law for any use of "less than lethal" shotgun rounds? Is there any legal benefit to this at all, over "standard" ammunition?

As non-law enforcement officers, we aren't covered by "Qualified Immunity". Which means, less than lethal or not, we may very much be held liable for any injuries/deaths which may occur through the use of "less than lethal" ammunition of any kind, more so than those in the LEO community.

These rounds aren't sold as "less than lethal". They are sold as "less lethal". They are certainly capable of killing a human.

 

[Kleanbore]

Dead men tell no tales,"

That's one of the things that comes up here in lists of common misconceptions.

It is also the kind of pots that, when read in court, can help take the tiers of fact beyond reasonable doubt on the question of whether an actor had not acted in lawful self defense.

 

[Carpman62]

I have been a Federal Law Enforcement Officer for over 20 years, and speaking from a civilian point of view, if you "wound" someone that has broken into your house, and say that you shot and crippled them, you could be held liable for their medical bills for the rest of your life! I have set on too many court cases and know this for a fact!

If an intruder breaks into your house, and has a weapon, you kill him, it's pretty much a cut and dried case of self defense!

Misconceptions!?!? How many case files have you read page for page and word for word? I have read many thousands of cases since the mid 1960's and was part of my job for many years.

I have a double masters in Law and Criminal Justice, as well as a Bachelor's degree in Psychology, so I do in fact know about certain laws, state interpretation of these laws, as well as what goes on in many of these "kangaroo court systems".

That's why I am retired, except for working on my ranch, welding and building the occasional house when contracted to do.

 

[Kleanbore]

If an intruder breaks into your house, and has a weapon, you kill him, it's pretty much a cut and dried case of self defense!

That depends upon the details. There's far more to it than that.

Misconceptions!?!?

Have you ever heard of forensic evidence? Dead men can indeed "tell tales".

 

[Carpman62]

That depends upon the details. There's far more to it than that.

Of course there is! I wasn't planning on writing a book here.

Have you ever heard of forensic evidence? Dead men can indeed "tell tales".

There is never a week that goes by, that I am not asked to help gather such evidence.


Again, reply was just short without spending hours writing on a more complex level.

 

[Kleanbore]

There is never a week that goes by, that I am not asked to help gather such evidence

Then surely you understand that your first comment was a ---common misconception.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if you "wound" someone that has broken into your house, and say that you shot and crippled them, you could be held liable for their medical bills for the rest of your life! I have set on too many court cases and know this for a fact!...

It's not a fact unless you can back your statement up with verifiable, credible evidence.

...If an intruder breaks into your house, and has a weapon, you kill him, it's pretty much a cut and dried case of self defense!...

Obviously you're not as conversant with the law as you claim. If one has stopped the threat but the assailant is still breathing, finishing the assailant off is murder. Jerome Ersland didn't understand that and is now serving a life sentence in prison for first degree murder.

... I have read many thousands of cases since the mid 1960's and was part of my job for many years.....

According to your profile, you were born in 1956. In the mid 1960s, you would have been between 9 and 11 years old. Pretty precocious kid?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Less Lethal Shotgun rounds against humans/animals yea or nay?

Consider this scenario.
You level a shotgun loaded with less lethal ammo at a human.
An armed bystander sees a person with a shotgun about to shoot a human (especially unarmed).
They may consider themself justified in acting against you in defense of the other human.

One reason to suggest nay.

 

[Spats McGee]

Less Lethal Shotgun rounds against humans/animals yea or nay?

Consider this scenario.
You level a shotgun loaded with less lethal ammo at a human.
An armed bystander sees a person with a shotgun about to shoot a human (especially unarmed).
They may consider themself justified in acting against you in defense of the other human.

One reason to suggest nay.

Yes, but in your scenario, the other person may consider themselves justified in acting against you, regardless of what ammo you have in your shotgun.

 

[WestKentucky]

If it’s serious enough to show a weapon let alone fire it then the situation warrants an effective round. Bean bags and others are used in law enforcement as first line because there typically is either another gun aimed at the bad guy or another gun on the way quickly. There is a backup plan. If your at home alone and you hear the window break and footsteps inside then your best case scenario for police response is to call 911 and let a few minutes pass until they show up. In the meantime there is no backup plan. If you come face to face with a threat you make sure that you stop it. Less lethal is a gamble, heavy lead is a proven performer.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Yes, but in your scenario, the other person may consider themselves justified in acting against you, regardless of what ammo you have in your shotgun."

Very true. But some people might think it is a good idea to drive off or deter a threat by showing a lethal weapon with non lethal ammo. Multiple things wrong with that idea. One is the perceived threat might perceive you as the threat and defend themself. Another (which I think many don't consider) is who bystanders would see in the roles as the threat and as the victim,

 

[Kleanbore]

But some people might think it is a good idea to drive off or deter a threat by showing a lethal weapon with non lethal ammo

Why?

In many jurisdictions, showing an empty or even a non-functional firearm constitutes a very serious crime unless deadly force is justified.

 

[shafter]

They have a role in specific law enforcement functions but I wouldn't use them as a private citizen. They have a place in crowd control and apprehending non compliant suspects. They aren't used for personal defense.

 

[GEM]

I've told the story before of being in Cabela's browsing. Guy comes in with woman, SO or friend. Says he wants a pump gun so to rack it and scare away the BGs. He asks the clerk for some blanks in case racking doesn't work. Clerk also suggests some rubber buckshot. I must step and say something. Well, I got the evil eye from the dude and the clerk. Backed away. The clerk was just making the sale and I understand that. Never butt in unless asked for advice.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

These rounds aren't sold as "less than lethal". They are sold as "less lethal". They are certainly capable of killing a human.

Again... what is the difference in the eyes of the law? What are any legal advantages of using "less lethal" ammunition?

In the eyes of the law, it's still "deadly force".

??

 

[kudu]

Since this has been beat to death, and everyone agrees it's a bad idea against humans and questionable against animals I am going to close this thread.