scout26
Member
I think that would be the ideal Wally-world lawyer......
Litigation Potential for Buckshot
- Thread starter deafsg1
- Start date
- Status
I think that would be the ideal Wally-world lawyer......
As mentioned above, SB 378 goes into effect on 9/1/2007 in Texas. You still need to consider what might be behind an intruder, especially in an apartment. Even #4 buckshot will penetrate six sheets of drywall.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm
:banghead:
And sometimes the legal advice you get on the internet is about as valuable as what you get from Walmart.
You can be sued by the assaliant, or you can just as easily get sued by their next of kin. Either way, you've got really good odds of getting sued.
You're justified in shooting somebody to stop them from causing you serious bodily harm (I believe they call it Grevious in Texas, but I don't know their terminology) i.e. the assaliant has the 1. Ability 2. Opportunity, and 3. is an Immediate threat of causing you harm. (and I think Texas calls 3 Jeopardy)
So you shoot them until they stop. Once you can no longer articulate that they are no longer a threat of causing you harm, and if the evidence shows that you continued after that point, that is when your black and white/good v. evil/ case turns into a question of whether you committed an act of self defense or murder.
And good attorney's start at $250 an hour.
So if the badguy is injured, and runs away. Good. Threat stopped. Bad guy falls down, throws his weapon away and begs for mercy. Good, Threat stopped. Chase him down to make
Then guess who's getting raked over the coals in court? Bingo. You are.
The cleaner your case of self defense, the better off you're going to be. You shoot until the threat stops. You don't care if they live or die. Just that they leave you alone.
Creature
Member
You are pretty safe using the same load that your local PD uses...which 99% of the time is 00Buck.
I'll be less charitable. Intentionally killing a nonthreat is murder. This is true even in castle states - your presumption of reasonableness WILL be rebutted if the victim was a nonthreat. Folks advocating murder ought not to be welcome on this board.
Buzz, Bix, it is just more of the same. Some people mistake internet bravado for proficiency.
We should never let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good tirade from somebody who thinks watching Dirty Harry movies and wishful thinking has prepared them for actually shooting somebody and the legal aftermath.
We should never let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good tirade from somebody who thinks watching Dirty Harry movies and wishful thinking has prepared them for actually shooting somebody and the legal aftermath.
Smitty in CT
Member
Recently, there was a case here in Connecticut that made national headlines.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story
These two "career criminals" were unarmed when they broke into the Petit's home, they beat the father unconsiuos with one of the family's baseball bats, threw him down the basement stairs, then tied him up before they went to work doing unspeakable things to the rest of his family before brutally killing them.
I'm sorry if my response to deafsg1's post offends you, but, if someone breaks into my home, I am going to presume that they have lethal intent .... I refuse to assume that the person or persons, that have "illegaly found there way into my home", have done so with only my best intrests in mind.
I will use the training that the military gave me and I will eliminate the threat ("perceived" or real), using #4 buckshot to do so. If they happen to survive, it will be due to poor shot placement on my part.
I would gladly be judged by a "jury of 12 of my peers" than to be faced with the "what if's", that I am sure Dr. Petit will have to face every day.
My thoughts, prayers, and sympathy go out to Dr. Petit and his family...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story
These two "career criminals" were unarmed when they broke into the Petit's home, they beat the father unconsiuos with one of the family's baseball bats, threw him down the basement stairs, then tied him up before they went to work doing unspeakable things to the rest of his family before brutally killing them.
I'm sorry if my response to deafsg1's post offends you, but, if someone breaks into my home, I am going to presume that they have lethal intent .... I refuse to assume that the person or persons, that have "illegaly found there way into my home", have done so with only my best intrests in mind.
I will use the training that the military gave me and I will eliminate the threat ("perceived" or real), using #4 buckshot to do so. If they happen to survive, it will be due to poor shot placement on my part.
I would gladly be judged by a "jury of 12 of my peers" than to be faced with the "what if's", that I am sure Dr. Petit will have to face every day.
My thoughts, prayers, and sympathy go out to Dr. Petit and his family...
Smitty,
That's all well and good.
I have no problem with you blasting the hell out of somebody in your house. Good for you. I teach this stuff for a living. I would like to seem more people with that attitude.
But, and here's the big but, go back and read this thread. We've got a bunch of comments about how the best way to avoid civil litigation is to make sure you finish the bad guy off so he can't sue you.
That don't work in real life, and it has nothing to do with the realities of what is going to happen to you in court.
You shoot to stop the threat. You shoot the hell out of the bad guy, repeat as neccesary, until he is no longer a threat. Sometimes stopping somebody means they die. Not my problem. That's his problem for attacking me.
But if he's alive, but he's no longer a threat, and the evidience supports that he was no longer a threat, then that creates doubt in the mind of the "reasonable people" who are sitting on the jury at your trial.
Bringing the Petits into this is an appeal to emotion. Their case has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If Dr. Petit had shot them, and protected his family, but one of the dirtbags was injured and crawling away, and the Doc had finished him off (as some posters are suggesting here) then Dr. Petit would have ended up in prison, and it would be a whole different news story.
Pesonally I would rather have the good guys A. Stay alive and B. Stay out of jail.
These things don't have to be mutually exclusive.
to finish the job?
No. The smart thing to do would be to get your family to safety. Cover him, and call 911, and ask for an ambulance when you do so. That 911 tape is going to get played at your trial, either in your defense, or the prosecution is going to use it against you. So ask for medical attention for the perp.
The old "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is usually what somebody says after they offer a piece of really bad legal advice. There's no reason you can't maximize your chances of avoiding both of those problems.
This doesn't make you any less of a man to not advocate executing somebody who is no longer a threat. There is no joy in executing somebody. There is no joy in righteously protecting your family, only to screw it up at the last second, and spending the remainder of the good years of your life getting sodomized in prison.
People in this thread are offering advice that is illegal and stupid. Now for some of you, that is just good old happy fun time internet puffery, where we have a contest to see how manly we are, but some of us have to deal with this stuff, and the repurcusions of stupid advice, out in the real world, on a daily basis. For us, it ain't funny.
That's all well and good.
I have no problem with you blasting the hell out of somebody in your house. Good for you. I teach this stuff for a living. I would like to seem more people with that attitude.
But, and here's the big but, go back and read this thread. We've got a bunch of comments about how the best way to avoid civil litigation is to make sure you finish the bad guy off so he can't sue you.
That don't work in real life, and it has nothing to do with the realities of what is going to happen to you in court.
You shoot to stop the threat. You shoot the hell out of the bad guy, repeat as neccesary, until he is no longer a threat. Sometimes stopping somebody means they die. Not my problem. That's his problem for attacking me.
But if he's alive, but he's no longer a threat, and the evidience supports that he was no longer a threat, then that creates doubt in the mind of the "reasonable people" who are sitting on the jury at your trial.
Bringing the Petits into this is an appeal to emotion. Their case has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If Dr. Petit had shot them, and protected his family, but one of the dirtbags was injured and crawling away, and the Doc had finished him off (as some posters are suggesting here) then Dr. Petit would have ended up in prison, and it would be a whole different news story.
Pesonally I would rather have the good guys A. Stay alive and B. Stay out of jail.
These things don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Okay, so you wing the guy because he was moving. He's down, bleeding badly from #4 wounds to his shoulder and chest. He is now unarmed and crying for his mommy. He is no threat. You still going to do what some of our brave posters suggested and put another round in his face
to finish the job?
No. The smart thing to do would be to get your family to safety. Cover him, and call 911, and ask for an ambulance when you do so. That 911 tape is going to get played at your trial, either in your defense, or the prosecution is going to use it against you. So ask for medical attention for the perp.
The old "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is usually what somebody says after they offer a piece of really bad legal advice. There's no reason you can't maximize your chances of avoiding both of those problems.
This doesn't make you any less of a man to not advocate executing somebody who is no longer a threat. There is no joy in executing somebody. There is no joy in righteously protecting your family, only to screw it up at the last second, and spending the remainder of the good years of your life getting sodomized in prison.
People in this thread are offering advice that is illegal and stupid. Now for some of you, that is just good old happy fun time internet puffery, where we have a contest to see how manly we are, but some of us have to deal with this stuff, and the repurcusions of stupid advice, out in the real world, on a daily basis. For us, it ain't funny.
W.E.G.
Member
My bad.
Entonces... "en el centro, entre McDonalds y el cuarto de baño."
Reparado?
--------------
No come la lechuga.
Entonces... "en el centro, entre McDonalds y el cuarto de baño."
Reparado?
--------------
No come la lechuga.
Smitty in CT
Member
I have never, nor would I ever advocate or suggest that someone "finish-off" the bad guy, once the "threat has been removed", your done.
Most people loose the will to fight pretty quickly after being shot (or shot at, for that matter)....
Most people loose the will to fight pretty quickly after being shot (or shot at, for that matter)....
Smitty...Forget about threat. Anyone who forces his/her way into my home will have two choices..leave or be shot (16 pellets #1B). We do not have to prove "threat of grave bodily harm or death" anymore. Been that way for awhile now.
I will not shoot someone who can't crawl out of my house after being hit the first time though.
Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.
I will not shoot someone who can't crawl out of my house after being hit the first time though.
Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.
I'm no peacenik, I'm all about shooting somebody who is a threat. So quit trying to twist my condemnation of really bad legal advice with somehow being soft on crime or some nonsense.
I'm taking issue with these gems of legal wisdom:
Those are just plain bad advice, no matter how you try to spin it.
I'm taking issue with these gems of legal wisdom:
- Smitty in CT Which sounds way different than what you just posted.
Those are just plain bad advice, no matter how you try to spin it.
Im283
Member
No but you surely must take the advice of the people here which to me is sort of like an internet gunshop, gunsmith etc....
If you read it on the internet it surely is true
ArchAngelCD
Member.
IMO, this thread has easily outlived it's usefulness.
MudPuppy
Member
(All threads outlive their usefulness after the third post. 
)
What are the cops using in their shotguns? Obviously not blood thirsty murderers planning on killin' folks when they load up.
)What are the cops using in their shotguns? Obviously not blood thirsty murderers planning on killin' folks when they load up.
FLORIDA KEVIN
Member
Before you choose what to put in your shotgun , get a variety of shells and pattern them at the range you expect to encounter the threat ! Then decide what you are going to use 1 i bet you will be suprized by the larger birdshot sizes #6 and up !
Cosmoline
Member
As a general rule, taking advice on legal matters from a gun store clerk is a bad idea. Taking such advice from a WALMART clerk is much worse.
Yes, buckshoot will go through drywall. So will any projectile powerful enough to kill. So will my boot or fist. The advice is idiotic. There are reasons to go with a HP soft lead slug over buckshot in a shotgun. Good, sound tactical reasons. But worrying about "overpenetration" is not one of them.
Deadly force is deadly force is deadly force. You're confusing the concept of deadly force with the notion that you must reduce force of defense with the level of threat.
If you mean use an effective round, that's one thing. If you mean go up and put a coup de grace in the back of his head that is of course murder.
Yes, buckshoot will go through drywall. So will any projectile powerful enough to kill. So will my boot or fist. The advice is idiotic. There are reasons to go with a HP soft lead slug over buckshot in a shotgun. Good, sound tactical reasons. But worrying about "overpenetration" is not one of them.
Deadly force is deadly force is deadly force. You're confusing the concept of deadly force with the notion that you must reduce force of defense with the level of threat.
If you mean use an effective round, that's one thing. If you mean go up and put a coup de grace in the back of his head that is of course murder.
Rokman
Member
The Wal Mart clerk usually can't find the key to unlock the ammo box, much less offer any decent advice on ammo.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
If buckshot could be considered premeditation to killing someone, then so too would be the use of any firearm. It simply does not work that way.
FYI, it does not matter whether you shoot to kill or shoot to stop. All you need is to be within your legal rights to use lethal force. Whether you shoot to kill or shoot to stop will not change the issue of whether or not lethal force could be used in that incident.
camslam
Member
I hate to add what is common sense to me:
-If someone is in your house that doesn't belong there, they have no business or right to be there.
-As long as someone is in your house who knows what threat they pose.
-My goal would be to eliminate the threat as soon as possible. If a gun scares them off, great, if they choose to do anything but run at an amazing rate out of my house, they will suffer the results.
-Given that buckshot is the most effective man stopper at close ranges, I think I will stick with it and hire an excellent attorney should I need one.
Remember, a threat continues to be a threat, until it is rendered completely useless. Way, way too many people survive birdshot and other rounds all the time. If they are really a threat, go with the best stopper.
-If someone is in your house that doesn't belong there, they have no business or right to be there.
-As long as someone is in your house who knows what threat they pose.
-My goal would be to eliminate the threat as soon as possible. If a gun scares them off, great, if they choose to do anything but run at an amazing rate out of my house, they will suffer the results.
-Given that buckshot is the most effective man stopper at close ranges, I think I will stick with it and hire an excellent attorney should I need one.
Remember, a threat continues to be a threat, until it is rendered completely useless. Way, way too many people survive birdshot and other rounds all the time. If they are really a threat, go with the best stopper.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Even with a nom de internet, identity is not anonymous; so no
posturing, please. I have heard people face-to-face give
ridiculous self-defense advice (like drag the intruder across
the threshold and put a kitchen knife in his hand). Legal advice
like that is worth what you pay for it. Nada. And can cost more.
Of the eight murders in the past three years in my hometown,
the five that I followed through the papers were home invasions.
One by stabbing, two by baseball bat, two by shooting. My
assumption is going to be that an intruder may intend to kill me.
That said, the two self defense cases involving home intrusions
I know about personally were resolved by well-armed women
declaring Go away or I'll shoot. The intruders given that choice
left (and these involved intruders inside the home). One must
be prepared, though, to follow up on the threat to use force
if the intruder chooses the wrong option.
On gelatin blocks simulating the resistence of flesh, 12 ga
birdshot will give a 4 to 6 inch deep "rathole" wound,
while buckshot will give about a 9 to 10 inch deep "rathole"
wound, then nine seperate bullet tracks as the buckshot
spread for about 18 to 19 inches total penetration.
I have tested my shotgun for home defense at distances
paced off to match distances within my home. (Typical
room width, 12 feet, longest room, 23 feet, longest hallway
36 feet (12 yards). The spread of birdshot from a cylinder
bore barrel is not great at in-home distances. I think even
the 1oz #8 skeet load is formidible compared to, say, a .38 snub.
posturing, please. I have heard people face-to-face give
ridiculous self-defense advice (like drag the intruder across
the threshold and put a kitchen knife in his hand). Legal advice
like that is worth what you pay for it. Nada. And can cost more.
Of the eight murders in the past three years in my hometown,
the five that I followed through the papers were home invasions.
One by stabbing, two by baseball bat, two by shooting. My
assumption is going to be that an intruder may intend to kill me.
That said, the two self defense cases involving home intrusions
I know about personally were resolved by well-armed women
declaring Go away or I'll shoot. The intruders given that choice
left (and these involved intruders inside the home). One must
be prepared, though, to follow up on the threat to use force
if the intruder chooses the wrong option.
On gelatin blocks simulating the resistence of flesh, 12 ga
birdshot will give a 4 to 6 inch deep "rathole" wound,
while buckshot will give about a 9 to 10 inch deep "rathole"
wound, then nine seperate bullet tracks as the buckshot
spread for about 18 to 19 inches total penetration.
I have tested my shotgun for home defense at distances
paced off to match distances within my home. (Typical
room width, 12 feet, longest room, 23 feet, longest hallway
36 feet (12 yards). The spread of birdshot from a cylinder
bore barrel is not great at in-home distances. I think even
the 1oz #8 skeet load is formidible compared to, say, a .38 snub.
- Status
