alsaqr
Member
"In a real-life confrontation, if deadly force is justified at all you will be under lethal attack."
+1
+1
Using Less-Than-Lethal as first round
- Thread starter kd7nqb
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
Amen.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
"less lethal" loads...
As a armed security officer, I looked into some "less lethal" type loads for my duty .38spl revolver and decided not to use them.
When you use a firearm to protect yourself or others in a critical incident, you will need to justify your actions to the local law enforcement and/or legal system. The use of firearms is considered to be "deadly force" and you will still be held to that standard by the criminal justice system.
These new loads may work well but for firearms, I'd stick with normal ammo.
As a armed security officer, I looked into some "less lethal" type loads for my duty .38spl revolver and decided not to use them.
When you use a firearm to protect yourself or others in a critical incident, you will need to justify your actions to the local law enforcement and/or legal system. The use of firearms is considered to be "deadly force" and you will still be held to that standard by the criminal justice system.
These new loads may work well but for firearms, I'd stick with normal ammo.
They can keep their less than lethal rounds. If the situation reaches the point where I have to fire to protect my life or families I want the threat stopped ASAP and completely dead in it's tracks.
Further, I don't want some slick trashing talking trial lawyer to show up for a wounded piece of human debry and file a law suit on me because I shot and wounded him while he was attempting a home invasion. It's hard to file a law suit when your worm food. Of course the dearly departed may have family who files but those are hard to win when it's my word against a dead person-who usually has a long rap sheet and who was committing a violent crime at the time of his death.
Further, I don't want some slick trashing talking trial lawyer to show up for a wounded piece of human debry and file a law suit on me because I shot and wounded him while he was attempting a home invasion. It's hard to file a law suit when your worm food. Of course the dearly departed may have family who files but those are hard to win when it's my word against a dead person-who usually has a long rap sheet and who was committing a violent crime at the time of his death.
Confederate
Member
I'd call these things LESS THAN USEFUL. The drawbacks are numerous:
1) In situations where you need to stop someone instantly, this takes precious time that could otherwise be used in actually stopping the perp;
2) Unscrupulous lawyers (sorry for being redundant) may portray you as someone more willing to shoot in any given situation than those with lethal rounds;
3) The rounds could still blind or disable a criminal, setting yourself up for a lawsuit;
4) When criminals start using less than lethal weapons, then I'll consider using them. Until then, I'm not going to risk going up against a thug who doesn't care about my life with a round that may only enrage him and not stop him. Finally,
5) This type of ammunition will only encourage idiot lawmakers in banning the more efficient "lethal" rounds available to us now.
Again, the whole idea is not to kill someone, but to stop him. It makes much more sense to use it in crowd control and animal control. But just as you wouldn't use this kind of a round in combat, it doesn't make sense for good self defense.
1) In situations where you need to stop someone instantly, this takes precious time that could otherwise be used in actually stopping the perp;
2) Unscrupulous lawyers (sorry for being redundant) may portray you as someone more willing to shoot in any given situation than those with lethal rounds;
3) The rounds could still blind or disable a criminal, setting yourself up for a lawsuit;
4) When criminals start using less than lethal weapons, then I'll consider using them. Until then, I'm not going to risk going up against a thug who doesn't care about my life with a round that may only enrage him and not stop him. Finally,
5) This type of ammunition will only encourage idiot lawmakers in banning the more efficient "lethal" rounds available to us now.
Again, the whole idea is not to kill someone, but to stop him. It makes much more sense to use it in crowd control and animal control. But just as you wouldn't use this kind of a round in combat, it doesn't make sense for good self defense.
kd7nqb
Member
FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION:
glad we are all on the same page.
Sato Ord
Member
I'd say they got stuck with a load of crap rubber bullets they had planned on selling to LE, so they told their marketing people to come up with a scheme that sounds good and sell them.
If you are justified in using a handgun, you are justified in using it. Worry about your life first. As far as a law suit goes, they can't get blood out of a rock. A judgment can screw up your credit, but in most states it isn't worth the paper it's printed on if you don't pay it.
ninja45
Member
What are they coming up with next? fur lined hand-cuffs.....Oh.
Zach S
Member
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
If you are legally using a firearm to defend yourself, it is because lethal force is morally and legally justifiable. If I am in a situation where it is justifiable, then my safety is at extreme risk. Most people here would not even consider a .22 or .32 adequate for home defense because they aren't reliable or powerful enough to stop a determined attacker. So why on earth would I think that something LESS powerful than a .22 would be a good idea?
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
Do you think a bad guy using a revolver loaded with LTL rounds will have a civil case when his intended victim shoots him with real bullets, just because they were LTL rounds? Does a bad guy have a case against excessive force when he points a BB gun or Airsoft gun at someone and they respond with deadly force? Do you think that they won't charge a bad guy so equipped with Assault with a Deadly Weapon?
spyderdude
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 315
The way I see it, if a guy is trying to kill me or seriously hurt me, he deserves no less lethal treatment than he's giving me. The first round that is coming out of my gun will be potentially lethal, and it won't be made of rubber.
Virginian
Member
I say if you get a chance to improve the gene pool, use it.
FranklyTodd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 517
Ok, I have to chime in here. I'm not interested in using these loads either - .357 Gold Dots in a j-frame for me, but I think many are missing the point. Some folks actually value human life. I know, people paint bad guys as faceless, 100% evil zombies, but what if some pathetic, desparate-for-drugs 15yr old tries to rob you with a pocketknife from 10 feet away. Legally justified to cap him? Sure. Do I want to pull the trigger? Not if I can help it.
Most people say they just want to "stop" an attacker, not "kill" them. The original poster is exploring whether product might help with that. Many armed encounters involve pulling the gun, and the BG running away. This is one step further than that. Not for me, but not absurd. Call me a bleeding heart, but if I were convinced it would work as advertised, I'd be interested. Those that want to kill a BG so they don't get sued are, to be polite, misguided. Trust me you will get sued just as quickly by next-of-kin for wrongful death as you will by an injured attacker.
And lastly, I have to comment on the poster who is bragging that they are so poor they are judgment-proof. Do you realize that's not a good thing? Perhaps rather than worrying about guns and internet forums, you should look into some job training, schooling, a GED, getting some overtime, something in order to better your financial situation, provide for yourself, family, and perhaps current/future children. Guess what? In the mean time you will build up what are called assets (cars, real estate, money, stocks), assets people will take away if you do bad things.
Sorry to be so touchy, I'm currently suing a smug deadbeat right now that stiffed me in a business deal. This poster is unfortunately right, some losers are totally judgment proof - I just didn't like that it was portrayed as a good thing to have so little. Capitalism, baby - give it a shot!
[EDIT] I re-read the original post - I stand by what I said above, but the ad copy bs for these rounds is absolutely laughable. It does explain why so many addressed how these rounds might impact a lawsuit - I didn't get that at first
Treo
member
QUOTE: "Further, I don't want some slick trashing talking trial lawyer to show up for a wounded piece of human debry and file a law suit on me because I shot and wounded him while he was attempting a home invasion. It's hard to file a law suit when your worm food. Of course the dearly departed may have family who files...."
This post is a perfect example of the type of post that anti D.A.s luuuuv to find on peoples computer after an S.D. shooting. It's so perfect I actually thought it was a troll when I first read it.
This post is a perfect example of the type of post that anti D.A.s luuuuv to find on peoples computer after an S.D. shooting. It's so perfect I actually thought it was a troll when I first read it.
Geezer59
Member
The only LTL round I might consider is something along the lines of this. Of course they're currently not available, probably will be Law Enforcement only when they are, cost estimated at $1000 ea., and have a muzzle velocity lower than a paintball (so trajectory might be a real factor in even hitting the target).
Not sounding that good ...
Not sounding that good ...
Sato Ord
Member
If the little twerp is threatening my life I am going to do what is necessary to make sure that I don't get dead. I have a good, real grasp of threat level. some strung out 15 year old with a pocket knife will more likely get a broken arm, and never know I'm carrying.
That's what pepper spray and stun guns are for. If I feel the need to pull the real thing, I'm ready and willing to pull the trigger.
And I have a couple of comments for you.
First, I have been raising a child who is the daughter of my dead-beat brother-in-law for years. Why, because I promised her grandmother that I would take care of her before the grandmother died. I get no help from either the dead-beat dad, or the state. We get a small SS check for her upkeep, it covers about half of the expenses.
I pay two mortgages, and own a third piece of property as well. I pay all of the taxes on those three properties. One of them we only own one third of because it is split between our niece, her dead-beat father, and my wife. When we finally sell that white elephant we will probably end up with about thirty-five k in it, and only get about thirty k back. Why do I do this, especially since my no-good, drug adicted brother-in-law will get one third of the proceeds. Because of the promise I made to my mother-in-law. I keep my word!
My wife and I also pay for two offices and drive over 500 miles a week so that she can maintain practices in two different cities.
I've worked to help support my family since my father died when I was thirteen. Now, on top of everything else, I'm the only one in my extensive family who is stepping up to the plate and taking care of my 91 year old mother. Add to all of that the fact that in the last three years I have averaged losing one family member or close friend to either disease, old age, or the war in the middle east, every six weeks. Despite this I pay my bills and support myself while raising two children, one of whom has extensive learning disabilities. We also homeschool.
So don't lecture me about responsibility there, Sparky.
Getting stiffed in a business deal is a hell of lot different than having some jackass who tried to rob you sue you for his injuries. If you had been in business with someone like me you wouldn't have gotten stiffed. I pay my rightful debts, but I don't consider paying some idiot scum bag, or his surviving family members, to be a rightful debt, and I won't let it take food off my family's table.
As for lawsuits where I live though, ain't likely. Florida law prohibits someone who is injured by a potential victim, or their surviving family members, from suing if the person was injured or killed while committing a felony.
FranklyTodd
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 517
Thanks for sharing. I meant no offense toward you personally, but I maintain that being judgment proof because you don't have any assets, whether by one's own laziness, or circumstances beyond one's control, is nothing to brag about. Of course, if your judgment-proofness (made up word
) is due to the circumstances you say, it's nothing to be ashamed of, either.Sato Ord
Member
No problem.
What I mean when I say they can't get blood out of a rock is simply that the BG has no right, after doing so much damage in your life already, to further rape you in the courtroom
I see it more as civil disobedience and an obligation to society to not pay for such a law suit. We, as a nation need to start sending a real message to these morons that committing crimes is not a profitable business in any way.
I would personally give away everything I own and live in a cardboard box before I let my assets be taken away by a liberal court and given to some scumbag.
I started with nothing at the age of thirteen. I have built a nice little nest. If I lost it tomorrow, it's just things. I can rebuild it.
What I mean when I say they can't get blood out of a rock is simply that the BG has no right, after doing so much damage in your life already, to further rape you in the courtroom
I see it more as civil disobedience and an obligation to society to not pay for such a law suit. We, as a nation need to start sending a real message to these morons that committing crimes is not a profitable business in any way.
I would personally give away everything I own and live in a cardboard box before I let my assets be taken away by a liberal court and given to some scumbag.
I started with nothing at the age of thirteen. I have built a nice little nest. If I lost it tomorrow, it's just things. I can rebuild it.
BikerRN
member
Why would I want to use a "non-lethal" option when lethal force is warranted?
Granted, there are times to use non-lethal force, but if I'm pulling my weapon it is because I have determined that lethal force is warranted. In short, I'm crapping myself and saying OH F..K and shaking like a leaf.
BikerRN
packnrat
Member
strange??? i always belived if i need / must pull out a pistol then it must be life or death.
a less than lethal round sounds more like a good cause to get sued.
why do the police need machine guns that are only good for killing?
when they are to arrest not exacute??
.
a less than lethal round sounds more like a good cause to get sued.
why do the police need machine guns that are only good for killing?
when they are to arrest not exacute??
.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
AFAIK, only police officers really have reason to "shoot" someone, and have it be less than lethal. Except they already have much more effective means, like beanbag shotguns and tasers. Unless you're a cop, you're not really going to be arresting someone, or shooting them for minor non-life-threatening things, which are the only reasons less than lethal force would be prudent. As every day joe civilian, the only time when we even draw is the time when less than lethal wouldn't be prudent to anyone, cop or not.
Chrome
Member
Anyone worth shooting is worth killing. Keep in mind rule #2:
Later,
Chrome...
Later,
Chrome...
There's nothing wrong and everything right with using less than lethal force if it will result in the elimination of the threat to your self or family. Rather than a less than lethal bullet though, I'd suggest carrying another less than lethal weapon, some mace or pepper spray or Taser. While most handgun shootings are normally lethal only 25% or less, shooting someone is inflicting serious harm to them and can result in serious legal consequences for the shooter.
A less than lethal weapon gives your the option to escalate the use of force to lethal if warranted. An example where a less than lethal option along with an escalation of force could be applied would be when assaulted (threatened) by multiple unarmed assailants in a situation outside of your home.
A less than lethal weapon gives your the option to escalate the use of force to lethal if warranted. An example where a less than lethal option along with an escalation of force could be applied would be when assaulted (threatened) by multiple unarmed assailants in a situation outside of your home.
ftierson
Member.
Exactly...
Forrest
- Status