Using Less-Than-Lethal as first round

[The Bushmaster]

In days of old the Japanese samori felt that if they drew their sword and didn't use it they would have to cut themselves with the edge. Another words, if they drew their sword it had to taste blood...I'll be damed if I'll shoot myself. If I draw my concealed carry weapon it's because I intend to use it for deadly force...

 

[FranklyTodd]

Everyone is focused on what they can prove, and whether they'll be sued, and well, samurai. The advice to also carry a taser and pepper spray has two problems - first where are you going to keep all that stuff?? second - now you have REALLY helped future litigants against you - so, you have pepper spray, a taser, and a gun. First of all, you will be painted as paranoid for carrying all three, and second, you will be questioned why you didn't USE the pepper spray or taser first before escalating, whether or not you are required to by law.

If you will, let me recharacterize the question (forget non-lethal ammo for a sec). Hypo: BG, definitely coming, say with a baseball bat, but far enough away you will for SURE have time to get off 3+ shots. You have time, but nowhere to run. Do any of you CONSIDER shooting him in the leg, or some such thing? Forget all external ramifications (100% legal shoot if you put 5 in his chest) - do you really want to be responsible for the taking of a human life if you know in your heart you could have done something to prevent the death?

I don't even care if anyone answers - I know many will say - he's a worthless blah, blah, blah. But take a second and really think about it... Take one warning/wounding shot, at no real risk to yourself? Or kill because you legally can?? I know it's contrived, and you very often will not have the luxury, but it could happen. It's tangentially related to the discussion of whether you would ever brandish in order to de-escalate a situation (and hopefully avoid violence altogether) or instead would never disclose the weapon until you are pulling the trigger (better tactically without question, but how many encounters involve drawing, and the BG fleeing - that's the best CCW encounter, if there has to be one).

As a related side note / example, a friend of my dad has carried bird shot as the first shot in his carry 38 for years. His rationale is that with the wide scatter the first shot can be a face shot - which should end most attacks with nobody dead - if not, 4 or 5 more of the good stuff to follow (forget what model gun). He's a smart guy, retired LEO - it's just the way he chooses to do it. I don't but I thought I'd share...

 

[Green Lantern]

I'm not so much concerned about the lack of effectiveness of the rounds (though that could be a factor) as much as the LEGAL problems! Even if it was a good shoot, a ruthless prosecutor could likely use your use of a "LTL" round against you in court...

It does not make sense.

When you fire a shot, you are using lethal force -- it doesn't matter if you hit, miss, use a rubber bullet, or a hollow point. It's lethal force. And you must meet the standard for lethal force.

However, if you use a "non-lethal" bullet you are admitting at the outset you did not have justification for using lethal force.

^^^ What HE said!

I for one felt a little sickened, and MORE than a little PO'd at the people that market these things** when I came to learn this (thankfully before ever USING one in a violent encounter...!)

**It's even worse than when people in the gun industry use the term the antis stole, "assault weapon" in literature or ads, IMO...

They DO have their uses, I suppose - if you're an LEO/soldier *trying* to quell a riot without killing someone...or if you somehow foresee a need to do so yourself in the future.

Otherwise, I'd stay away.

ETA - I skipped page two, where did Pepper Spray and Tasers come into this?

I will NEVER rely on a Taser until the day the bad guys sign a binding agreement to make all attacks on good guys "one on one." IE, a good option if you somehow KNOW you won't be up against more than one aggressor.

I carry pepper spray daily, largely because I can't carry at work. Pepper spray, unlike LTL rounds, ARE classified as "not deadly force." Don't see any problem there - use it for situations that don't call for deadly force, use the gun for ones that DO.

FranklyTodd - OK, I guess that COULD be a good argument for LTL rounds, provided they have enough "oomph" to actually STOP someone attacking you...just so long as you only use them in situations where you WOULD be justified in killing someone in defense...

Still, the possibility of it coming back to haunt you in court is there. Then again, I suppose there HAVE been cases where they actually HELPED a case...

Anyway, the only "fake" ammo I'll be using are my snap caps for dry fire practice and storage...

 

[Sato Ord]

If you will, let me recharacterize the question (forget non-lethal ammo for a sec). Hypo: BG, definitely coming, say with a baseball bat, but far enough away you will for SURE have time to get off 3+ shots. You have time, but nowhere to run. Do any of you CONSIDER shooting him in the leg, or some such thing?

No, I do not try to put one in his leg, or any other type of "wing shooting". If I pull the trigger I'm going to do my best to make sure that I hit my target with lethal force.

If I have to pull my weapon in such a situation I will brandish it, tell him to stop once, and then fire. First shot is going center mass, if that doesn't do it I'll put the second in his head.

Forget all external ramifications (100% legal shoot if you put 5 in his chest) - do you really want to be responsible for the taking of a human life if you know in your heart you could have done something to prevent the death?

Unlike many people who carry a gun, I've been there and done that. It's not something I'm proud of, it's just what had to be done at the time. Interesting that you put this they way you did. This morning I woke up at about four-thirty after running through the faces of men who I either killed or helped to kill: hell of a way to end a poor night's sleep, but at least I finally sat bolt upright fully awake. Kind of glad I didn't feel like going back to sleep at that point.

Doesn't matter that it was justified (former Ranger), you still go through this if you're human. However, you get used to it. For me it's worse at this time of the year.

As often as I am "visited" by those I killed, I'm am more often "visited" by those comrades I couldn't save, and sometimes I can even hear their voices. Of the two I can live more easily with the memories of my enemies than the others. So yes, I will shoot to protect myself, my family, my friends, and innocent bystanders if, God forbid, the need arises.

As I have said before, I have thought this through and I will do what needs to be done. I know the ramifications of that decision and I can live with them.

 

[Murdock]

Sato Ord

Here' to a good night's sleep, Ranger. You've earned it. Airborne!

 

[enfield]

NOT a good idea -- you may only get 1 shot.

 

[FranklyTodd]

A sincere thanks for your service, Sato. The experience you've shared confirms what I already believed, even though I haven't been there, or done that (and hope not to!). There's murder, there's legally-justified homocide that could have been avoided, and there's unavoidable homicide.

Ignoring murder, both the second or third type of justified killing will mess with one's head to some degree. I suspect the second (where it could have been avoided) would be much worse than the third.

If I have to pull my weapon in such a situation I will brandish it, tell him to stop once, and then fire. First shot is going center mass, if that doesn't do it I'll put the second in his head.

I have always believed that this would be my response as well (well, I'm a lousy shot, so the second third and fourth would be at COM too ). I don't do LTL rounds, and would think if I had the time and ability to wing the guy, I could probably get away altogether.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Various kinds of "less than lethal" ammunition have been around for some time and are in common use by police, among others. This includes various kinds of rubber bullets, beanbag projectiles and the like. However, AFAIK current police practice is to deploy such "less than lethal" ammunition only when there are other officers present who will be able to immediately deploy more traditional ammunition should the kinder and gentler stuff fail to bring a stop to the hostilities.

I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:

[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

[3] breaking major skeletal support structures

[4] damaging the central nervous system.

Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.

A gun is lethal force and a last resort. One would properly use a gun only when defending himself or someone else from an immediate attack likely to cause grievous injury or death. Under such circumstances, the most important thing is stopping the attack.

The bottom line is really that to effectively stop someone who is attacking you, you will need to hurt him badly enough to do some damage. And if you do enough damage to effectively stop him, he might in fact not survive. That is the reality of using force to defend yourself or someone else. There are moral, ethical and legal issues, but one should, perhaps, not resort to lethal force in self defense unless he is prepared to deal with those issues.

 

[Coronach]

knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit.

I'm curious what courts these are, because apparently the courts around here aren't clued in.

Seriously? This is a massively stupid idea. Don't do it.

Mike

 

[Green Lantern]

I guess in a way, their sales pitch DOES make sense....

But if the world had any sense, people wouldn't be being hauled in to criminal or civil court after a justifiable shooting anyhow.

Sato - thank you for your service!

 

[RickH]

I don't think a non lethal first round is necessary. Instead of firing the non lethal round just yell "I am about to shoot you dead". If you don't have time to yell just shoot if it is your life on the line.

 

[Sato Ord]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

I just want to acknowledge all of those who said thank you for the service I've done.

I did my job in jungles where we weren't even supposed to be, and to this day our government doesn't acknowledge we were ever there. Of course the other guys acknowledge it, and still use our former presence as a local political football, but that's a rant for a different forum.

Just wanted to say, You're Welcome to all. Thanks for the good words.

 

[BuntlineSpecial]

pardon if I repeat anyone
Whatever comes out of the barrel of your weapon, you are responsible for. Even "less lethal" munitions can kill, and in court, the opposing council will use the face that you used less lethal ammo to 1) make you look negligent in the taking of that life and 2) "prove" you were not in fear for your life, took his client's life/well-being without provocation
I knew a man at one point who kept a blank in the first chamber of his HD revolver. He did this so if someone snagged the gun, he would "know" the first shot wouldn't do anything, and could react accordingly.
That said, I did not agree with his view. If you point a weapon at someone, you must have legal right to use lethal force. leave the less lethal stuff to the movies

 

[ARTiger]

Less lethal . . . BS. This round can be lethal . . . to anyone silly enough to carry it in a SD weapon.

 

[koja48]

If someone made "more than lethal," I'd carry that . . . protecting my life & the lives of those I love is paramount.

 

[SCKimberFan]

SATO - Thank you Ranger and God bless.

I would think that his post is the most logical. I hope that I never have to pull the trigger, but if it comes down to him or me, I want to be able to stop the threat. If that means COM, that is where it goes. I don't know that I would be able to "wing" him in an extremely high stress situation. I would do what is necessary to protect myself. LTL bullets might be good to quell a disturbance (where there is plenty of back-up), but I can't see any useful purpose in SD.

 

[koja48]

tell him to stop once, and then fire

Amen. Given a situation that would allow time for a warning, I'd offer 1 chance to "stop'" If a BG fails to heed that command, I'd defend myself. I carry a 1911 for a reason . . . it's a stopper & I've used mine enough to know it's reliable. I'll reserve anything to do with pepper for a rare steak . . .

 

[Supertac45]

A slingshot might work also.

 

[jaholder1971]

In the words of an Irish Folk group: No Nay Never, No more!

 

[retgarr]

Seems to me that less than lethal is only an option where the BG has an esacpe option. You upon drawing your gun force a fight or flight reaction and unless you can guarantee an easy flight option LTL is a very bad choice. And if you can guarantee a flight option, LTL in a defensive situation is just a bad option.

 

[koja48]

force a fight or flight reaction

Wrong! If a dirtbag confronts me or mine threatening bodily harm, said dirtbag forces a "fight and survive" reaction, period. I force nothing.

 

[Erik]

The company's claims are suspect at best, to phrase it politely.

"The answer is simple, When a less Than lethal shell is used as the FIRST round, knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit."

Beginning here. Can anyone cite case law supporting this claim? I imagine, at best, they are extrapolating upon case law concerning law enforcement's use of less than lethal munitions.

Anyone want the door to litigation to be opened wider a la standards that law enforcement officers are held to? Having to instead of proving "just" your use of lethal force in a given situation, having to prove your failing to use less than lethal force in that situation first?

Anti-gun legislators would have a field day with it, and if they failed it would be a judicial ruling away as the law of the land. You don't want that.

 

[koja48]

I can cite that I'm still alive after using "lethal" rounds & I'm quite happy with that. Didn't get arrested, sued, or chastised. I don't have guilty feelings, bad dreams, or bills from a shrink. I was without that particular firearm for a very short time, but it was returned in a timely manner. The situation was not the result of MY attempt to rob another person. As the old saying goes, "If you wanna dance, ya gotta pay the fiddler." Working for a living beats dieing to support a drug habit during an attempted mugging hands-down, every time. When a dirtbag pulls a gun, sometimes the intended victim pulls one too, and is more proficient. Not all potential victims are easy . . .

On another note, I wonder how much time asshats spend at the range improving their proficiency . . . "

 

[Odd Job]

BenEzra has it exactly right.

Warning shot: I've been there and done that. I fired a warning shot in an incident that resulted in a foot chase and a citizen's arrest of a man.
I know now that I shouldn't have done it, and all sorts of unfortunate things could have happened to me or the person I was trying to defend.

If you clear leather and shoot, you do so with the acknowledgement that any shot/s fired may be fatal to the target.

 

[koja48]

Any shot/shots fired in a "them or me/mine" situation SHOULD be fatal to the target, period! Yell to warn (circumstances & distance permitting), but shoot to eliminate the threat. As stated in one of the spaghetti westerns: "When it's time to shoot, shoot . . . don't talk."