Thus for a useless side fact. Way back when the Dutch police carried what was called a Dutch load in their revolvers. First was blank, then a cork bullet, then rubber bullet, then a tear gas round, then a real bullet. Not that I would recommend that but I have seen a gun store clerk discuss shotgun racking and then rubber buckshot.
I had to do a bit of research on this one.
First of all, I think we're pretty much on the same page here that this kind of a loadout would fall under the "stupid" category, and if used in semi-automatic pistols would further fall under the "guaranteed malfunction" category.
Second, the mention of "tear gas round" in this gun is somewhat of an anachronism, as tear gas used as a weapon of any kind came about in WWI, even though forms of tear gas were discovered in the late 1800s. Not to mention "tear gas bullets" themselves. I can't think of a more useless round in 9.4 mm. The effective range of such a round, if it really ever existed in the first place, would probably be within the powder burn range.
Also anachronistic is the use of rubber bullets...which came about in the 1970s in Britain.
In general, I pretty much find this to be apocryphal in nature.
But it IS a pretty cool one that I haven't heard before! Thanks for posting it!
Indeed. In many ways, most people would be better served with just carrying pepper spray....
Most people would be better served keeping their mouths shut about such serious legal matters until they actually go through the trouble to READ and UNDERSTAND the various laws AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY WRITTEN instead of going off hearsay and "how things ought to be".
Homicides and assaults are probably the top two on the list of worst criminal acts in society. It behooves people to understand what ACTUALLY constitutes a "homicide" and an "assault", which necessarily includes all the different varieties of acts which may fall under each.
"Homicide", for instance, is not necessarily "murder". It's the killing of a human being by another human being. A homicide might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it might be justifiable self-defense, etc. But because it's the killing of a human being by another, it's a very serious act of ultimate finality from which there is no recovery.
Assault likewise has many facets. Simply laying hands on another can be considered assault. It doesn't have to be a beating with an axe handle, rape, punch, or a slap in the face. There can be no actual contact involved at all, in fact. There can be horrible maiming involved...or no physical injury at all. Not understanding this is folly.
Therefore, "hearsay" and "baseless beliefs" have no place with respect to knowing and understanding the laws the use of deadly force.
There are many ways to argue a case in court. But by far, the BEST way is to show how your acts were in accordance with the laws AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. And even so, the outcome is not guaranteed to be certain. It WILL, however, very likely be expensive whichever way the outcome goes.
All that said...I ain't no lawyer. I don't aspire to be one, either. But I DO have a vested interest in understanding how the laws are actually applied with respect to the use of deadly force.