Non-lethal/less-than-lethal rounds of ammunition? What are your thoughts

[uktz]

I've been a CPL holder for a while now, and have been hearing talk of some people loading a non-lethal/less-than-lethal round last so if that individual HAD to use their firearm for SD, it would be a step before 'life or death' force.

I suppose it could be a last step deterrent for a chance to ensure no lives are lost that day, but if a lethal round was needed, it would still be available. I, personally, hope I never need to ready my firearm outside of a range setting, but a situation could arise and using a non-lethal round at first could be an advantage -- Although, thinking back to the 21ft rule, I don't know how many people would flee if their mindset was already set in stone about committing said crime after being marked with a non-lethal. Almost like a "Well, I'm already this far" type of mindset, I suppose.

What is everyone's thoughts on the subject?

[Jwade78]

My mindset is if I have to draw for whatever reason, I have already made the decision that my life is in danger, or the lives of my loved ones. I certainly never want to kill to kill, but I have looked into those sandbag rounds for my shotgun here at the house

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[georgeandlaurie]

If you are not successful and the bad guy is success, there is no do over. Make it count if you find yourself in a situation where your personal safety is in question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gray Man]

You use deadly force to stop the threat of deadly force and not to "kill". Anyone who has been through a legitimate CPL course was taught that fact. If you believe for a second that using beanbag (not sandbag) rounds will do the trick, good for you. It's your life. Personally however, you are doing the rest of us a disservice in the end. Use of less than lethal rounds might succeed in your case of self defense. And may in the long run, be used by certain legal professionals to establish over time, legal precedence that may be used against a person who actually uses SD ammunition.

Use what you want. It's your life and not mine. Use OC spray, a Taser, beanbag rounds, snake shot in a .38 special. But remember, you are using force to stop lethal force. Why on earth would you forfeit the right to use deadly force to stop deadly force?

It sounds to me like someone is having reservations about having to take a life to save a life. If that's the case, you may need to rethink why you have access to weapons in the first place. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion with yourself.

[wsr]

Absolutely horrible and idiotic idea

[Frisco_AZMI]

Less lethal rounds are no se bueno in a civilian defense situation, especially handgun rounds, which are likely to be some sort of imported "baton" rounds from overseas and of dubious quality and probably even less effective on a person who is inured to the pain they will inflict because of the drugs that will probably be in their system. Our department never (and no department that I know of) issued or used rubber handgun ammunition in any capacity. An argument could be made for the use of rubber or more often wooden shotgun projectiles, but those are for riot control within an extremely narrow set of circumstances are are NOT intended for use on people who are bent on lethal attack, but more for crowd dispersal and as a step down from lethal. The wooden 12 gauge blocks aren't often used any more as a UofA student lost his eye to one after a basketball game. No se bueno.

The bean bag rounds that are sometimes used by LE, or by Corrections are similarly useful but also within a VERY narrow set of circumstances. But again, they are more like a hard punch that may or may not persuade an attacker to stop...but their use is also predicated on the presence of other officers or corrections personnel being there as backup and with lethal means immediately available.

The biggest reason NOT to use a so-called less lethal round, especially one in a defensive pistol outside your home is: They are often mechanically unreliable when it comes to actually functioning a semiautomatic. Bang...you probably have a failure that you have to clear before you can get to the lethal round you're most likely going to need to actually stop the bad guy you just pissed all the way off. The second, and equally biggest reason NOT to use a so-called less lethal round is that if you use a less lethal round, that is a de facto admission that you didn't believe that your life was in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm". Yeah...you, by your own actions, just admitted that you didn't feel that a "lethal response" was warranted when you fired you gun at another human being with the intent to cause them potentially grave bodily harm. Even if you get out of a criminal prosecution, there is a HUGE chance that you're going to get the pants sued off you because by a preponderance of the evidence, the lawyer who is suing you on behalf of the "innocent victim who was just askin for some spare change who you shot in bare fear or panic" will be able to convince a a jury that you "inflicted cruel and unusual physical and emotional damage" on their client. The lawyer in front of the jury can float just about any theory they want to and can make you look really bad before your lawyer can "rehabilitate the witness", the seed will already be planted and maybe, just maybe they will be able to and maybe they won't. Remember, in a civil trial the burden of proof is only a "preponderance of the evidence" which is a LOT less than "beyond a reasonable doubt"...so the opposing lawyer only has to convince a reasonable person to about 51% that you acted recklessly.

For a shot to be justified, for any shot to be justified, you must be in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm" and had better be able to articulate it to a reasonable person why, in the same situation, knowing what you knew at the time, would do the same thing. Any time a shot is fired in self defense a crime has been committed. The crime has either been committed by an attacker, or the crime has been committed by the person who fired the shot without justification for a use of lethal force.

Then...consider this. I don't know of a single state or jurisdiction that makes any distinction between, or the usage of, a so-called less lethal round of ammo and a JHP. In essence, it doesn't matter what you fire out of your gun...you still fired a deadly weapon at another human being. I have studied and taught lethal force for three decades in both the academy and in the civilian world and testified in many courts of law and am not aware of any specific justification for the civilian use of less lethal ammunition.

Now, think practically, rather than legally. You have made the decision to carry a round of less lethal ammo in your tactical blaster. Okay. Cool. You don't really want hurt nobody. Great sentiment. But, even if you are carrying a full load of JHPs your mindset should still be that you don't want to hurt anyone. You are only carrying for that horrible instant where someone is so bent on hurting or killing you that you have NO choice but to employ deadly force in defense of yourself or your family. If you're justified in shooting anyone with anything, you are justified in killing them. BUT...the good news is that 85-90% of people shot with a handgun survive. So, though you may stop them, they still have a HUGE chance of surviving.

Even more practically...in this day and age, you are likely to be faced with more than one attacker, intruder, or home invader. You have that one less lethal round (we already covered the whole probability of a mechanical failure)...and now you have one less effective round with which to fight, increasing the likelihood that you will have to clear a malfunction in the middle of the fight for your life, or that you will have to reload in the middle of the fight...neither situation gives you any advantage, and you can see the downside right? What if you have 3 or 4 attackers and your defensive sidearm is a revolver with only 5 or 6 shots? How good are you (being honest with yourself) with your gun?

And...the bad guy(s) you're facing most likely has a gun or a knife...and he is NOT concerned with using "less lethal" force on you.

The only situation where I could see that maybe a less lethal round would/could be justified or even the usage of same be plausible would be a single bean bag round in a PUMP shotgun (doesn't rely on recoil or propellant gas to operate) with a nice dose of buckshot right behind it in a strictly home defense scenario. In your home, you have slightly more latitude in the action you take...but again, the probability of more than one intruder or attacker remains, so I still wouldn't make the choice to use anything but the most effective, proven, man stopping ammunition of the highest quality available.

Be safe.

[Ol` Joe]

Absolutely horrible and idiotic idea

+1

[Jwade78]

Use as many syllables as you like to describe taking a life, when the use of deadly force is necessary you are most definitely intending to kill. All of my home and self defense firearms have sd ammo in them, I have zero reservation taking a life to save mine or my families. I had thought about the "beanbag" rounds because my wife is a terrible shot, and refuses to practice. You're very judgey Gary.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Cocowheats]

Absolutely horrible and idiotic idea

Agreed.

You pull your gun and use it, it's considered lethal force. Doesn't matter what your first round is, so it mine as well be a hollow point.

Use as many syllables as you like to describe taking a life, when the use of deadly force is necessary you are most definitely intending to kill. All of my home and self defense firearms have sd ammo in them, I have zero reservation taking a life to save mine or my families. I had thought about the "beanbag" rounds because my wife is a terrible shot, and refuses to practice. You're very judgey Gary.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Might want to reconsider that. The goal is not to kill, but to stop the threat. The caveat is, if death occurs to your assailant(s), it's something we're ok with accepting at that point.

Telling the judge/police/whoever "I drew my gun then shot to kill" sounds pretty bad vs "I drew my gun and shot to stop the attack".

[Jwade78]

Agreed.

You pull your gun and use it, it's considered lethal force. Doesn't matter what your first round is, so it mine as well be a hollow point.


Might want to reconsider that. The goal is not to kill, but to stop the threat. The caveat is, if death occurs to your assailant(s), it's something we're ok with accepting at that point.

Telling the judge/police/whoever "I drew my gun then shot to kill" sounds pretty bad vs "I drew my gun and shot to stop the attack".

Is it because the word sounds bad or harsh, that it is being taken offense of? Because a rose by any other name is a rose here.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk