Do you shoot again after you discombobulate your opponent

[OuTcAsT]

If the situation is grave enough to justify the use of lethal force, why would you even consider the use of (possibly) less-than-lethal ammunition ? Would you consider throwing a lamp or vase at the attacker as a first line of defense before deploying your weapon ?

I would think that the use of "discombobulating" force initially would greatly diminish a "legal" argument for justified lethal force after, If it failed to be effective in stopping the threat .

 

[40-82]

I have something to say that I hope the man who loaded his NAA 22 with a shotshell for his first round will hear. I had occasion to use 22 shotshells a few days ago. I had a possum on my back terrace, and because I knew I would damage the brick, I couldn't use regular ammunition or even a shotshelll from a 38 or larger gun. I didn't use an NAA. I used a Smith & Wesson with a six-inch barrel. How that would pattern differently from the NAA I don't know, but I am pretty sure that I could direct what pattern there was more effectively with the larger sixgun. At ten feet I emptied the gun, firing six shots into the head. He ran 60-70 feet and stopped. By now he was off the terrace, and I finished him with a 22 hollowpoint.

You will probably blind somebody with those shotshells at close range, but you will be unlikely to stop a firing stroke or a cut with a knife once it is already started.

When you face a jury, and they realize that you intentionally loaded your gun with a load intended to blind, I think they will see your view of morality as flatly different from their own. Jeff Cooper once wrote, "If you have the right to blind. You have the right to kill." I doubt the average American on a jury will even acknowledge that you have that much right. Regardless of how they are instructed on the law, I suspect they will want to distance themselves from such an act, and that will reflect on the verdict they hand down.

 

[Technosavant]

If I'm drawing a gun and leveling it at another human being, investigators and attorneys are going to refer to it as lethal force.

If I'm trying to prove I was justified in doing so, they're going to ask why the heck I was messing around with signal flares or birdshot.

I'm with Tom on this one. Use of a firearm, no matter the load, no matter if it's even fired, is considered lethal force. If I'm using lethal force, I'd better be justified in doing that. If I'm justified in using lethal force, I'm in fear for my life or the life of a loved one. Therefore, if I have that kind of fear, why would I use anything less than what is shown to be effective in stopping the threat?

If it's my life or the live of a loved one on the line, I've got no time for maybes. Maybe it will discombobulate them. Maybe it will disable them. Maybe, maybe maybe. Maybe they'll shrug it off and I'll take a mortal wound. Maybe it will be my wife who dies. No thanks. I'll use a real round, a good quality defensive load. If I'm in legitimate fear for my life, it's no time for half measures. I'd rather it be a JHP between the running lights than a load of birdshot that may or may not blind the assailant. I'd rather a load of 00 buck than some noisy flashy load that might set my house on fire.

 

[mehavey]

Simple Rule:

You must convince 12 good men & true that you could reasonably expect there remained immediate/capable threat.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The only good use I've ever heard for .22 shot loads is for shooting wasps outside, which actually sounds like a ridiculous amount of fun.

If you shoot a .22 shot load at someone's face, odds are fairly good you won't blind them at all, just produce a minor flesh wound(s) on their face. Rat shot often isn't even enough to stop the rats and snakes upon which it is intended to be used.

That violates the cardinal rule that says never do an enemy a small injury.

If the use of deadly force is justified, then do it. Don't waste your time with warning shots, rat shot, or flashbangs.

Interestingly, if you do shoot an assailant with a handgun, he or she is very likely to survive the experience. If you do manage to put an eye out with .22 shot, that's a permanent injury, whereas one can recover from most nonfatal chest shots without any permanent and complete loss of any function. So rat shot is doing your attacker no favors either.

The flashbang thing is just a ridiculous idea. If you are at close range in your dwelling, the effect upon you is going to be nearly as bad or as bad as that upon an assailant. Furthermore your gun will be loaded with a nonlethal first shot. What if you needed that? Lastly, it's a fire hazard.

 

[doofus47]

in my hometown, there was a police shooting a few months ago. More than one shot was fired by the officer. The police spokesman described to the press the actions of the officer as "[he] shot until the threat was neutralized." I would expect that that would be the judicious way to mete out your efforts.

 

[wayneinFL]

If you shoot someone with shot and you're not under threat of lethal force, you're screwed, because it's very doubtful a jury will find it justifiable if you were not in fear of your life.

The other scenario is one in which you do fear for your life. Let's look at this tactically for a second:

Even if you blind the other guy, he can still shoot. You have only increased your chances slightly, depending on the distance.

So defending yourself by shooting real bullets might be justified if your attacker has a gun and has been blinded. If he's still shooting in your direction, you should be in fear for your life. With a knife up close, you're probably justified, too. But it's still a pretty dumb idea to blind the attacker with a gun when faced with lethal force. If you think you're justified in temporarily blinding but not killing an attacker, use pepper spray or a Taser.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think all the comments support my view that the Internet posting that you use a birdshot round to first 'blind' your opponent is not a smart idea.

 

[Technosavant]

Even if you blind the other guy, he can still shoot. You have only increased your chances slightly, depending on the distance.

Not only this, but had that been a real defensive load instead of some birdshot load intended to discombobulate, you'd have just made a single shot that would be highly likely to end the threat right on the spot.

If you think you can put a load of small shot into the right spot, why not just put a bullet there and end the whole thing immediately instead of merely just hoping the bad guy will be properly disabled?

It just makes no sense to me.

 

[44 AMP]

But it's still a pretty dumb idea to blind the attacker with a gun when faced with lethal force.

There is lethal force and there is lethal force....

An "unarmed" 250lb 17 yr old on dope (or not) can beat retired old me to death with his bare hands. And the difference between an ass whoopin and me being killed could happen with the very first punch. Or as he bangs my head against the sidewalk.

All the advice against deliberately using bird shot for "blinding" is sound.

No matter what it is you use, if your opponent is stunned or discombobulated, at that moment, he is not an immediate threat. So, you aren't legally justified in shooting him again. 2 seconds later, he might be an immediate threat again. Or he might run off...

Either way, I think it is foolish to deliberately create the situation where you might have to make that decision, when using the usual kind of ammo (buckshot or a single slug or bullet) would settle the matter, one way, or the other.

As to the ability of some one to recover "fully" from a (non-fatal) pistol shot to the chest, possibly, and possibly not. With today's medicine, it is much more possible than it used to be, and even loss of an eye, or both can sometimes be fixed with transplants, so blinding is not necessarily permanent, either.

The bad guy might recover completely. OR he might spend the rest of his days in a wheelchair. Either way, I don't give a rat's posterior how the rest of his life is lived, once he is stopped from hurting me or mine.

Just FYI, those 4 "fine young gentleman" who were "gunned down" by Bernard Goetz when they attacked him on the subway, three of them went on to further criminal activities. The fourth one is still in a wheelchair, the last I heard.

I will shed no tear, nor pretend to, for anyone who is justifiably shot. But you better be certain it is justifiable.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you think you can put a load of small shot into the right spot, why not just put a bullet there and end the whole thing immediately instead of merely just hoping the bad guy will be properly disabled?

It just makes no sense to me.

The logic is actually pretty simple, though a bit misguided. The idea is that you can't put a bullet there nearly as easily as you can a spray of shot. For example, a .45 acp round less than .2 square inches, regardless of the distance fired. An 8" birdshot pattern at 5 yards (distance noted above) will give you over 50 sq inches. So the notion is that your shooting need not be as precise to still hit the target.

Many people don't seem to understand that shotguns need to be aimed and aimed well and that spread of is much less than expected at short distances.

 

[jimbob86]

Even if you blind the other guy, he can still shoot.

Since the whole object of the excercise is to not get yourself shot, blinding him is a bad idea. You shoot birdshot and wait to assess it's effectiveness and he empties his gun in your general direction. A lucky hit can kill you just as dead as a well aimed one ..... not to mention the others you may be protecting....

How about this plan instead: shoot him CoM with a pair of trans-sonic jacketed hollow points or a couple of loads of 00 buck .... that'll surely discombobulate him more surely and to a greater degree than some very small birdshot or a flashbang. Then assess .....

 

[Sierra280]

I have to agree with the prevailing opinion: if you need the gun, it needs to be lethal.

That being said, the bird shot idea is pretty ridiculous, and the 'flash bang type thing'. Unless you actually have some flash bangs: Are you referring to bird bombs!!??? Seriously, do not let a bird bomb fly in your home or at any close range!! Plus, even if it did incapacitate the BG that's going to be quite the insurance claim for new windows and hearing aids.

 

[leadcounsel]

Seems there are a few questions to tackle:

First, a basic understanding of when a person can use "lethal" self defense in defense of himself or another innocent person is triggered when in "reasonable fear of imminent/immediate serious bodily harm or death." This reasonableness is in the subjective mind of the victim, and can be due to the fact the perpetrator has a weapon or other serious tactical advantage (skill, ability, size, strength, numbers, etc.) or the victim is otherwise disabled (age, disabled, size, weakness, etc.).

Typically, self-defense is a DEFENSE to a charge of homicide. Meaning, you could be charged with homicide and use self-defense as a defense. It is also considered by the prosecutor/district attorney in determining the legitimacy of the case and facts, as to whether to charge you. And the grand jury may consider these facts before an indictment.

1. Are "less than lethal" rounds fired in self defense legal, if lethal self defense is otherwise authorized? Legal, in most American jurisdictions, and certainly any that allow for typical self defense as we all understand it, yes. If a person was lawfully able to use a lethal weapon (gun with lethal bullets, knife, etc.) then certainly a person could use a lesser form of item at their own peril (punching, spitting, beanbag bullets, snakeshot, harsh language, etc.).

Wise to use? No. If you value your life, you should use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat, and that would necessarily mean to use LETHAL force. Any force less than lethal actually counters the argument that you believed you were in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm. Using a flashbang or birdshot *could* be used to say that you were NOT in imminent fear of death/bodily harm and hence YOU assaulted the actual perpetrator.

2. Regarding a follow-up shot, you run the risk of being charged with homicide or assault with a deadly weapon if you disable a person and then shoot him/her. For example, taken step by step. A) Trespasser in your back yard. B) Trespasser confronts your wife, who is gardening in the back yard. Trespasser begins to assault your wife with a 4" knife. C) You rush outside with a 12 gauge and as the perp is distracted, your wife breaks free and perp begins to rush you. D) You were legally entitled to use lethal self defense when he attacked your wife, and again continuously when he rushed you with a knife. This draws the attention of several neighbors barbequing in their backyards. E) You shoot him in the face at 30 feet with a load of # 8 birdshot, causing damage to his face/eyes. You were justified in this shot. F) Perp drops the knife, and starts screaming in pain, staggering around in the yard. G) In your excitement/anger/adrenaline, you pump or pull the semi-auto trigger one more time and hit him in the chest at 20' with a load of 00 buckshot. H) Perp drops dead.

Keep in mind, you LOST the legal right of lethal self defense between (F) and (G) above. Once the perp was no longer a threat to immediate serious bodily harm or death to you or others, you cannot legally use lethal force against him. Several witnesses and forensics will quickly piece together this fact. You could very well be charged with homicide.

It is unwise to load your gun with less-than-lethal first shots thinking you'll follow up with a lethal shot.

Here's a final consideration. Often, very often, it's best that the defendant not testify. There are often sound reasons for even the most innocent person to not testify. Therefore, as in another recent thread, a person should be aware of what he/she should say to the police, and then invoke. A person should be confident that the physical evidence and other witness statements should exonerate them without their having to rely on their testimony. Using the sound principles of law and self defense, and only using lethal force when absolutely necessary, and then USING lethal force judiciously only to stop a threat, should demonstrate your innocence.

However, using flashbangs, ratshot, glass-filled ammo, bolo rounds, etc. and having signs on your front door that say "If you're found here at night, you'll be carried out in the morning," and wearing T-shirts of the same nature will provide tons of ammunition for any prosecutor and investigators...

There's an expression that defense lawyers use. If you're the defendant and are explaining, you're losing or perhaps have lost.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I mentioned in another thread, at a match the other day - I saw beginners frequently miss with a shotgun/birdshot combo on steel plates at typical 3 gun distances. Second shots were slow and reloads glacial.

The advice that shotguns are guaranteed wonder weapons, esp. for beginners, is to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[JD0x0]

The advice that shotguns are guaranteed wonder weapons, esp. for beginners, is to be taken with a grain of salt.

+1 to that. My cousin got a 12GA for home defense and he was under the impression that the shotgun would 'Spray bullets every where' to the point that "he wouldn't even have to aim"

I had to explain to him, with most shotguns, at the distances he will be shooting, it's not likely that the shot spreads much more than the size of a golf ball, at it's widest.
I also had to give him some flak about him buying a Mossberg pump that only holds two rounds total which made no sense to me might as well go with a double bbl.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Here's a final consideration. Often, very often, it's best that the defendant not testify. There are often sound reasons for even the most innocent person to not testify. Therefore, as in another recent thread, a person should be aware of what he/she should say to the police, and then invoke. A person should be confident that the physical evidence and other witness statements should exonerate them without their having to rely on their testimony....

Except when claiming self defense it will be rare that the defendant will be able to effectively avoid testifying. He has at least the burden of producing evidence at least making a prima facie case of justification. His testimony might well be the best, if not the only, evidence of what and how things happened.

Physical evidence can be equivocal. It might not be able to tell the story -- only corroborate it. There may be no witnesses, and witness can often be unreliable.

A defendant claiming self defense might have a better chance of not needing to testify if the incident took place at his home. There one might expect there to be signs of forced entry which would help tell the story of what happened. But not all incidents take place at one's home.

 

[leadcounsel]

Except when claiming self defense it will be rare that the defendant will be able to effectively avoid testifying. He has at least the burden of producing evidence at least making a prima facie case of justification. His testimony might well be the best, if not the only, evidence of what and how things happened.

Physical evidence can be equivocal. It might not be able to tell the story -- only corroborate it. There may be no witnesses, and witness can often be unreliable.

A defendant claiming self defense might have a better chance of not needing to testify if the incident took place at his home. There one might expect there to be signs of forced entry which would help tell the story of what happened. But not all incidents take place at one's home.

Franks comments on my prior comments is getting afield of the topic... however to clarify from an experienced criminal prosecutor and defense attorney, smartly worded statements to the law enforcement before invoking can be elicited through the police and detectives through effective direct or cross examination, thereby eliminating any need to have the accused testify.

Q: And isn't it true Detective Johnson, that Mr. Smith told you that the deceased came at him with a knife in the parking lot?
A: Yes
Q: And Mr. Smith told you that he told the aggressor to stop at least three times?
A: Yes, that's what he said.
Q: But the man with a knife kept coming and didn't stop?
A: That was Mr. Smith's version.
Q: And he said he feared for his life so he drew his pistol?
A: Yes
Q: And he has a lawful concealed carry permit?
A: Yes
Q: And the requisite training?
A: Yes
Q: And the ammunition used was XYZ?
A: Yes
Q: And that's identical or very similar to what the police carry in their guns?
A: Yes
Q: And in your investigation, you determined that both shots were fired at about 10' distance, in rapid succession, while the deceased was standing?
A: Yes
Q: And when you talked to witness ABC, she told you that a version of events that is generally consistent with what Mr. Smith had told you?
A: Yes
Q: When you talked to Mr. Smith at the scene, he told you he acted in self defense?
A: Yes
Q: And he told you that he wanted to press charges against the attacker for assault?
A: Yes

You get the idea. The same would be done with the forensics scientists, other experts, witnesses, etc.

There would be little, if anything, an accused to add to this by his testimony, and many times accused people look shady when testifying, or just say REALLY DUMB things on the stand, and this can sink them. Call it nerves, or trying to impress, or being tricked into getting angry, etc.

An accused should rarely need to testify if the event was justified (forensics will most likely tell a clear story) and a person is intelligent about what he says to the police before invoking.

Sorry to take this afield, but it's an important understanding of criminal law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Franks comments on my prior comments is getting afield of the topic...

Actually, you started us down this road, and I think it's important to avoid confusion and misleading information.

For example, your supposed "examination" of the police witness makes an awful lot of assumption about what the defendant's statement was. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that the detective in your supposed "examination" would be found qualified to testify about the distance at which the shots were fired; that would be for one of the criminalists to testify about. And it assumes no dispute about that distance.

Furthermore, if the detective's testimony really was as describe, one has to wonder why the defendant is even on trial. It looks like, based on the fruits of investigation as described, the prosecution should have concluded that the shooting was justified based on that investigation. In that case no charges would have been pursued.

 

[leadcounsel]

Furthermore, if the detective's testimony really was as describe, one has to wonder why the defendant is even on trial. It looks like, based on the fruits of investigation as described, the prosecution should have concluded that the shooting was justified based on that investigation. In that case no charges would have been pursued.

Tell that to George Zimmerman ... there was no legit evidence with which to charge him. The bulk of the state's evidence exonerated him, including the testimony of the detectives.

It was all politics.

For example, your supposed "examination" of the police witness makes an awful lot of assumption about what the defendant's statement was.

Precisely my point... Smart statements to the detectives/cops/911 operators will pay off later.

assumes no dispute about that distance.

Precisely why a lawyer would extract the favorable information from non-defendant witnesses...

Yes, this was a hypothetical to illustrate a basic point of how the process works... not to get into the weeds of lawyering 401...

A basic principle of trial lawyers is to (absent some huge reason/exception) never have your client testify if the evidence can come out in another way (another credible witness, forensics, etc.) and it's BEST if it comes out from the opponent's witnesses on cross exam. If I can get all the facts out through physical evidence, eye-witnesses, and the law enforcement officers at the scene, there is ZERO benefit to having my client exposed to brutal cross exam by the prosecutor just so he can get up there and say "I was in fear and acted in self defense." Well, duh... that already came out through the 911 operator and the responding patrol officer on prior testimony, or the 911 tape that was admitted, etc.