Double Naught Spy
New member
This is the sort of classic shortcoming I have been talking about when it comes to Ayoob's post-shooting warnings about what the grand jury, DA, or regular jury "MIGHT" think about you after you have successfully defended your life. As noted, you have to survive to go to court.
Now, however, Para Bellum is a lawyer himself and he has fallen into this horrible misconception that his first shot should be less lethal ammo (yes, they are lethal at short range, which he noted, but he will be shooting at short range and so why not use regular 00 buck? Duh!) because somehow the juries will take that into consideration.
So explain it to me. First you use lethal force with less lethal rubber ammo that you know that can kill at short range (which you will be firing at an intruder), but then for the second shot, you go with ammo more likely to over penetrate. What legality has changed between shots 1 and 2 where you think you will be in better legal territory to justify your actions of using steel shot instead of rubber? In the 1-4 seconds lapse between shots, are your neighbors and family going to magically transport to behind ballistic protection? I think not.
What is really funny on an illogical level is that your most powerful gun is the shotgun, but you hamstring your first shot, and then claim how you are going to finish off things, if needed, with a pissant pistol.
Let's play lawyer from the another angle. Let's say you do use rubber your first shot and then you need to use the steel second shot because the rubber failed to neutralize the intruder. Here, let's say, the first shot is well aimed, but the threat simply does not stop. In that short period of time between your first and second shot, as you recover from recoil, the intruder manages to move far enough to upset your second sight picture or maybe has engage you with his own weapon and now your second shot is wild, flying through the wall, killing your kid, out the window where it then strikes your neighbor walking his down on the street.
What has happened? Simple. Because you used a less lethal round, as by your plan, you had a failure to stop and then had to fire your overpenetrating steel shot and your aim was not as good. The result is that you then killed your kid and injured your neighbor. This plan of firing was by design because you somehow felt that you would screw up your first shot and not the second when in reality you screwed up the second shot after your first shot failed to stop the intruder. In other words, your poor decision that was based on some absurd future legal problems meant that you put the extremely critical first shot own with less lethal ammo, forcing your need for the second shot that you messed up. How will that help your legal standing?
Why do you think you will get to shoot more than once? If you do, it is a bonus. If you check threads here and on other forums, you will find several incidents of folks who never got a second shot. They had guns break, ammo go bad somehow, malfunctions, or their guns got taken out of action by some sort of loss such as hit by an incoming round (rendered useless as a gun) or by being lost (dropped, taken away, etc.).
Of course the worst way folks manage to not get a second shot is because the ineffective first shot meant the opposition took advantage of the brief extra life he found himself with and took you out, slowed you down enough such that you don't shoot again and then the opposition kills you if you aren't already dead. The opposition then proceeds to sodomize your child, eviscerate your wife, and you will go to where lawyers go when they and and rest happy in knowing that you and your family suffered horribly because you were worried about some hokey legal aftermath that turns out to not even be relevant because you are dead.
Am I being overly dramatic and a little rude? Sure, but only because I think you are putting a legal matter ahead of actually protecting yourself and your family. Even though you are a lawyer, I feel that you are still a human, hopefully one of the good guys, and I want you to put serious reconsideration into your priorities. I really don't care if you believe my scenario is nonsense or not in terms of worrying about legalities. No doubt I think your scenario is, but not because of the legalities, but because you are discounting your life and those of your family members on the off chance there will be a legal proceeding to evaluate what you have done.
I don't now MD law and I don't know if you can wholesale shoot intruders or not, if you have to retreat, or whatever, but one thing I do know is that an intruder is pose an eminent serious threat to your life and the lives of your family members. Deal with the potential situation as you see fit, but think of it this way. Of two potential outcomes, would you rather spend good money hiring a lawyer to defend you in a criminal proceeding or pay a good mortician to repair your wife's body well enough for an open casket ceremony? What is the better investment?
Then again, I see you are truly a lawyer at heart, worried about legal outcomes, but duct taping a laser pointer to your gun because you are too cheap to invest in proper gear with which to protect you and your family. I think you will not only need to invest in a good lawyer after the fact, but the mortician as well.
How can you not see there being potential liability problems if you have a duct-taped laser pointer as your sighting mechanism and you manage to harm a neighbor. Are you really a lawyer?
Now, however, Para Bellum is a lawyer himself and he has fallen into this horrible misconception that his first shot should be less lethal ammo (yes, they are lethal at short range, which he noted, but he will be shooting at short range and so why not use regular 00 buck? Duh!) because somehow the juries will take that into consideration.
So explain it to me. First you use lethal force with less lethal rubber ammo that you know that can kill at short range (which you will be firing at an intruder), but then for the second shot, you go with ammo more likely to over penetrate. What legality has changed between shots 1 and 2 where you think you will be in better legal territory to justify your actions of using steel shot instead of rubber? In the 1-4 seconds lapse between shots, are your neighbors and family going to magically transport to behind ballistic protection? I think not.
What is really funny on an illogical level is that your most powerful gun is the shotgun, but you hamstring your first shot, and then claim how you are going to finish off things, if needed, with a pissant pistol.
Let's play lawyer from the another angle. Let's say you do use rubber your first shot and then you need to use the steel second shot because the rubber failed to neutralize the intruder. Here, let's say, the first shot is well aimed, but the threat simply does not stop. In that short period of time between your first and second shot, as you recover from recoil, the intruder manages to move far enough to upset your second sight picture or maybe has engage you with his own weapon and now your second shot is wild, flying through the wall, killing your kid, out the window where it then strikes your neighbor walking his down on the street.
What has happened? Simple. Because you used a less lethal round, as by your plan, you had a failure to stop and then had to fire your overpenetrating steel shot and your aim was not as good. The result is that you then killed your kid and injured your neighbor. This plan of firing was by design because you somehow felt that you would screw up your first shot and not the second when in reality you screwed up the second shot after your first shot failed to stop the intruder. In other words, your poor decision that was based on some absurd future legal problems meant that you put the extremely critical first shot own with less lethal ammo, forcing your need for the second shot that you messed up. How will that help your legal standing?
Why do you think you will get to shoot more than once? If you do, it is a bonus. If you check threads here and on other forums, you will find several incidents of folks who never got a second shot. They had guns break, ammo go bad somehow, malfunctions, or their guns got taken out of action by some sort of loss such as hit by an incoming round (rendered useless as a gun) or by being lost (dropped, taken away, etc.).
Of course the worst way folks manage to not get a second shot is because the ineffective first shot meant the opposition took advantage of the brief extra life he found himself with and took you out, slowed you down enough such that you don't shoot again and then the opposition kills you if you aren't already dead. The opposition then proceeds to sodomize your child, eviscerate your wife, and you will go to where lawyers go when they and and rest happy in knowing that you and your family suffered horribly because you were worried about some hokey legal aftermath that turns out to not even be relevant because you are dead.
Am I being overly dramatic and a little rude? Sure, but only because I think you are putting a legal matter ahead of actually protecting yourself and your family. Even though you are a lawyer, I feel that you are still a human, hopefully one of the good guys, and I want you to put serious reconsideration into your priorities. I really don't care if you believe my scenario is nonsense or not in terms of worrying about legalities. No doubt I think your scenario is, but not because of the legalities, but because you are discounting your life and those of your family members on the off chance there will be a legal proceeding to evaluate what you have done.
I don't now MD law and I don't know if you can wholesale shoot intruders or not, if you have to retreat, or whatever, but one thing I do know is that an intruder is pose an eminent serious threat to your life and the lives of your family members. Deal with the potential situation as you see fit, but think of it this way. Of two potential outcomes, would you rather spend good money hiring a lawyer to defend you in a criminal proceeding or pay a good mortician to repair your wife's body well enough for an open casket ceremony? What is the better investment?
Then again, I see you are truly a lawyer at heart, worried about legal outcomes, but duct taping a laser pointer to your gun because you are too cheap to invest in proper gear with which to protect you and your family. I think you will not only need to invest in a good lawyer after the fact, but the mortician as well.
How can you not see there being potential liability problems if you have a duct-taped laser pointer as your sighting mechanism and you manage to harm a neighbor. Are you really a lawyer?
