less lethal

[Frank Ettin]

...If I'm firing a gun at someone I'm trying to kill them...

Perhaps you are; but most of us, at least those who understand our rights and responsibilities, would be shooting to stop that assailant. It's entirely possible that his death would be a result, but his dealh is not our intent. Our intent is to prevent him from killing or seriously injuring us or a loved one.

But the point remains that less lethal munitions will in general be less effective at promptly stopping a potentially lethal threat.

 

[insomni]

I've used less than lethal 12ga rounds in Iraq.
1. I'm impressed. They provide REALLY good effects on target! At least long enough to restrain your target, provided you act aggressively.
2. Your target doesn't die, requires less medical attention, and might give up useful info later. Or in a home setting they live to see trial.... and in a liberal sense they live to see the error of their ways.

Unfortunately, these things don't just knock someone out like popular knowledge would have us believe (albeit they hurt.... ALOT.... A LOT LOT).

CONS:
- Your target doesn't fall like with 00buck. I've seen guys recover from getting hit with these within seconds, or guys requiring MULTIPLE shots for a good effect on target. Again it's more of a stun technique than an incapacitating one.
- You ARE going to put yourself into greater danger because YOU STILL HAVE TO RESTRAIN this cat, and he's gonna be MAD! Just because he's hurt doesn't at all take the fight out of him! Might even put more in him!
- Unless you load some lethals into the end of your tube, there is no surefire way to stop the "charging rhino" short of beating him down.
- Restraint works best with a partner who can put another gun on the target, and/or help you cuff him. This partner had damn well better be ready to jump in and assist in any physical altercations that ensue.
- Implied task above is ensuring you know how to properly and EFFECTIVELY handcuff or flex-cuff someone.
- ALWAYS be prepared for a physical hand to hand confrontation following a less than lethal shot. ALWAYS.

These are SERIOUS liabilities, some legally (god forbid this guy sues you: Are you TRAINED to use these? Did you shoot him in a proper location? Did you shoot him too many times? Does your restraint constitute a wrongful imprisonment? etc.), and others present physical safety liabilities (see above cons list). When done correctly, these are effective means for subduing someone long enough to quickly cuff them (They HURT. ALOT.). When done incorrectly, or without proper planning, training, practice, and employment, they can VERY quickly lead to a BAD situation for the shooter.

I put this as a good idea on paper, bad idea in practice. They will probably be effective in stopping the kid stealing your TV. An actual home invader though, I wouldn't really trust them.

 

[lawnboy]

Perhaps you are; but most of us, at least those who understand our rights and responsibilities, would be shooting to stop that assailant. It's entirely possible that his death would be a result, but his dealh is not our intent. Our intent is to prevent him from killing or seriously injuring us or a loved one.

I consider that a distinction without a difference. I do not point a gun at anything I'm not willing to destroy. This means, to me, that if I were to follow through and fire at a living person my intent would be deadly. I see no truth in claiming otherwise.

I've considered the "intent to stop the attack/attacker" argument and I've decided to reject it.

 

[ltc444]

insommi great for a prisoner snatch by trained hardcore troopers. Not so effective for an out of training person defending his home. Frankly, I allways preferred the linea ambuse with canteens, micro pulverised CS and det cord.

 

[Lee Lapin]

Sounds like an iffy way to solve Problem One while upping the odds greatly on getting involved with Problem Two to me.

It was said earlier, and I concur - anything fired out of a shotgun can be lethal. There was a LEO killed near here a few years back in a training exercise by a blank fired in a shotgun.

Shotguns are lethal force for armed citizens, period. If you are not legally justified in using lethal force, you aren't justified in shooting anything out of a shotgun, no matter what the box the round came in says. Shoot to stop, and use something that has as much of a likelihood of stopping an assault with one shot as you can find. After all, you never know but what one shot is all you might be able to manage.

LEOs who employ less lethal munitions have:

1) training in the use of said munitions, and likely certification in their use as well

2) backup on the scene with lethal weapons at the ready if the less lethal munitions fail to work

3) an official use of force policy that includes the use of less lethal munitions in certain circumstances

4) legal support paid for by the taxpayer

Armed citizens have none of the above... and a different set of legal parameters in the use of force as well. Leave less lethal to the LEOs.

 

[lefteye]

I consider that a distinction without a difference.

It is an important difference, not just a distinction. Defense, including self defense, is to prevent harm to the intended victim - it is not to kill the the attacker.

 

[dayman]

I suppose another difference between me using less lethal rounds for HD and the police using them, is that the police would be going on the offensive - and therefore more likely to run into a less violent criminal. If I ever shoot someone in my house they would have pretty much had to have already killed my dogs and then come upstairs.
Lots of great feedback and points I hadn't thought of though.
Seems like the general consensus is that while less lethal has a role, it's not really home defense.

 

[lawnboy]

Quote:
I consider that a distinction without a difference.

It is an important difference, not just a distinction. Defense, including self defense, is to prevent harm to the intended victim - it is not to kill the the attacker.

It can be an important administrative difference, for the paperwork and for legal reasons. But mentally and psychologically and in my personal preparation and training I've decided not to play that game. Because that's what I consider it; a game. With words.

When I fire a rifle at a deer my target is the area in the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I do this with the intent of a quick, sure, humane kill.

Were I to fire a pistol, shotgun or rifle at a human aggressor my target would be the area of the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I would do this with the intent of a quick, sure kill (there isn't anything humane about shooting a person).

The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent.

I feel it is important not to kid myself as to what I'm preparing, equipping and training for. If others see it differently and it works in their mind that's great. But consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy.

If stopping is the goal we should choose tasers, nightsticks and OC, rather than firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...most of us, at least those who understand our rights and responsibilities, would be shooting to stop that assailant. It's entirely possible that his death would be a result, but his dealh is not our intent. Our intent is to prevent him from killing or seriously injuring us or a loved one.

I consider that a distinction without a difference. I do not point a gun at anything I'm not willing to destroy. This means, to me, that if I were to follow through and fire at a living person my intent would be deadly. I see no truth in claiming otherwise.

I've considered the "intent to stop the attack/attacker" argument and I've decided to reject it.

It may be a distinction without a difference to you. But it most certainly is not to our laws and in our courts. It will not be to a jury if you are unlucky enough to face them following your using force in self defense.

...Were I to fire a pistol, shotgun or rifle at a human aggressor my target would be the area of the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I would do this with the intent of a quick, sure kill ...

The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent....

Yet the majority of people shot survive, and your legitimate purpose of self defense is served by the assailant being stopped.

...consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy...

Not only are your argument untrue and inaccurate, they are also perverse fantasies.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by lawnboy: If I'm firing a gun at someone I'm trying to kill them.

I've considered the "intent to stop the attack/attacker" argument and I've decided to reject it.

I would do this [shoot at the vitals] with the intent of a quick, sure kill ...

I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death.

Should the lawful use of deadly force in self defense result in death, and should the totality of the evidence support the defender's contention that the act was lawful, the investigators, the charging authority, and should it come to that, the triers of fact in a court of law can be expected to decide that the at had been justified.

However, there is always the possibility that forensic evidence or earwitness or other testimony might cast doubt on whether the defender had used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent threat. The number and timing of the shots, the condition of the deceased, the location of entry wounds, and so forth could enter into the picture and put the defender's testimony and credibility in question.

Should that happen, the defendant's case would not be helped by his or her having made comments in a public forum indicating a possible predisposition toward willfully causing the death of another human being.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent.

The law allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself or others in certain limited situations. It is recognized that using this type of force can lead to death or serious injury; but it is allowed legally because sometimes that is the level of force necessary to stop an immediate threat.

However, the important distinction here is that the law does not authorize you to kill anyone. Once the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury subsides, you are no longer legally authorized to use deadly force.

I feel it is important not to kid myself as to what I'm preparing, equipping and training for. If others see it differently and it works in their mind that's great. But consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy.

I'd agree that it is important to understand that using deadly force in self-defense is serious business and that it can disable someone permanently and even kill them. You should not be using it if the stakes aren't that high. However, the problem with your approach is that intending to kill is a different thing than intending to stop. When you shoot a deer through the vitals, you don't call 911 and request an ambulance. You don't have to worry about other deer testifying as to whether your use of force was legally justified. The deer analogy fails on a number of levels. While the difference may seem like a small one to some people, it is a critically important one and people who do not grasp it can end up in prison, a la Jerome Ersland, even when the initial use of deadly force was perfectly justified.

If stopping is the goal we should choose tasers, nightsticks and OC, rather than firearms.

We use tasers and OC when there isn't an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. We do that because these devices are less effective at immediately stopping a threat than a firearm and we can afford to take that chance when lives aren't on the line. A nightstick can be as much of a lethal weapon as a firearm depending on how it is used but it has the disadvantage of a very limited range and good physical condition in order to use it. A firearm can be used by a 5'5" 110lb woman against a 6'2" 220lb male much more effectively than a nightstick can.

 

[lawnboy]

Not only are your argument untrue and inaccurate, they are also perverse fantasies.

I clearly disagree with you. It would seem to me that the perverse fantasy is that one can use a deadly weapon against someone without intending to cause that persons death. Compared to that my thoughts are the conservative approach.

I've been careful in my comments to avoid poking fun at anyone elses viewpoint. I've been careful to state my thoughts, beliefs and conclusions as just that, not as some type of Recieved Wisdom or special Revelation. You've not been so careful. I suppose I should expect this once in a while but it always comes as a surprise from someone in your position.

However, there is always the possibility that forensic evidence or earwitness or other testimony might cast doubt on whether the defender had used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent threat. The number and timing of the shots, the condition of the deceased, the location of entry wounds, and so forth could enter into the picture and put the defender's testimony and credibility in question.

All good points. Believe me when I say that I've considered this. I would not consider myself prepared to use a firearm in self defense unless I had. But as the old saying goes, the first casualty of contact with the enemy is the Plan. All we can do is prepare as best we can and trust ourselves to make good decisions should push ever come to shove.

Should that happen, the defendant's case would not be helped by his or her having made comments in a public forum indicating a possible predisposition toward willfully causing the death of another human being.

This may be true too. I just happen to think that the fact that one has taken classes, belongs to a membership pistol range and practices hitting what they aim at under pressure will tend to make whatever one posts here somewhat irrelevant should that person ever be judged. I believe it will be clear to any reasonable person that such a person intends to hit the vital part of the target whether it is actually said or not. Obscuring it with words doesn't seem right to me.

I think what may be happening here is a bit of unclearness on my part. I do not intend to say that my self defense plan is to keep shooting until an assailant expires. But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death. Especially a well aimed shot, with a serious round, fired by a shooter who has taken on the responsibility to get trained. Once again, I think acknowledging this is an important part of preparation. I don't see why acknowledging this strong possibility of the worst case outcome in our thinking is such a problem for some.

Law enforcement people have different duties and responsibilities than people merely protecting themselves and their loved ones and property. I'm not in law enforcement. But I can see where less lethal may be part of their plan.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It would seem to me that the perverse fantasy is that one can use a deadly weapon against someone without intending to cause that persons death. Compared to that my thoughts are the conservative approach...

Balderdash!

Bartholomew Roberts put it beautifully:

The law allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself or others in certain limited situations. It is recognized that using this type of force can lead to death or serious injury; but it is allowed legally because sometimes that is the level of force necessary to stop an immediate threat....

...I'd agree that it is important to understand that using deadly force in self-defense is serious business and that it can disable someone permanently and even kill them. You should not be using it if the stakes aren't that high. However, the problem with your approach is that intending to kill is a different thing than intending to stop. .... While the difference may seem like a small one to some people, it is a critically important one and people who do not grasp it can end up in prison,...

...I believe it will be clear to any reasonable person that such a person intends to hit the vital part of the target whether it is actually said or not. Obscuring it with words doesn't seem right to me...

One trains to shoot in a self defend encounter for particular parts of a threat, because doing so is the most likely way to quickly stop the threat before he can injury you or a loved one. The mechanics of stopping a lethal threat have been discussed here at length. For example, see this post.

As far as what a reasonable person might think, the fact that you are so insistent that if you had to shoot someone in self defense you would be intending to kill, I'm afraid says something about you and your values that will not be taken well by those who might later have to decide if your use of lethal force was justified.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by lawnboy: I just happen to think that the fact that one has taken classes, belongs to a membership pistol range and practices hitting what they aim at under pressure will tend to make whatever one posts here somewhat irrelevant should that person ever be judged.

Not likely at all.

I do not intend to say that my self defense plan is to keep shooting until an assailant expires.

No, but it is likely that you would have to keep shooting--that is, shoot more than once--until the assailant ceases to constitute a serious imminent threat. What actually occurred and why may not be clear, and evidence that a self defense encounter would be dealt with with the intent to kill could well tip the balance.

But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death.

Of course, but that's a lot different from stating that one's intent would be to kill.

Especially a well aimed shot, with a serious round, fired by a shooter who has taken on the responsibility to get trained.

The concept of "a well aimed shot" by a shooter who "belongs to a pistol range" does not square well with what one learns in self defense training.

The need to draw and fire very quickly at someone who presents an imminent threat and who is most probably moving very quickly most probably completely precludes the taking of a "well aimed shot". Qualified trainers teach firing several times as quickly as possible at center mass.

 

[pax]

As a moderator, is it my job to save people from themselves, from their own bad ideas coming back to bite them later?

Naw, I guess not. Wouldn't be much to talk about around here if it were.

But I think if someone who made bad-foolish statements on here ever did get involved in a shooting, I'll be sad that I didn't preemptively scrub the thread ... for him, and for all of us.

pax

 

[lawnboy]

I'll focus on the actual point of contention.

But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death.

Of course, but that's a lot different from stating that one's intent would be to kill

This is a place where I think reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable people. I don't think that it is different and here is why:

• proper training is designed to help you do your best under difficult circumstances to put round(s) in a certain part of the target
• "center mass" is a term often used to define that certain part
• on a human assailant, or BG if you will, that area known as "center mass" contains physical structures vital to the life of that person
• we select our weapon system to be able to deliver an appropriate projectile capable of adequate penetration and expansion to cause damage to those structures
• this may stop the assailant
• and it may end his life in the process
• we are aware of all of the above

Given this, I find it impossible to make the separation of intent that some appear capable of making. I don't think this makes me a monster or a mall ninja. I think it makes me thorough. And less likely to use deadly force in an inappropriate situation, since I freely acknowledge all of the possible consequences in advance.

Your way of thinking about it is good. But I think my way is better. If I thought your way was better I'd convert.

As a moderator, is it my job to save people from themselves, from their own bad ideas coming back to bite them later?

Naw, I guess not. Wouldn't be much to talk about around here if it were.

But I think if someone who made bad-foolish statements on here ever did get involved in a shooting, I'll be sad that I didn't preemptively scrub the thread ... for him, and for all of us.

I thank you for your concern and for the obvious thought you've given to your duties and responsibilities.

I think this pretty much a semantic discussion at this point. My part in it is over now.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Your way of thinking about it is good. But I think my way is better. If I thought your way was better I'd convert....

I'll be blunt. Your way of thinking about it is not better. It is wrong and foolish. To quote pax, it is:

...bad-foolish...

Your changing your mind is not my affair. You're an adult and free to be foolish. The consequences to you of your choices and attitudes is not my concern.

However, it's my responsibility to be concerned, and I am concerned, that foolish ideas and attitudes not go unchallenged here so that perhaps others will not be misled to their grief. So for the sake of others who may have been reading your your posts here, I'll point out that your ideas and perspectives have been criticized and rejected by --

• Pax, a well known author on self defense matters who is also a prominent instructor at the Firearms Academy of Seattle and a former student of Massad Ayoob;
  
  
• OldMarksman, an alumnus of Massad Ayood's MAG-40 class who also has a legal background;
  
  
• Bartholomew Roberts, a lawyer who is very well versed in self defense and use of force matters; and
  
  
• Me, a retired lawyer (see my profile for my instructor credentials and training background).

...I think this pretty much a semantic discussion at this point...

It's more than a matter of semantics. How you choose to express yourself and present yourself to the world will be understand by others as a reflection of your value, character and attitudes.

 

[pax]

Closed for the obvious reasons.

pax

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Despite the righteous close, Pax allowed me to post:

I wanted to add this to the fray:

If one is interested in an excellent exposition of the rationales for killing in SD in modern juris prudence and the historical background - I recommend:

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199283460.do

Killing in Self Defense by Leverick. Mentions many of the issues here and references the RKBA world literature.

A dense but good read. It discusses the right to life as compared to SD, property, retreat, rape, killing vs. stopping, etc.

Glenn