Non-lethal ammunition

[jordanmills]

You don't need to be pulling a gun unless someone needs to become dead. We aren't the po-lice.

[bdickens]

That seems like a point of semantics. I appreciate the responses generated in this thread, though. I believe we should have the right to self-defense, but I also have to ensure I don't cripple myself and my family through civil cases if the need ever arises. Obviously, I'm still new to this, so I'm grateful to everyone for your help in my research.

It is not a point of semantics, it is a point of reality. People can, and have, been killed with supposedly "non-lethal" tazers, rubber bullets and the like.

A bad shoot is a bad shoot and a good shoot is a good shoot. If you are justified in shooting someone, It won't matter if you shoot someone with an artillery piece or a rubber band. If you are not justified in shooting someone, It won't matter if you shoot someone with an artillery piece or a rubber band.

Like Excaliber said, you really need to get your mind right about deadly force before you go carrying a gun around.

[BroTyler]

My point is simply this: I was asking about non-lethal ammunition for previously mentioned reasons. I would still only pull the gun in an event that justified lethal force, I was simply trying to figure out what protects the family and myself from bogus repercussions.

I'm not here to start an argument. I believe firmly that we should be allowed to carry as we do, but I'm disgusted by the after-the-fact suits. As mentioned here previously also, one case in particular for me is that of the pharmacist who finished off (wrongly) a disabled BG. The family was on the media immediately after the fact screaming that their boy, who attempted to rob a pharmacy with a ski mask on, would never have done anything to deserve this, etc.

From what I've gathered here, the forum consensus is that non-lethal carry is not recommended, and again, I respectfully thank you all for your responses.

For what it's worth, anyone who carries without worrying about the repercussions of the use of deadly force is either lying or fool-hardy, I believe. I would hope that all of you, to at least some degree, think about the after-effects of shooting someone. I don't mean in reference to the BG, but in reference to your family and yourself. Frivolous lawsuits can shut down a career and a family.

Of course I understand the point that a bullet from a BG can end your life faster than a lawsuit, but that's not the point I'm arguing. I would much rather be alive to face the suits than dead and out of debt. I would just like to learn as much as I can to ensure that a thug's family doesn't attempt to use me as a cash cow if I ever have to draw.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm being reasonable.

[psijac]

My point is simply this: I was asking about non-lethal ammunition for previously mentioned reasons. I would still only pull the gun in an event that justified lethal force, I was simply trying to figure out what protects the family and myself from bogus repercussions.

I'm not here to start an argument. I believe firmly that we should be allowed to carry as we do, but I'm disgusted by the after-the-fact suits. As mentioned here previously also, one case in particular for me is that of the pharmacist who finished off (wrongly) a disabled BG. The family was on the media immediately after the fact screaming that their boy, who attempted to rob a pharmacy with a ski mask on, would never have done anything to deserve this, etc.

From what I've gathered here, the forum consensus is that non-lethal carry is not recommended, and again, I respectfully thank you all for your responses.

For what it's worth, anyone who carries without worrying about the repercussions of the use of deadly force is either lying or fool-hardy, I believe. I would hope that all of you, to at least some degree, think about the after-effects of shooting someone. I don't mean in reference to the BG, but in reference to your family and yourself. Frivolous lawsuits can shut down a career and a family.

Of course I understand the point that a bullet from a BG can end your life faster than a lawsuit, but that's not the point I'm arguing. I would much rather be alive to face the suits than dead and out of debt. I would just like to learn as much as I can to ensure that a thug's family doesn't attempt to use me as a cash cow if I ever have to draw.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm being reasonable.

Castle Doctrine protects you.

The problem with the pharmacist wasn't the first shot but fact that while the bg was dead on the ground he shot in again.

The rule to live by is you shoot to stop the threat. You do not shoot to kill and at the other end of the spectrum you do not fire warning shots either.

A shooting is only justifiable if you fear for your life or the lives of others. Once the bad guy was on the floor dead he was no longer a threat. The extra shots were completely uncalled for wheather or not he was dead.

The exception to this rule is you cannot show someone threatening to kill themselves

[stroo]

You are right to examine the consequences before you start carrying and you can do some things to reduce the risks, like take good training, reading Ayoob, Bird and others on concealed carry, thinking through scenarios, practice etc. In the end however, in the confusion and tension of the moment, you may do something stupid, someone else might do something stupid, you might have an anti-gun LEO or Prosecuting attorney (they do exist in Texas), the atmosphere might be off, whatever and you may be faced with a prosecution, civil or criminal, that takes time and money even if you prevail or your employer may fire you, your friends may desert you, whatever.

Those are risks that all who carry take. If you are going to carry, you have to be prepared that you may kill or serious injure someone and that there may be some very nasty consequences even if you did everything right and the shooting was completely righteous. The risk just goes with the territory.

[Excaliber]

My point is simply this: I was asking about non-lethal ammunition for previously mentioned reasons. I would still only pull the gun in an event that justified lethal force, I was simply trying to figure out what protects the family and myself from bogus repercussions.

I'm not here to start an argument. I believe firmly that we should be allowed to carry as we do, but I'm disgusted by the after-the-fact suits. As mentioned here previously also, one case in particular for me is that of the pharmacist who finished off (wrongly) a disabled BG. The family was on the media immediately after the fact screaming that their boy, who attempted to rob a pharmacy with a ski mask on, would never have done anything to deserve this, etc.

From what I've gathered here, the forum consensus is that non-lethal carry is not recommended, and again, I respectfully thank you all for your responses.

For what it's worth, anyone who carries without worrying about the repercussions of the use of deadly force is either lying or fool-hardy, I believe. I would hope that all of you, to at least some degree, think about the after-effects of shooting someone. I don't mean in reference to the BG, but in reference to your family and yourself. Frivolous lawsuits can shut down a career and a family.

Of course I understand the point that a bullet from a BG can end your life faster than a lawsuit, but that's not the point I'm arguing. I would much rather be alive to face the suits than dead and out of debt. I would just like to learn as much as I can to ensure that a thug's family doesn't attempt to use me as a cash cow if I ever have to draw.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm being reasonable.

I understand what you're struggling with, but you're missing something. While it is certainly reasonable to consider consequences, it's equally important to understand the realities involved or you reach conclusions that don't correspond to what happens in the real world. When dealing with self defense issues, that can be fatally disappointing.

As bdickens said, a shoot is either a good one or a bad one based on the specifics of the threat situation you faced, the fact that you shot at all, and when you stopped shooting. The ammo used isn't germane to that determination.

However, it is germane to whether or not you can successfully stop a deadly threat. Contrary to what you see on TV, real people often don't stop what they're doing even when they're shot with full power hollowpoint defense ammunition. Sometimes they don't even notice. I have a picture of one armed suspect who absorbed 39 rounds of full power 9mm police ammunition before he stopped being a threat.

If the situation you're facing doesn't require firing deadly ammunition to stop an immediate deadly threat, you have no legal or moral justification for firing a gun at all.

If the situation does require stopping a deadly threat at short range to save your life right now, less lethal ammunition is highly unlikely to do that in time to be of any use to you. If that's what you load with, there's little point to carrying a gun at all.

I wasn't being critical when I suggested you should sort out these issues in your mind before carrying a loaded firearm. I made that suggestion in the hope of keeping you out of situations with only one very brief opportunity to get it right and heavy irreversible consequences that it looks like you haven't yet fully come to terms with.

[BroTyler]

The last three posts were all logical, reasonable, and well-put. These kinds of posts make this site a great resource.

Thanks again.

[Grog]

If you use "less lethal" ammo in a situation and the person dies. You've basically said that you didn't think they should have lethal force used against them but they died.

That'd be an easy manslaughter charge, if not worse.

[BroTyler]

Yeah, I've accepted that non-lethal is probably not the way to go. Now I'm just researching case law.

[bdickens]

my instructor taught us if you pull the gun out, you better kill them. one story is better than two.

and plus if they live they will probably sue you. another point of view is the bad guys parents or whoever could file a civil suit on you for some retarded reason. but criminally you are in the right to kill given the correct personel defense situation.

Texas law gives you immunity from civil liability in the case of a justified shooting.

[Excaliber]

my instructor taught us if you pull the gun out, you better kill them. one story is better than two.

and plus if they live they will probably sue you. another point of view is the bad guys parents or whoever could file a civil suit on you for some retarded reason. but criminally you are in the right to kill given the correct personel defense situation.

If your memory is accurate, your instructor worded his lesson poorly at best, and following that advice can get you into deep kimchee.

IANAL, but my reading of the Penal Code is that you are only legally allowed to use force to the degree necessary to stop the threat. If the bad guy is still alive when the threat ends, you go deep into felony territory if you continue to shoot.

There's a pharmacist in Oklahoma about to go to trial for exactly that. According to published reports, his initial shot to the head of an armed robber appeared to be justified but the five additional rounds he put into the prone and reportedly unconscious suspect were sufficiently outside the bounds of legitimate self defense to put him in the defendant's seat for first degree murder. You can read about it here.

[WildBill]

my instructor taught us if you pull the gun out, you better kill them. one story is better than two. and plus if they live they will probably sue you. another point of view is the bad guys parents or whoever could file a civil suit on you for some retarded reason. but criminally you are in the right to kill given the correct personel defense situation.

Maybe it's time to get another instructor. This "advice" is along the lines of "if you shoot someone outside of the house, drag them inside." IANAL nor a CHL Instructor, but IMO, it's totally stoopid, wrong and illegal.

[bdickens]

I think it's time that DPS start auditing instructors because it seems as though there are a whole lot who are substandard at best.