[Bren]

Even with less lethal ammunition, in the eyes of the law you still shot somebody with a shotgun and the law doesn’t differentiate between rubber and lead shot for civilian use

Yes, the law does.

What the law doesn't differentiate is what kind of weapon you use or even whether you use any weapon, in most cases. The law just says "force likely to cause death or serious injury" or "all other force." Contrary to the popular imagination, the law on the use of force is the same for the police and you, other than using force to make an arrest.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

No, I wanted to ask the question of the viability of using non lethal ammo in certain domestic situations on a web forum that has members able to answer some basic questions.

No where did I spell out any specific situation regarding any specific self defensive tactics other that the use of non lethal rounds, often used in law enforcement.

Are you suggesting that non lethal ammo should only be available to the “experts” and should not be used by us lowly typical civilians?

I'm fairly certain in Florida the same metric for use of deadly force applies to less than lethal munitions. Given that, I'll choose lead.

 

[Bren]

I'm fairly certain in Florida the same metric for use of deadly force applies to less than lethal munitions. Given that, I'll choose lead.

You would be wrong. Like everywhere else, Florida law has "force" and "deadly force."

There is an almost irrelevant statute that says:
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.—
(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

I say almost irrelevant because the law would be the same for everybody, even if this statute didn't exist. There is a slight chance that they have included firing a less-lethal shotgun as "deadly force" for the police, but not deadly force for civilians, depending on how a court interprets it. Probably an unintended consequence of bad statute writing.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

You would be wrong. Like everywhere else, Florida law has "force" and "deadly force."

There is an almost irrelevant statute that says:
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.—
(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

I say almost irrelevant because the law would be the same for everybody, even if this statute didn't exist. There is a slight chance that they have included firing a less-lethal shotgun as "deadly force" for the police, but not deadly force for civilians, depending on how a court interprets it. Probably an unintended consequence of bad statute writing.

I wouldn't want to be the test case here as all of that reads to me as a state actor in performance of their duty.

 

[Orive 8]

Our policy at the department that I worked at was that if a Bean Bag gun was to be deployed, two other officers armed with the department issued AR-15s would be standing by at the ready.

Believe it or not - BEAN BAG guns are not 100% reliable in "stopping" someone. First hand experience speaking here.

So, my answer is NO, I would not consider Bean Bag/Rubber Bullets for my self-defense needs at this point in my life.

 

[hardluk1]

If I find a reason I need to defend my self , my wife or family or break into our home they will be met with deadly force . To think you can rely on non-lethal ammunition is playing a fools game .

If you manage to chase off the BG's with non-lethal force these same people or person may come back and be far better prepared for bean bags and rubber bullets .

 

[PEC-Memphis]

I wouldn't want to be the test case here as all of that reads to me as a state actor in performance of their duty.

And if “you” should find yourself in a situation (“non lethal force fight”) where you would use a “less (than) lethal” shotgun, the person you are using it against may reasonably believe that you have just escalated the situation to a “deadly force fight” and may be legally privileged to use deadly force in return.

It would be similar to why the pepper ball pistol is (arguably) a bad idea.

 

[ranger1968]

No.

In addition to training people in firearms I am a certified instructor less lethal munitions ( chemical agents, impact munitions, flash bang ) for CTS and Def-Tec, who manufacture most of the less lethal munitions used.

I've shot people with all sorts of less lethal munitions, and the results using 12 gauge rounds were marginal.

If your goal is shotgun home defense , load some 00 or #4 buckshot and call it a day.

 

[rangerhgm]

If I'm pulling a weapon in a HD situation I don't intend to send someone a warning....I intend to stop them "dead" in their tracks.

 

[-JCN-]

@jame
@pgg00

I bought and tested the rubber buck in 12 and 20 gauge. I’d have to dig up the chrono info but it’s not slow.

It also was able to rip through a canvas jacket.

Like others, I think it adds complexity to decision making and the risk of error under stress is very high (think Kim Potter Taser).

As a civilian it’s probably better to hide and not shoot rather than shoot at something that isn’t an imminent threat.

That being said I still have some for extreme what if situations but it isn’t loaded into anything.

 

[nikerret]

No. WTF are beanbags supposed to accomplish? The same thing they do for the police - nothing?

If you don't have the need to use deadly force, don't use a shotgun.

I’ve found the 12g with beanbag rounds are very successful, in a jail setting. I never even fired it, but it took the idea of a fight out of a lot of inmates.

 

[Z71bill]

I use real buckshot - it is more accurate and will allow me to shoot the gun out of the intruder's hand easier or maybe shoot his toe and hopefully then he will decide to limp away - that is of course after several warning shots have been fired.

 

[pgm74]

Just load lead in your shotgun. If lethal force is warranted then use lethal force and not half measures. If the threat doesn't justify using lethal force then don't be using a lethal weapon, like a shotgun.

 

[RGP]

This sounds like the intent would be to fire bean bags out of an ordinary 870. No idea if that's possible.

The bean bag guns I saw years ago (maybe 1990) were NOT normal shotguns. They were single shot break open items with a pistol grip stock and an external hammer. They had short (maybe 12" or 14") barrels that were something like 2" or more in diameter.They used a 12 gauge blank shotshell to shoot a 4" square beanbag. They were also NFA weapons and required a federal permit.

 

[LEADTOWN]

In law enforcement training, "non-lethal" weapons are deployed AFTER
determining the threat level, and to use "rubber bullets" as a "first use"
weapon (in a confrontation) is risky, foolish and just asking to get your
a** handed to you....

 

[Glockdude1]

So, you want to shoot bean bags or rubber bullets at someone who is shooting real bullets at you?

**** that

Agree

 

[ranger1968]

@jame
@pgg00

I bought and tested the rubber buck in 12 and 20 gauge. I’d have to dig up the chrono info but it’s not slow.

It also was able to rip through a canvas jacket.

Like others, I think it adds complexity to decision making and the risk of error under stress is very high (think Kim Potter Taser).

As a civilian it’s probably better to hide and not shoot rather than shoot at something that isn’t an imminent threat.

That being said I still have some for extreme what if situations but it isn’t loaded into anything.

I have shot people with " rubber bucksot" , it was not incapcitiating; it's a riot control tool that has limited effectiveness.

 

[Stevekozak]

I would never consider using a non-lethal round in a home defense situation.

 

[lazarus66]

Can't blow gunships out of the sky with rubber bullets.

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

Sure, you should consider it thoroughly right before you reject the silly idea.