Do you shoot again after you discombobulate your opponent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've come up with this legal question for our experts after reading a couple of related tactical speculations.

1. Suggests using bird shot to specifically blind the opponent.

2. Using a shotgun round that is like a flash bang to similarly discombobulate an opponent.

Both then seem to suggest that then you will have the time to shoot the BG with a real round.

It seems to me that if you have rendered their senses inoperative, you have lost the opportunity to then use lethal force. Lethal force is to protect yourself and you have removed the immediate threat.

So I suppose you could speculate that they might not be affected - well, then why didn't you just shoot them with the real deal.

I also mentioned elsewhere that blinding a person is looking on very badly for various reasons if your good shoot is one - that might be held against you.

If you used OC on an opponent and then shot them as they stumbled around, wouldn't look good for you. What's the difference then?

Police use flashbangs for different reasons than civilians in an home defense situation.

 

[spacecoast]

It seems to me that if you have rendered their senses inoperative, you have lost the opportunity to them use lethal force. Lethal force is to protect yourself and you have removed the immediate threat.

If you wait long enough to see the effect of your first shot, then I agree that a second shot on a disabled target is going to be hard to justify. Witnesses can take the form of anyone who heard it, not just those who saw it. However, if you have the presence of mind and skill to do a double tap that is certainly understandable.

I'd be very concerned about a flashbang type round and the effect it would have on ME.

 

[Willie Lowman]

Both the pistol shot-shell and the flash-bang seem to be a step between a warning shot and a normal round to center mass.

To me it says the person using them has reservations about shooting someone (with a normal bullet) but still wants their adversary to know that they are serious.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Do you shoot again after you discombobulate your opponent

Seriously, when I carried a NAA mini revolver as my "always" gun, I always carried a shot cartridge backed up by 4 CCI Mini-Mags. My reasoning was thus: Against an opponent armed with a firearm, I was at a terrible disadvantage. A face full of #12 shot from across a room would be likely to blind him or her, providing me with the ability to disengage or close the distance and take aim if (s)he didn't stop the life-threatening behavior. Against an opponent armed with a knife, at close range the shot would hit essentially as a solid, and across the room a shot aimed at groin level would convince the attacker that I was dead-serious about that "Drop the Knife!" business.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's my impression that normal use of flash-bang type munitions is in preparation for an attack. I don't really see the utility of that sort of thing for defense -- except perhaps to disorient an attacker to allow you to escape.

Juries can often have rather tender sensibilities. Defensive strategies which might make good tactical sense but will seems unduly or gratuitously vicious to "ordinary folks" might not serve you well in court. Remember that Harold Fish's jury didn't like hollow-points.

We of course need to do what we have to do to survive, even if means the death of our assailant. But coming across as excessively blood thirsty will not help get a jury on your side.

 

[rwilson452]

Frankly. If I'm using a shotgun it's loaded with buckshot. I realize that inside my home it doesn't really matter what shot I use. At under 10 ft the shot won't be out of the shot cup. so your going to have one entry wound.

Using a pistol, it's a 45ACP hollowpoint and I'm going to do a double tap and check for result.

I don't normally carry a shotgun outside for self defense.

 

[JD0x0]

I wouldn't do that.
If the attacker doesn't back off after the sound of a 12GA being cocked and locked, I'd be using buckshot aiming for COM. Not aiming for a smaller target with weaker ammo, in hopes of what? Maybe taking the BG's eyes out?
If I have to raise a gun and take aim, to defend myself, I will never mess around with 'less lethal' methods, I'm shooting to incapacitate with lethal ammo. If I was looking for 'less lethal' means, I'd be looking at pepper spray and/or a stun gun.

 

[Ritz]

I can't answer the legal aspect since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.

If I draw my weapon on a living target and I feel threatened, I want the first shot to be lethal. Firing a non-lethal round first strikes me as being somewhat foolish in that you're giving the opponent a longer period of time to inflict lethal force ON YOU, even if it's with a snout-full of birdshot.

 

[Nathan]

I realize that inside my home it doesn't really matter what shot I use. At under 10 ft the shot won't be out of the shot cup. so your going to have one entry wound.

Good point. Have you proven that on target?

I too am thinking the idea of blinding with birdshot is more of 15 yd idea. At 15 ft, I'm thinking it is still in or quite close to the shot cup diameter.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It seems to me that if you have rendered their senses inoperative, you have lost the opportunity to then use lethal force. Lethal force is to protect yourself and you have removed the immediate threat.

It depends on what you mean by inoperative. Flash-bangs are meant to cause momentary disorientation. There are a lot of physical contact moves that are meant to similarly stun. Such moves are simply a delay tactic and does not actually render the threat inoperative, but instead slows them down for a very short period of time. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the threat has been rendered inoperative or slowed down to any significance. It does not mean that the threat is no longer a threat, but that the threat has possibly been partially mitigated, but possibly not.

People pepper sprayed often are NOT incapacitated and become that much more enraged. They often can see enough to do you harm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exv6IyuYBhw

I also mentioned elsewhere that blinding a person is looking on very badly for various reasons if your good shoot is one - that might be held against you.

If you used OC on an opponent and then shot them as they stumbled around, wouldn't look good for you. What's the difference then?

Police end up shooting people on whom they have used flash-bangs, pepper spray, and tasers. A threat with a gun is still a threat so long as they have a gun. That their vision is limited does not stop them from pulling the trigger.

The real question is that after utilizing whatever less lethal option you have used, is the threat still a threat or not. If the threat is just bumbling around, then shooting the threat with a firearm would most likely be seen as an illegal act. If the threat is bumbling around and shooting at you or trying to stab you with a knife, it is another matter.

You bring up a good point that this can be problematic with juries, but from real world events, we know that none of these methods has proven to stop threats completely or all of the time. Defensive strategies that require less lethal responses sometimes do turn into situations requiring lethal responses. No doubt they will be complicated in court without adequate documentation substantiating your claim to be in fear for your life after deploying the less lethal method.

 

[44 AMP]

First off, it is a mistake to consider bird shot to be non-lethal.

It can, and has killed a number of folks over the years. Do not fall into the trap thinking it is not dangerous or not effective. Across the room, even just the wad could be enough to kill.

We all know about the use of rock salt in the old days. And at any distance rock salt normally won't kill, but at point blank, it can. Anything heavier than dust can kill at across the room ranges. The lightest stuff usually won't, but it can.

here's an old family story,
Back during the Great Depression, my Grandfather (Papa, my father was Dad) loaded his own 12ga shells. A neighbor farmer asked him to load him a couple with split peas instead of shot. Seems the neighbor had a dog that was bothering his chickens. Otherwise a good dog, he didn't want to kill it, just teach it a hard lesson to keep away from the chickens.

"Papa" suggested rock salt instead, but the neighbor was insistent. SO Papa loaded him a couple with split peas, like he wanted. When telling the story, at this point, Papa would pause, and light his pipe. Then look right at you and say, "Killed that dog dead as a stone!" with a chuckle.

I wouldn't use a pistol shot shell for defense, unless I could honestly claim it was for snakes, and just happened to be what was in the gun when I needed it. 12ga birdshot, inside MY house? sure. I have a small house, 15yards is about the longest shot possible inside my house.

Sure, blinding the bad guy might not look good to a jury, but what can I say, under the stress of the situation, I missed!

 

[raimius]

Well, I guess it depends on who has the better story.
Is it A) A nice guy who didn't want to kill the intruder, or B) A vicious gun-nut who wanted to inflict pain and suffering before killing the intruder?

Either way, I think it is a dumb tactic. If you shoot someone, you are using lethal force, and must be justified to use lethal force. If you are justified, they are presenting a grave threat. Why would you want to use less reliable means to STOP a grave threat to your or some other innocent party? Being justified in using lethal force generally means a reasonable man would consider that the only reasonable way to defend...which would make using less-lethal force a step down from what one would think is required. Makes no sense, tactically, to me.

 

[44 AMP]

Don't mistake my comments, I am NOT advocating using birdshot or any "less likely to be lethal" projectile(s) as the best, or even a good choice. Under the law, virtually everywhere, if it comes out of the end of a gun, it is "lethal force".

One ounce+ (12ga) load of anything at across the room distances is bad ju ju for the person on the receiving end.

And I, for one, care not if my attacker "suffers" or dies instantly without pain. ALL I care about is that they stop doing whatever it was that got them shot, and stop instantly, or as close as I can make it to that.

SO anything and everything that might do that is on my "able to be used in gravest extreme" list.

I don't recognize any standard of "cruel and unusual" when it comes to defense of my life, or my wife, or children. Ok, let me amend that just a bit, if I rigged up a pit trap with sharpened stakes, or something with electrocution for an intruder/attacker to run into, THAT would be cruel & unusual. (and illegal to boot, as far as I know)

Sure, we have our defense gun(s) and loads, and fortunate we are if, when the evil happens, we can use them. But if things happen so we cannot, then even the elvish sword on the wall is in consideration, even though its more of a letter opener, really....

 

[colbad]

Once there is an action taken by another toward you (using a reasonable person standard) that presents a likely hood of death or grievous bodily injury, you are generally justified in the use of deadly force to stop the action. Keep in mind that a firearm is generally deadly force per se, regardless of what is being shot out of it. Even "less lethal" rounds are not call "non-lethal. Bird shot is unquestionably a lethal round fired from a firearm.

The legality of your actions will be scrutinized using a "reasonable person standard" which is a standard most people would considerable reasonable under the circumstances. So, don't count on successfully justifying your actions using any crazy theories or principles you might have rolling around in your mind or heard on the internet.

The first question will be: would a reasonable person in a similar factual situation legitimately believe that they were about to suffer death or grievous injury. If a jury does not believe deadly force was warranted in the first place you lose.

Second, once you take one of your proposed actions to "discombobulate" (whatever that means), the question must be asked as to if the threat was stopped. If a reasonable person believes it was, no further use of deadly force is justified. Again, avoid creating the obscure "what ifs" like, "what if he was blind but had super heat seeking ability" (I think you get my point). Hint... if ever asked why you shot, the answer is "to STOP the threat".

I always emphasize to people that words have meaning. When you are asked to justify your actions and you respond with something about "discombobulating" you are in trouble.

Be able to articulate a factual and believable justification for the use of deadly force under applicable law which a reasonable person would accept. Secondly, be able to articulate any actions that go beyond stopping the threat. You are justified in STOPPING the threat but nothing further.

You often hear things like, "he was in my house so therefore I am justified in shooting/killing him"; "if I could shoot him once I can shoot him 6 times". These erroneous beliefs/statements will land you in prison and or paying dearly in a civil suit. Keep asking your self how you would articulate a factual explanation for the use of deadly force and how you can articulate a continuing threat for additional actions involving deadly force.

As always, this legal advice is worth as much as you paid for it.

 

[rwilson452]

Quote:
I realize that inside my home it doesn't really matter what shot I use. At under 10 ft the shot won't be out of the shot cup. so your going to have one entry wound.
Good point. Have you proven that on target?

I too am thinking the idea of blinding with birdshot is more of 15 yd idea. At 15 ft, I'm thinking it is still in or quite close to the shot cup diameter.

T 10 yards the shot cup/wad is still within the pattern radius. I was told by someone that worked at NIJ that under 10 feet the effect of a load of shot on a type III vest. the shot doesn't penetrate the vest. it just pulls it into the chest cavity. You might know they use clay in penetration tests.

 

[Gbro]

44Amp;

SO Papa loaded him a couple with split peas

Thanks for sharing that story!
I always contended i could use my wife's baked beans as Goose Loads!
And my Daughter with her new Clarinet to bring them close enough!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Good point. Have you proven that on target?

I too am thinking the idea of blinding with birdshot is more of 15 yd idea. At 15 ft, I'm thinking it is still in or quite close to the shot cup diameter.

At 5 yards, no choke, you will be apt to get a spread of about 8" with birdshot.

T 10 yards the shot cup/wad is still within the pattern radius. I was told by someone that worked at NIJ that under 10 feet the effect of a load of shot on a type III vest. the shot doesn't penetrate the vest. it just pulls it into the chest cavity. You might know they use clay in penetration tests.

Type III is hard armor. I think you mean IIIa. No, it won't penetrate the vest. The chest may be bruised, a rib or two cracked, maybe some internal crush injury, but that is about it. Nothing is pulled into the chest cavity as the chest cavity isn't opened. The clay deforms from the impact and the deformation depth is measured, but the vest, shot, or cup does not actually go into the chest cavity.

 

[KyJim]

We shoot to stop, not to kill. If they are discombobulated, it's harder to make the argument you then had to shoot again. Not impossible, of course, just harder. A lot of non-gun people believe the movies where the BG goes flying backward when shot. They'll take a lot of convincing that you really needed to shoot again if they are discombobulated. It seems to me that they may take a bit less convincing if the first shot is a center mass shot that simply doesn't stop an attacker.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

In general, the fear of even grave injury or death does NOT warrant the use of deadly force UNLESS one reasonably fears IMMEDIATE grave injury or death. If the discombobulating shot would cause the reasonable person to no longer fear IMMEDIATE serious injury or death, any further shots are not justifiable.