A lot of people dump on the ksg, but thats one of the reasons I like it(besides the ergonomics), I can go from bags to slugs with the flick of a switch. No need to worry about the gas system...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I sincerely appreciate everyone who posted on this thread, I have spoken with several LEO’s in regards to my concerns, Pretty much everyone them expressed the same feeling.I've watched this whole discussion, and going back to the OP question, I would not recommend that a civilian use one of the less lethal means.
Regardless of what is going on today, reasonable people consider the consequences of what they do on what happens tomorrow and the day after.
When you use a "less" lethal round and kill someone, or seriously injure them, you have now used lethal force. Now you have to justify the use of lethal force in the situation. Plus, you have added the consideration that if you killed someone with less lethal means, were you qualified to employ such means? You will be asked the question "did you know about the potentially lethal consequences of what you did?".
Further you are going to have a jury that has a basic distrust of the use of firearms. As far as a lot of them are concerned, using a firearm is always going to be "deadly force" regardless of what it was loaded with, especially, if in fact, the result was death. They will never appreciate the difference between rubber buckshot and lead buckshot - buckshot is buckshot.
The line between when or if to employ less lethal means is just too fine for civilians to try to draw when their future, and the future of their family depends on them making the correct decision. If the use of deadly force is authorized, then use deadly force. If there is only a threat to property, buy insurance.
I sincerely appreciate everyone who posted on this thread, I have spoken with several LEO’s in regards to my concerns, Pretty much everyone them expressed the same feeling.I've watched this whole discussion, and going back to the OP question, I would not recommend that a civilian use one of the less lethal means.
Regardless of what is going on today, reasonable people consider the consequences of what they do on what happens tomorrow and the day after.
When you use a "less" lethal round and kill someone, or seriously injure them, you have now used lethal force. Now you have to justify the use of lethal force in the situation. Plus, you have added the consideration that if you killed someone with less lethal means, were you qualified to employ such means? You will be asked the question "did you know about the potentially lethal consequences of what you did?".
Further you are going to have a jury that has a basic distrust of the use of firearms. As far as a lot of them are concerned, using a firearm is always going to be "deadly force" regardless of what it was loaded with, especially, if in fact, the result was death. They will never appreciate the difference between rubber buckshot and lead buckshot - buckshot is buckshot.
The line between when or if to employ less lethal means is just too fine for civilians to try to draw when their future, and the future of their family depends on them making the correct decision. If the use of deadly force is authorized, then use deadly force. If there is only a threat to property, buy insurance.
Do you have any authority for that, or are you just making up what seems right to you? I hate to be too critical, but Big Mike was correct. Either deadly force is authorized or it isn't. And, as you point out, the so-called "less lethal" ammos are still lethal. Shooting them is using deadly force. To say that it's okay (legal) to use less lethal ammo on an unarmed burglar and more lethal ammo on an armed burglar is just not true. If you're having to split hairs over what part of the body you're aiming at, you're in big trouble.
Under 16-3-23(3), if the deadly force is necessary to prevent the burglary, then deadly force is authorized. But whether the burglar is armed while carrying the TV is not really part of the statute.
No, when the use of force against another is used in the commission of any felony, it is then a forcible felony.It sounds more like are you describing a circumstance when deadly force is authorized in defense of habitation, 16-3-23(1) (When the "entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner...."), and you are correct that deadly force is authorized then, but that does not make burglary a forcible felony. It's possible for a forcible felony to be committed in conjunction with a burglary (e.g., assault, rape, murder, etc.), but burglary is not defined to be a forcible felony.
Is it legal ...
... this is a legit question, not looking for personal opinions.