• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Non lethal ammo rubber bullets and bean bags

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...
 
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.
 
just
upload_2020-6-9_12-53-42.jpeg
 
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 didn’t really express my true intentions towards non lethal, for those of you who don’t know me or my organization, I am the cofounder of the animal rescue called The Cat Rangers. It isn’t property I’m concerned with it’s the 50 animals that are ultimately my responsibility. Our Adoption center is a free roaming House Where the cats live at and get adopted from. Most of my animals in door only most come from a shelter where life for them is reduced to a 2x3 cage. I would probably lose at least a 1/3 of the animals if my place were attacked by a rioters. Hence why I was considering non lethal means, believe me I have zero issue using deadly force, I live with it every day.
I really hope our society called the human race can get its s**t together , and learn to respect each other.

ODA out
 
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 didn’t really express my true intentions towards non lethal, for those of you who don’t know me or my organization, I am the cofounder of the animal rescue called The Cat Rangers. It isn’t property I’m concerned with it’s the 50 animals that are ultimately my responsibility. Our Adoption center is a free roaming House Where the cats live at and get adopted from. Most of my animals in door only most come from a shelter where life for them is reduced to a 2x3 cage. I would probably lose at least a 1/3 of the animals if my place were attacked by a rioters. Hence why I was considering non lethal means, believe me I have zero issue using deadly force, I live with it every day.
I really hope our society called the human race can get its s**t together , and learn to respect each other.

ODA out
 
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.

Lethal force is not automatically necessary. Less than lethal force may be though. In GA burglary is not a forcible felony. There's other components.

Say a person breaks in your house, you grab your gun and come downstairs. The criminal hears you and starts running. You CAN'T shoot them in the back. Why? Because lethal force is no longer justifiable. Your mere presence was enough force to make the criminal stop the commission of a crime and flee. That's my point. Lethal force is not always warranted.

Imagine you witness someone trying to climb into a window of a house. You shoot them. Then you find out it's a teen that lives there and forgot his key. Guess who's going to jail? You. Just because you witness a potential crime, doesn't mean you can just shoot. Anyone who just escalates to deadly force without going through the Use of Force Continuum, should not have a gun. We should not automatically assume shooting is the answer.

So if someone wants to use rubber bullets to deter looters, great! There's nothing materialistic that is worth a human life. Looting a business isn't the same as someone breaking into your home while your family is there. All I'm saying is everything is a factor and deadly force is a last resort.
 
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.
No, when the use of force against another is used in the commission of any felony, it is then a forcible felony.

(6) “Forcible felony” means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. (7) “Forcible misdemeanor” means any misdemeanor which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.


What is forcible felony?
"Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great ...
Notice burglary is amoung the listed felonies that are forcible when force is used
 
Is it legal ...

... this is a legit question, not looking for personal opinions.

When there is no law, no O.C.G.A. statute nor any appellate caselaw that is 100% on-point for the exact scenario you are envisioning,

then laypeople's opinions DO matter, because:

1-- cops in the field will use their own morals and judgment regarding what is "reasonable" and "necessary" force, and they will come to this conclusion more based on their morals and values (opinions) than they will from the words written in a law book.

2-- If you are prosecuted, and your case goes to a grand jury, and later to a trial jury, those jurors will also base their decision primarily on their own long-held beliefs (opinions) on what is reasonable, what is necessary, and how dangerous your particular weapon was. (Although expert testimony from some law enforcement "use of force" trainer or other expert in the field could be quite persuasive.)

The jurors' OPINIONS will influence their ultimate decision,
and your fate, more than the words written in law books that the judge may read to them for a couple minutes before sending them into the private room to deliberate.
 
Why are you worrying about others who refuse to protect themselves? Just worry about your family and yourself. They are willing to fire rubber but not the other? If you as a business owner hand out weapons and they misuse it at work you will be sued not them....Besides you stated this as personal property protection to women who are anti gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom