Search found 2 matches

by psijac
Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:45 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Non-lethal ammunition
Replies: 36
Views: 7832

Re: Non-lethal ammunition

BroTyler wrote: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 :confused5
by psijac
Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:35 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Non-lethal ammunition
Replies: 36
Views: 7832

Re: Non-lethal ammunition

BroTyler wrote:Hey everyone, just got my CHL today. I appreciate being armed, but it seems like it's still very difficult to justify even the most justifiable of shootings. We've all read case law and seen court cases that have gone one way or the other, but I feel like if I'm ever given reason to pull the trigger, my career as a health professional could grind to a quick halt.

I was looking at the Taurus Judge as a possible daily carry, and I know one of the selling points is its ability to utilize different kinds of ammunition. Would it be a terrible idea to load the first few shots as ratshot or something similar? And do you face more court cases/charges if the offender survives (after being hit with non-lethal ammo)?

Terrible idea. Worst Case scenario your rat shot does not stop your attack before he can do lethal damage to you or your loved ones. Second worst scenario your rat shot kills someone when you did not intend it to do so, even "non-lethal" tasers have killed people. Also you have to realize the psychological implications. If you loaded non-lethal rounds then your would naturally consider the gun a non lethal toy. Over time the first rule (Treat Every Weapon as if it were loaded) would erode making very dangerous to anyo and everyone around you. Maybe that's the worst case scenario.

Return to “Non-lethal ammunition”