Bean bag rounds.....

[cofi]

First off let me be clear my home defense shotty stays full of 3" 00 buck :) with that being said i would like the option of running non lethal in certain situations.....are these things worth the money http://www.keepshooting.com/12-gauge-ballistic-bean-bag-round.html ? are there other better non lethal options out there that i should be looking at?

[OneGuy67]

My 'home defense' shotgun has bean bag rounds in it. Just my personal preference.

[Gunner]

That's some pricy stuff

[hammer03]

Cheaperthandirt has a few options for rubber pellets: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/34355-1.html
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/61955-1.html
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/61956-1.html

I've seen bean bags as low as $5 online, especially when you buy a 5 pack or something. I've wanted to buy some, but I'd want to shoot them too...

[OneGuy67]

Rubber ball types are meant to be bounced on the ground prior to impact and not shot directly at a person. Bean bags, foam projectiles and the like are meant to be direct shot rounds.

[hammer03]

Rubber ball types are meant to be bounced on the ground prior to impact and not shot directly at a person. Bean bags, foam projectiles and the like are meant to be direct shot rounds.

Seems to me they would do a better job if you pointed them at the bad guy breaking into your house. Are there legal implications for using a less-than-lethal round, and it severely injuring someone? Especially in Colorado?

[OneGuy67]

Seems to me they would do a better job if you pointed them at the bad guy breaking into your house. Are there legal implications for using a less-than-lethal round, and it severely injuring someone? Especially in Colorado?

Bouncing them off the ground and impacting the suspect's ankles and legs are what they are intended to be used for, according to the manufacturer who trains law enforcement on their use. Primarily used for crowd control, although I've seen them shot straight at a person (and the subsequent trip to the hospital to watch the doctor stick his fingers into the hole made and pop out the rubber ball or maneuver the ball out of the hole from the outside).

Every tool that law enforcement uses, they have to be trained in their use for liability issue sake. Most of that training comes from the manufacturers as they then cover their liability with the development of the training. All about the lawyers...

[hammer03]

Forgive me for sounding argumentative, I'm actually curious about this as I'd love to have something less-than-lethal (that may even not put a fist sized hole through a few walls).

Are there implications for someone using against the masked man breaking into a home? I realize police are held to higher standard (being more "humane", etc) and therefore get all the disclaimers and training, but would using one at home be grounds for charges of excessive force? It seems like rubber pellets would be more humane than 00 buck, no matter the outcome, and buckshot seems to be the defense load of choice for many many people.

Thoughts?

[Irving]

I'd argue that if you weren't afraid for your life enough to use a lethal round, that you shouldn't have introduced a firearm into the situation in the first place.

[trout_champ]

I'd argue that if you weren't afraid for your life enough to use a lethal round, that you shouldn't have introduced a firearm into the situation in the first place.

That’s what I was thinking.

Prosecution - Mr. Trout Champ why did you shoot my client?
Me - He broke into my house and I was afraid for my life.
Prosecution - You were afraid for your life?
Me - Yes.
Prosecution - So you were scared enough to open fire and take another human’s life?
Me - Yes.
Prosecution - Then why did you use non-leathel bean bag rounds and shoot him in the face permanently disfiguring him??? My client now looks uglier than my mother-in-law with no makeup. Did I mention he cannot see, taste, smell or hear because of his injuries? Are you going to pay for his next ten surgeries to repair his face??? Well, are ya, are ya!!!!

Or so how I think it would go down.

Randy

[hammer03]

Easy response to that seems to be "I was attempting to stop the attack, not take a life. Once I disfigured his face, he stopped his assault, and I no longer felt my life was in danger, so I didn't have to shoot him again and take his life"

No? Not saying there wouldn't be something lethal behind the non-lethal round, in case it was needed, but it's just a thought.

[blacklabel]

I'm siding with the use a HD round if introducing a firearm to the situation and shoot to end the threat.

I think less than lethal enters a gray area that I'd rather not enter when it comes to self or home defense.

[OneGuy67]

I'd argue that if you weren't afraid for your life enough to use a lethal round, that you shouldn't have introduced a firearm into the situation in the first place.

Interesting thought Stuart. I'll have to do some research on it.

[Irving]

Interesting thought Stuart. I'll have to do some research on it.

To me it is the difference between keeping one axe sharp for splitting wood, and another one with a blunt edge for home defense.

[CareyH]

i keep my shotgun loaded up with 3in mags full of copper plated buckshot. You shot someone jacked up on meth with a bean bag he is going to get up an keep coming. if you want less lethal just shoot them with a 9mm...... just kidding dont flame.

[OneGuy67]

To me it is the difference between keeping one axe sharp for splitting wood, and another one with a blunt edge for home defense.

I reviewed the statute and spoke to some aquaintences and we uniformly agree with each other (shocker, right?). Here is the 'make my day' statute:

18-1-704.5 (2)

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=18-1-704&sid=51102ea2.db91b27.0.0#JD_18-1-704), any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

So, by statute, you are justified to use ANY level of force, to include deadly physical force in the applicable situation. It isn't a matter of immediately going to deadly force as some imply; it is any level of force. So, if you have a baseball bat as a weapon, you don't have to swing for the bleachers at his head, you can crack a few ribs and break an arm and still be fine under the statute. Same goes for less lethal verses lethal shotgun rounds.

[ghettodub]

I've thought about those myself, but quickly changed my mind. You break in my house with the intent to hurt me and my family, you die... Plain and simple. Sorry for being off topic, OP

[T-Giv]

Certainly some valid points from both sides on this one. Possibly you could consider the order in which the shotgun is loaded? For instance, I have mine loaded to where the first two shots out of the gun are buck, then a slug, then back to two buck. That is the order I like and it's the order I know. It allows me to adapt my game plan. Now if I fire two bucks and I still don't need the slug I can simply eject it by racking the slide again and I'm back another buck. It works well for me. You could load a bean bag round last so that you shoot ONE bean bag round and then you have bucks behind it. So for meth tweaker dude, you blast him with a bean bag. He doesn't like that and continues his assault, you already have bucks ready to rock. Just my .02

[kidicarus13]

I'd argue that if you weren't afraid for your life enough to use a lethal round, that you shouldn't have introduced a firearm into the situation in the first place.

Ding ding ding. LE use non-lethal for a number of reasons, none of which are to immediately stop an individual from endangering a human life.