Combat effective hit the nail onthe head. Bean bag and other such such rounds are not NON LETHAL, they are LESS LETHAL. Meaning there is less of a chance that the person being shot will be killed. With this in mind, the rules of engagement are the same. If there is a reasonable chance that the person may be killed or seriously injured you are still held to the same level of justifaction. Obviously if you are already there, why would you choose a less lethal option? Less lethal rounds are primarily used when confronting sucidal subjects. It gives us a tool that will incapacitate them and allow them to be safely taken into custody
Yes, I misused the term. Another great point about being LESS lethal. But it doesn't address the issue. Let's say a convenience store clerk has been robbed by teenagers three times in the last 6 months, and now he is fed up. So he reluctantly decides to arm himself. He'd rather not blow the brains out of the next kid that strong-arms the register but he's forced to do something. A baseball bat is not good, knives and picks won't work, mace is no good either...his relatives insist he gets a 357 magnum with hollow points.
I believe that "less lethal" ammo has a future place in society. Right now it is mostly a law enforcement tool and civilians are wary because there is no precedent, there's no trust in it. But civilians like me are looking for a non-lethal alternative to home defense and other everyday scenarios and as soon as the market demands enough, the solution(s) will arrive. There was a time when survellience cameras and body armour and other "police" tools were civilian taboo...but they now have a place. So will the less-than-lethal ammo.
I really really really don't want to have to shoot somebody with the 12ga slug that I now have loaded in my Mossberg...right now as I type. I've seen it hit, and it's a mess, a horrible mess. I don't have any control over when bad situations happens but when they do happen, I want the best solution I can obtain. Right now, it slugs and buckshot. Hopefully one day, it's something else "less lethal" to the shooter
I for one, don't believe that I would be held to the same deadly-force level of justification if I implement less-lethal ammo in certain other situations. If I were to use less-lethal ammo to gain control over a situation, thereby both preventing further escalation which could lead to further bad things AND apprehending the suspect, my chances of a lawsuit are greatly diminished, in my eyes. IOW, there is no wrongful death lawsuit which most of you run the risk of facing....right or wrong, justified or not, when you kill. Call me a unrealistic or a dreamer, but that's what I'm believing so far.
I did a little bit of research on less-lethal alternatives and while it appears to be mostly limited to law enforcement applications, I can't find anything decent (reliable); hence the "less-lethal ammo" is a waste of good money attitudes.
I used to live in an apartment building years ago and my car was parked in the underground public parking. I had a silent alarm that went off one night and I grabbed by 380 auto and went to investigate. I surprise the car thief who had already broken into my car and was rummaging thru my things. The closest I got to him was about 30 yards. When I yelled "hey" he turned, saw me, exiting my car and proceeded to run. I had a chance to shoot him with the glaser safety slugs I had loaded but I never raised my handgun, instead I watched him disappear down the way and I went and called the police. Thinking back I realized that I didn't take steps to really confront him because I didn't want to shoot him especially since I wasn't on my own property and defending personal property is not justified in my state. I only had the pistol in case I found myself in a jam. Anyway, if I had a good solid less lethal handgun round that I could trust, I probably would have approached him from the escape route to block his path rather than sneak up around the side and yell to just simply scare him away. Maybe. Who knows, I was just a kid.