Legalities of using LtL rounds in shotgun?

[Drgnslr]

I have less than lethal rounds for my shotgun (rubber slug) and
was curious as to any legal issues that may arise if I were to use them in a defensive situation?
I live in Connecticut,I have read the laws and haven't found anything banning their use,
however I haven't found anything saying it is legal either.

 

[ezkl2230]

I don't know that there are necessarily any legal issues with using LTL rounds, but there are practical considerations. The following is from a PoliceOne.com review of a particular line of LTL products,and the observation is appropriate here:

Less lethal employment will always be a compromise. That is, if a product is too effective or too protective, it is unsuitable. Manufacturers must maintain a range of effectiveness which can only be a series of compromises. For example, effective short range products may not be accurate at longer ranges. Effective long range products may cause traumatic injuries at short ranges.There are no two things about it: employing any type of force option has the potential for injurious consequences. Agencies should only use this type of product for its intended use, with adequate training, equipment and certification. Impact projectile products are kinetic energy products. They require specific targeting on the body and prescribed distances for proper deployment, (emphasis added). Less lethal technology should not be used as a singular solution. It should be part of an integrated use of force system. This use of force system must include three goals: maximize officer safety, produce effective control and minimize trauma.​

So unlike standard shotgun rounds, you have to be very precise in order for LTL rounds to be effective - that requires time that you probably won't have in a defensive situation, and there is no guarantee that it will actually stop the BG.

Another consideration is that the desired results of deploying a firearm in a defensive situation are to either deter an attack in the first place, or to end a determined attack. LTL rounds will not necessarily end a determined attack, especially if the BG is strung out and doesn't even feel the impact of the rounds. This is an example from a Seattle, WA, LEO encounter with a mentally ill BG on whom they used LTL rounds:

The standoff lasted for 10 hours. They finally took him down using fire hoses and a ladder.

LTL rounds are a nice thought, but I don't think I want to trust the lives of my family and me to them these days.

 

[Geosan1030]

I have 2 LTL's followed by #4 buckshot.

 

[Nightmare45]

I have no problems with LtL rounds in shotgun, my assumption will be if you are coming at me in my home, they will not be LtLs.

 

[whodat2710]

Not to put too blunt a point on it, but if I have reason to use any gun in a self defense scenario I do not intend to be less than lethal. There will be no "I was just lost and wanted to ask directions and the crazy MF shot me!" if it goes to trial.

 

[Kalamity023]

In CT LTL rounds will give you more of a hassle than using lethal rounds. The State's SD laws are very convoluted. If you use the LTL rounds you give the BG the opportunity to sue you civilly after the fact. They will also give the states attorney the argument that you stopped the threat with the LTL rounds and became over zealous which escalated into a manslaughter charge. IMHO in CT when have no duty to retreat LTL rounds aren't worth it.

 

[Pastor Tom]

I have a problem with the idea that I should kill someone, instead of deterring them with an Ltl round, to avoid the potential hassles of a civil suit. Somehow taking a human life doesn't balance with preventing a major inconvenience.

That said, the Ltl round in my home defense shotgun is backed up by a slug and my handgun. I do consider taking a human life an acceptable price for the protection of my family if the Ltl fails to do the trick.

 

[whodat2710]

I have a problem with the idea that I should kill someone, instead of deterring them with an Ltl round, to avoid the potential hassles of a civil suit. Somehow taking a human life doesn't balance with preventing a major inconvenience.

That said, the Ltl round in my home defense shotgun is backed up by a slug and my handgun. I do consider taking a human life an acceptable price for the protection of my family if the Ltl fails to do the trick.

Pastor Tom, I think the main issue with LTL rounds (other than what has been mentioned about legalities) is that they can be easily defeated by drugs or adrenaline. I have had the wonderful opportunity to be on the receiving end of sting-ball 12 gauge ammo. In the Coast Guard, they loved the LTL option when it became available, but there was plenty of training before you were allowed to carry it. Most of this had to do with legal and decision making issues, but the final exam was being on the receiving end. (just like with pepper spray and tazers).

It hurt, and I was effectively incapacitated, but I was also just standing there cringing when I was hit. In a drug induced or adrenaline fueled rage while I'm invading your home I might be able to deal with it enough to get to you. Ask yourself realistically if, in that situation you would have time to draw and fire another weapon.

One other thing to consider - when we did take LTL rounds with us, only one member of the team was armed with it, and that was their only responsibility; everyone else carried lead.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I have 2 LTL's followed by #4 buckshot.

That is where I was a year ago. I took them out after realizing that any use of a firearm is considered to be deadly force by the law. If I ever needed to use my shotgun, things probably went from "What was that bump?" to "OH MY GOD CALL 911!" very quickly. No time to cycle through one or two rounds of rubber before you are overrun.

I still keep a round of rubber buckshot on my sidesaddle just in case I need to go all Joe Biden and fire a round in the air.

 

[whodat2710]

That is where I was a year ago. I took them out after realizing that any use of a firearm is considered to be deadly force by the law. If I ever needed to use my shotgun, things probably went from "What was that bump?" to "OH MY GOD CALL 911!" very quickly. No time to cycle through one or two rounds of rubber before you are overrun.

I still keep a round of rubber buckshot on my sidesaddle just in case I need to go all Joe Biden and fire a round in the air.

Not sure what the NRA type training calls it, but "combat loading" would be a handy back-up idea with one loose LTL round. That is with the fore-end back and an empty chamber (meaning there is nothing in the mag tube to be loaded or you have a means of bypassing it so the feed ramp is empty), using your non-firing hand to slide a single round in through the ejection port. With practice this can be done rapidly. I have gone through 5 rounds in about 10 seconds pulling each round from a belt holster. It is designed so that you can reload an empty gun while remaining on target.

Edited to add this:

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Thanks. I watched the Magpul Dynamics: The Art of the Dynamic Shotgun DVDs where they went over "surfing out" shot rounds for slugs. Good to know the differences between a Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and autoloaders.

 

[Howard Peppers]

After consideration, I group LTL ammo with warning shots. If the situation doesn't require lethal action, I don't know if I can justify using a firearm.

 

[KyTopGun]

It may be a 'less than lethal' round but, I would wager that legally, the use of any firearm (with any loading) would be considered deadly force.

 

[whodat2710]

It may be a 'less than lethal' round but, I would wager that legally, the use of any firearm (with any loading) would be considered deadly force.

Just like you can group the threat of serious bodily injury into the reasons to use deadly force.

 

[lakramer1211]

Using Less Than Lethal (LTL) weapons are for LEO only in my opinion.
If you do not intend to kill someone, do not point a gun at them.
If you do not intend to kill someone, do not fire a weapon at them.

If you fire an LTL at someone it is the same as admitting in court that you did not intend to kill, therefore even you knew before hand that lethal force was not needed. Law Enforcement Offcers need to have LTL option available to them as they are confronted with many types of nutty people and even animals etc. You, how ever as a private citizen have no such need. If it is not a life or death situation, then do not point a gun at another person, its as simple and straight forward as that.

Someone making you angry is not a reason to kill the person.
Someone trespassing on your property may not be reason enough in and of itself to kill someone.

You as a citizen, are within your rights to shoot only if you feel that your life, or someone else's life is in danger. You do not actually have a right kill in self defense unless you are fearful for yourself being injured or killed before you can use lethal force against them. This is the same reasoning that VPOTUS "Uncle" Joe Bidden used when he advised us to fire 2 blasts through our closed doors in our home if in fear of an intruder, or to go out on a balcony and fire to shotgun blasts into the air. He was soundly criticized for that stupid and ill thought out, off the cuff advice, and he should have been. If you do not know where the bullets or shot will go, or if you are not even sure what the threat is, what are you shooting at?

Using a gun to defend yourself is a grave responsibility, it is not a bean bag fight or a rubber bullet situation. We are not police, we cannot "shoot to wound" or "fire warning shots". We are only to use our weapons in lawful ways. This why we should, if at all possible, get more and continuous training, in order to keep up with the laws that we must live by.

 

[S&W645]

It all depends on your state laws. Some states do not prohibit the use of them as their laws in some cases say use of force up to and including deadly force.
Example from Florida.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.