Is pointing a gun always considered using deadly force?

[Guest crotalus01]

The "Asked for HCP on her own Property" thread got me wondering if the act of aiming a firearm at a person is always considered threat of or useage of deadly force. Especially the parts about you can use "reasonable" force to defend property. So, here is my scenario/question (hypothetical by the way).

I hear a noise in the middle of the night, I investigate and find someone in the process of stealing my car stereo. I intervene with a 12 gauge shotgun, the BG attempts to flee with my property and I pop him in the ass with a Beanbag round, knocking him to the ground and threaten more severe bruisage unless he stays there until the authorities arrive. Beanbag rounds are considered non-lethal unless used at under 10 feet I think.

Would I have anything to worry about legally?

What about a Sabot round, or a teargas round? Or a rubber bullet from a rifle? Or Rocksalt?

Seems there are plenty of non-lethal or less-than-lethal rounds available, so where do they fit in as far as deadly force laws go?

[Smith]

Irregardless, in my mind if you have to pull the trigger the perp better be needing to be dead. Beanbags etc are for cops and prison guards who are overseen by bureaucrats. Just my .02

[Guest redbarron06]

A sabot shell would be deadly force for sure.

[Guest Muttling]

Why would you load your personal defense weapon with less than lethal?

If your dream scenario is what actually happens, your should be o'k. But what happens when your bean bag round is facing a man taking cover behind a wall and returning fire with lead?

As far as I know, cops don't load less than lethal shotgun shells for driving down the road in their cruisers. When they get into a situation where a bean bag will work, the officer who is going to use it re-loads while other officers stay with lethal to back him.

Load lethal and be ready for him to fight. If he chooses to run, he gets away and you live. If he chooses to fight, he doesn't ge away and you live. If you load less than lethal, you're not ready to respond to him going lethal.

[Guest 3pugguy]

The "Asked for HCP on her own Property" thread got me wondering if the act of aiming a firearm at a person is always considered threat of or useage of deadly force. Especially the parts about you can use "reasonable" force to defend property. So, here is my scenario/question (hypothetical by the way).

I hear a noise in the middle of the night, I investigate and find someone in the process of stealing my car stereo. I intervene with a 12 gauge shotgun, the BG attempts to flee with my property and I pop him in the ass with a Beanbag round, knocking him to the ground and threaten more severe bruisage unless he stays there until the authorities arrive. Beanbag rounds are considered non-lethal unless used at under 10 feet I think.

Would I have anything to worry about legally?

What about a Sabot round, or a teargas round? Or a rubber bullet from a rifle? Or Rocksalt?

Seems there are plenty of non-lethal or less-than-lethal rounds available, so where do they fit in as far as deadly force laws go?

Good question and I will be interested in the answer from any LEO or legal eagle. Do we let them get away or take action to hold them for the LEOs?

I worked as an HR guy/Recruiter for a large Security company and remember the training was very specific (but this was in CA) that a guard had no more authority to detain than a private citizen and unless a felony (give me slack, this was years ago), the guard had better not take any action to detain a person or they could be guilty of unlawful detention.

So, really interested in input on this one (makes me think a moat with gators is a good home defense!).

[Guest 3pugguy]

Why would you load your personal defense weapon with less than lethal?

If your dream scenario is what actually happens, your should be o'k. But what happens when your bean bag round is facing a man taking cover behind a wall and returning fire with lead?

As far as I know, cops don't load less than lethal shotgun shells for driving down the road in their cruisers. When they get into a situation where a bean bag will work, the officer who is going to use it re-loads while other officers stay with lethal to back him.

Load lethal and be ready for him to fight. If he chooses to run, he gets away and you live. If he chooses to fight, he doesn't ge away and you live. If you load less than lethal, you're not ready to respond to him going lethal.

I think I am with you on this, to be honest (but interested for learning in input from those with knowledge on the issue of non-lethal). If I plan to pull my gun, it will not be with anything less than live loads.

As I mentioned in the dog thread, the "dead eye" wife will pop the unwelcome pit bull with a BB gun, but a bad guy who is running away will be allowed to go, as I understand the law to be I cannot use force - and I think that includes holding them - unless I am in fear for mine or other lives.

But taking this in another direction - I also have an aluminum bat I keep at the ready (old habit and very handy in close against a knife; shore patrol training was good for something!) So what if I can run him down and whack him across the back with my trusty slugger to incapacitate? Non-lethal but how would that be viewed? Suppose we can "what if" this one for a while...

[Smith]

Good question and I will be interested in the answer from any LEO or legal eagle. Do we let them get away or take action to hold them for the LEOs?

I worked as an HR guy/Recruiter for a large Security company and remember the training was very specific (but this was in CA) that a guard had no more authority to detain than a private citizen and unless a felony (give me slack, this was years ago), the guard had better not take any action to detain a person or they could be guilty of unlawful detention.

So, really interested in input on this one (makes me think a moat with gators is a good home defense!).

Same here. A security guard has the same detaining authority as a private citizen.

[Guest donfromtexas]

Irregardless, in my mind if you have to pull the trigger the perp better be needing to be dead. Beanbags etc are for cops and prison guards who are overseen by bureaucrats. Just my .02

PLEASE do not take this the wrong way!

But, I just have to say; "irregardless" is not a word.

On to the post...

If you do not shoot to kill, do not shoot!

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Beanbags etc are for cops and prison guards who are overseen by bureaucrats. Just my .02

They are not "prison guards", they are Correctional Officers.. guards protect things of value.

[Guest 70below]

Less Lethal is just that LESS lethal......you still have the ability to cause serious bodily harm or death......as far as a court of law is concerned if you fire your weapon on them, you are using deadly force.......beanbag or bullet.

In a correctional facility, you use the minimum amount of force to eliminate a safety or security risk, thats the reason for beanbags and percussion devices, you're still capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death, but as an officer you are more trained in the use of less lethal devices and are taking steps to diminish the risk.

Until such time as we have a law in tennessee similar to that of texas, don't risk time behind bars for your personal possessions

[JayC]

IANAL but under current TN law, if you know that a person has committed a felony or you witness the person committing a misdemeanor you're allowed to use reasonable force to detain them. (NOTE: I don't recommend this at all!) The law states that reasonable force does not include lethal force... unless it would be authorized under the self defense law.

If you come outside and somebody is breaking into your car, I say feel free to confront them to stop them on YOUR property. If they turn and run away, let them run, and be a good witness for the Police. If they turn and move forward to attack you, protect yourself.

It's not my job to catch the criminals, but I'm not going to sit around and let them break into my house or car either... Hopefully the sight of an armed man will encourage them to run away and pick an easier target.

Good question and I will be interested in the answer from any LEO or legal eagle. Do we let them get away or take action to hold them for the LEOs?

I worked as an HR guy/Recruiter for a large Security company and remember the training was very specific (but this was in CA) that a guard had no more authority to detain than a private citizen and unless a felony (give me slack, this was years ago), the guard had better not take any action to detain a person or they could be guilty of unlawful detention.

So, really interested in input on this one (makes me think a moat with gators is a good home defense!).

[Smith]

PLEASE do not take this the wrong way!

But, I just have to say; "irregardless" is not a word.

On to the post...

If you do not shoot to kill, do not shoot!

Irregardless of your opinion it is a word according to Merriam-Webster.

• Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less <input onclick="return au('irrega01', 'irregardless');" class="au" title="Listen to the pronunciation of irregardless" type="button">
  
• Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
  
• Function: adverb
  
• Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
  
• Date: circa 1912
  

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.†There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Smith

[Guest 3pugguy]

Same here. A security guard has the same detaining authority as a private citizen.

Thanks - seems common sense but didn't know anymore. Off topic but that was a miserable job; the security company paid the guards jack-squat (and living in CA is costly) and wanted the moon and stars from them. Honest, hard working guys and gals who were totally abused; it was a happy day when I left that job - went to work for a defense contractor, which was my last CA job before coming home to TN.

[Guest 3pugguy]

IANAL but under current TN law, if you know that a person has committed a felony or you witness the person committing a misdemeanor you're allowed to use reasonable force to detain them. (NOTE: I don't recommend this at all!) The law states that reasonable force does not include lethal force... unless it would be authorized under the self defense law.

If you come outside and somebody is breaking into your car, I say feel free to confront them to stop them on YOUR property. If they turn and run away, let them run, and be a good witness for the Police. If they turn and move forward to attack you, protect yourself.

It's not my job to catch the criminals, but I'm not going to sit around and let them break into my house or car either... Hopefully the sight of an armed man will encourage them to run away and pick an easier target.

Thanks JayC.

[Smith]

Thanks - seems common sense but didn't know anymore. Off topic but that was a miserable job; the security company paid the guards jack-squat (and living in CA is costly) and wanted the moon and stars from them. Honest, hard working guys and gals who were totally abused; it was a happy day when I left that job - went to work for a defense contractor, which was my last CA job before coming home to TN.

Yeah it's a very low paying job where you are expected to act like a cop without authority in the event something happens and yet be a greeter the rest of the time. Then no matter what happens you will be blamed in some way. It's fun like that.

[Guest donfromtexas]

Thank you for a pointless post. While not a standard word it is still a recognized word.

• Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less <INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of irregardless" onclick="return au('irrega01', 'irregardless');" type=button>
  
• Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
  
• Function: adverb
  
• Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
  
• Date: circa 1912
  

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Apparently you did not read further to see that the response did take point with the post.

Also, you apparently DID take it the wrong way as you pointlessly pointed out here.

As previously stated.... PLEASE.... do not take the wrong way....

Regardless of what you have heard, “irregardless” is a redundancy. The suffix “-less” on the end of the word already makes the word negative. It doesn’t need the negative prefix “ir-” added to make it even more negative.

Edited August 12, 2009 by donfromtexas

[Guest crotalus01]

Thanks guys, it was strictly a hypothetical I-am-curious kind of question. Feel free to continue the discussion as it is very interesting (to me at any rate).

For the record I have access to beanbag 12 gauge rounds but I personally use only lethal rounds in my firearms.

[DaveTN]

1. “Bean Bags†are not non-lethal; they are “less-lethal†they have the ability to inflict “great bodily harmâ€.

<O:p</O:p

2. A firearm is a firearm.

<O:p</O:p

3. You can’t shoot someone fleeing.

<O:p</O:p

4. Just because you are not arrested does not mean the bad guy will not soon be living in your house.

<O:p</O:p

5. If a reasonable person would not believe you are in danger of death or great bodily harm; just be a good witness.

[Punisher84]

Yeah it's a very low paying job where you are expected to act like a cop without authority in the event something happens and yet be a greeter the rest of the time. Then no matter what happens you will be blamed in some way. It's fun like that.

I lucked out with my security gig. I work for my hospital system only so I'm not contract and we have a pretty wide range on what we are allowed to do. Alot of this stems from dealing with psychiatric patients, criminals brought in under arrest or in from the jail, as well as visitors and people who just don't belong causing disturbances, etc.

I could never work for a contract company after this, it's got me spoiled after hearing how alot of companies treat their guys who are actually trying to do the right thing.

Anyway to throw my 2 cents on the OP's scenario, I do believe bean bag rounds, etc are prohibited for the regular joe to own, I know for a fact they can't be purchased from any place I've talked to without an agency authorization.

You may very well be OK holding someone at gunpoint on your own property in that scenario, but if they run and you shoot your probably going to be in ALOT of trouble.

You do have the citizen's arrest thing going for you, but that's a risk you step into legally and physically over a car stereo. I nearly got killed Tuesday trying to stop a guy stealing hubcaps. I told the story in another thread, but even when it's your job or your stuff sometimes you have to know when to let it go. A stereo and center caps aren't worth dying over, trust me.

[Guest narco]

yes it is

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

I know this adds nothing to the thread either, but self-appointed classroom monitors are obnoxious.

[bashbago]

Just a reminder. If you use your weapon, lethal or less lethal, prepare to be sued in civil court. In this crazy world we live in, the criminals often win.

It seems that you should be able to defend your property, but then, only our own lives and those of our loved ones are worth another's life or injury. IMHO

[JayC]

There is nothing in state or federal law that would prevent you from owning bean bag rounds, tear gas rounds or other types of specialty shotgun rounds as far as I'm aware.

Also, I know a source for said rounds where they do not require an agency letter, but be warned they are expensive. Toss me a PM if you need their information

I lucked out with my security gig. I work for my hospital system only so I'm not contract and we have a pretty wide range on what we are allowed to do. Alot of this stems from dealing with psychiatric patients, criminals brought in under arrest or in from the jail, as well as visitors and people who just don't belong causing disturbances, etc.

I could never work for a contract company after this, it's got me spoiled after hearing how alot of companies treat their guys who are actually trying to do the right thing.

Anyway to throw my 2 cents on the OP's scenario, I do believe bean bag rounds, etc are prohibited for the regular joe to own, I know for a fact they can't be purchased from any place I've talked to without an agency authorization.

You may very well be OK holding someone at gunpoint on your own property in that scenario, but if they run and you shoot your probably going to be in ALOT of trouble.

You do have the citizen's arrest thing going for you, but that's a risk you step into legally and physically over a car stereo. I nearly got killed Tuesday trying to stop a guy stealing hubcaps. I told the story in another thread, but even when it's your job or your stuff sometimes you have to know when to let it go. A stereo and center caps aren't worth dying over, trust me.

[saintsfanbrian]

Also to add, if you chase down a person that is fleeing whether he has your stereo or not you are not you are the one instituting the aggression. Hitting him over the head or on the back with a baseball bat could be met with you getting legally shot and killed by him whether he is legally carrying a gun or not. Remember - you escalated the aggression. A baseball bat is a lethal weapon. Several people have been killed by them.

Once a person steps OUTSIDE of my house, the threat is over. I have no more right to fire upon them.

You use a firearm to stop a threat. Once the threat is over you stop using the firearm.

My 2 cents worth.

And I don't care what Merriam Webster Dictionary says-

irregardless is not a word.

ir·re·gard·less <script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FI%2FI0238400.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4ab9bcec&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FI%2FI0238400.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4ab9bcec&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"><noscript></noscript> (ĭr'ĭ-gärd'lĭs)

<!--BOF_HEAD-->adv. <!--EOF_HEAD--> <!--BOF_SUBHEAD--> Nonstandard

<!--EOF_SUBHEAD--><!--BOF_DEF-->Regardless.<!--//

//--><!--EOF_DEF-->

<!--BOF_DEF-->

[Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.]<!--//

//--><!--EOF_DEF-->

<!--BOF_DEF-->

Usage Note

:

Irregardless

is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of

irrespective

and

regardless

and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative

ir-

prefix and

-less

suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like

debone

and

unravel,

it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

They also claim that AIN'T is a word.

[Guest 2HOW]

here is the law as it applies to the citizen and the licensed guard.

http://tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2003/OP/OP18.pdf