Originally Posted by BRL
How you figure that?
Especially since you've never heard of anyone being questioned in a hearing about the type of ammunition being used for defense?
Civil and criminal law are two totally different animals.
From a civil stand point if you use birdshot:
1. The probably of 'killing' is low but probably of causing a 'permanent disability' is high.
2. Because of the above it can be argued that you did not use lethal force and your intent was to wound.
3. If you did not use lethal force you did not feel lethal force was justified so they can argue you were not justified.
Just the fact that the probably of causing a permanent disability (serious injury) is much higher than causing a permanent stop (death) when you use 'birdshot' increases the likely hood of civil action against the shooter.
On the criminal side, you were either justified or you were not, period. If you used a gun, knife, or baseball bat is not relevant.