+1billion. Anyone who thinks that you should only respond to violent threats with equal level of violence never got stabbed. A slow, poainful, lingering way to die, knife wound by mugger... berkeley that. I ain't going there so if I can't run, I'm stopping the attacker.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:aircooled wrote:You are demonstrating intent to kill rather than just remove the deadly threat to yourself.Bobzilla wrote: ...The way our state laws are written, you are allowed to use lethal force until there is no longer a threat, i.e. the target is down. It that means 1 shot, great, 2 shots fine, 5? He was either higher than a kite or one big mofo....OK, I realize this comes down to laws, but lets just say the guy is clearly dead on the ground (head splattered) and you put a few more rounds into his chest. How is this a problem? You are not killing him more! Are you humiliating the dead man? Making the mortician work harder?
Correct.... plus I'd like to say why whould I want to put a few more holes in my floor that I have to fix? That's just silly.
aircooled wrote: But he is already dead! Also, (I would say) shooting someone at all is intent to kill.
Seriously? You're going down this old liberal path that all guns are evil and blah blah blah.... No thanks. I can smell troll on that one hardcore..... ok fine, youdrew me in anyway.
There's a difference between the intent to kill and the right to defend yourself. Intent to kill shows premeditation, not a reaction to a deadly situation.
modernbeat wrote:Dr. Hess wrote:Redundant. One's a subset of the other.ReverendDexter wrote: Criminals love nothing more than a disarmed populace.Politicians too.
Look at Chicago (currently the center of both subsets of criminals). Guns are outlawed, period. Yet crime is so prevalent that the city puts up 10,000 video cameras and requests the National Guard to assist them in keeping the peace. The rest of the country with concealed carry applications at record levels has seen violent crime drop by 10%.
^ Don't go putting up troof in this argument. You silly silly person.
Bobzilla wrote: Seriously? You're going down this old liberal path that all guns are evil and blah blah blah.... No thanks. I can smell troll on that one hardcore..... ok fine, youdrew me in anyway. There's a difference between the intent to kill and the right to defend yourself. Intent to kill shows premeditation, not a reaction to a deadly situation.
OK, reach down you pants and un-bundle those panties...
You are clearly missing the point, let me spell it out for you:
Shooting someone (for whatever reason) is (and I think it is a reasonable to say) showing a clear in intent to kill. It doesn't matter weather you are defending yourself, or trying to get crack money you are still taking an action with a clear intent (or at least very serious risk) of killing. Premeditation is another issue (although obviously an important legal aspect).
If you are intending to kill the person (whether you really want to or not) does it really matter how much you kill them (one shot or ten)? Does it show anger to shoot them 10 times? Is it unreasonable to be angry at someone who is threatening your life?
I guess you could say 1 shot, and they might live. 10 shoots, no way. But if you skillfully pop out his brain stem, could you then be prosecuted for some crime (manslaughter?) the same way as you would if you shot him 10 times? You definitely intended to kill him in both cases.
aircooled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Seriously? You're going down this old liberal path that all guns are evil and blah blah blah.... No thanks. I can smell troll on that one hardcore..... ok fine, youdrew me in anyway. There's a difference between the intent to kill and the right to defend yourself. Intent to kill shows premeditation, not a reaction to a deadly situation.If you are intending to kill the person (whether you really want to or not) does it really matter how much you kill them (one shot or ten)? Does it show anger to shoot them 10 times? Is it unreasonable to be angry at someone who is threatening your life?
In the eyes of the law it matters. Period. The end. I mean I don't know how many times it has to be said.
^ I think you could put it in bold Crayola on construction paper and some would neer get it.
aircooled: You sir are the one not "getting it". The intent is NOT to kill someone, but to defend yourself. If the resulting action kills them, then that was the risk they took to commit the act that resulted in the intent to defend. When defending the INTENT is always about your survival. THe other person's well being is not a consideration, be it dead or alive. Your INTENT is to neutralize the attacker to preserve YOUR life. There is never an intent to kill, EXCEPT on the part of the initial violent attacker.
Look, 1 in 10million would go for a head shot in a case of self defense. Why? Because it's a low probability target. Your adrenaline is pumping, you're scared E36 M3less and your aim, while you may be a phenomenal marksman on the range, is going to be E36 M3. You don't want that first shot missing and giving him a chance to attack YOU. So you go centermass. High probability target. Chances of hitting a 2'wide, 3' tall object is MUCH higher than an 8-10" round target higher up.
I think it is important to add that most civilians would not have "fire control". Meaning once they start pulling the trigger they don't stop until the gun is empty. In a situation of extreme stress even trained police officers have done this. One of the most difficult things I personally have experienced is not pulling the trigger when confronted with a potentially dangerous situation. That said, you should never pull a gun unless you are ready and willing to use it.
OK, so I guess it's a question of extent then. The more you "try" to kill them the worse.
It does still leave the issue of a kill shot, which you are saying is not only not advisable from practical perspective, but apparently from a legal one as well (he shot him in the head, clearly he was trying to kill him).
It also brings up the issue of the type of weapon used. As someone noted above, you could theoretically be prosecuted for carrying a .357 magnum as a self-defense gun rather than a 9mm or a 22. If you just trying to stop an attacker, a .357 might be considered overkill. (I remember reading the Highway Patrol went to .357s because of the potential need to penetrate car doors etc.)
I guess this would also mean Dirty Harry would be prosecuted for excessive force just for carrying the .44. (There of course are many other reasons to prosecute Harry for excessive force)
Harry Callahan: May I make a statement, McKay?
Capt McKay: Go ahead!
Harry Callahan: Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.
What a person carries for personal protection is not a legal issue. I always carried my .45 for knockdown/staydown power.
At this point you're grasping at straws for a reason to argue.
like a fatman in a room full of milkshakes
its my understanding that training in concealed carry classes is you don't stop until the gun is empty or the guy is dead, or both. the reason small caliber defense weapons don't work as well is because the pain isn't going to stop the guy just the same as showing him the gun didn't, unless he is physically stopped, as in, dead.
Bobzilla wrote: What a person carries for personal protection is not a legal issue. I always carried my .45 for knockdown/staydown power. At this point you're grasping at straws for a reason to argue.
Wow, you guys are a bit "prickly" aren't you.
I am referencing this comment:
Cotton wrote: .....I knew a guy who had something similar happen. it was in his home and he shot the intruder twice. They got him (1) for shooting more than once and (2) for using a large caliber pistol when there was a small caliber pistol available to him....although farther away. He got off, but it was a big ordeal...
And there definitely seems to be some contention between the shoot to kill, shoot to stop theories (practically and legally).
I would think that those of you who do have access to defensive fire arms would be interested in finding out the specifics of this.. it could potentially have a big effect on you. I am sure most of this comes down to local laws (probably a lot different in Texas then in Connecticut)
Every state has different laws. Learning YOUR state's laws are what's paramount. I don't carry out of state, therefore I don't study their laws. I know that what you quoted is not true in this state and would be something a typical gun hater would bring up to scare people from owning them.
Sadly, for the person defending themselves it doesn't end with the incident. THere will be the required police investigation, than civil lawsuits for wrongful death, and their own conscience.
Believe me when I say this. .... those of us that do carry hope and pray we NEVER have to use it. But if that time comes, I'm relying on my inner Boy Scout: Be prepared.
aircooled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: What a person carries for personal protection is not a legal issue. I always carried my .45 for knockdown/staydown power. At this point you're grasping at straws for a reason to argue.Wow, you guys are a bit "prickly" aren't you. I am referencing this comment:Cotton wrote: .....I knew a guy who had something similar happen. it was in his home and he shot the intruder twice. They got him (1) for shooting more than once and (2) for using a large caliber pistol when there was a small caliber pistol available to him....although farther away. He got off, but it was a big ordeal...And there definitely seems to be some contention between the shoot to kill, shoot to stop theories (practically and legally). I would think that those of you who do have access to defensive fire arms would be interested in finding out the specifics of this.. it could potentially have a big effect on you. I am sure most of this comes down to local laws (probably a lot different in Texas then in Connecticut)
My CC training was more shoot to stop, but I haven't been in a situation yet where I've had to use my firearm in defense, so that's all it is....training. We have the Castle Doctrin here in TN, which is a big deal and helps the gun owner, but you unload on someone, especially with some of the high capacity automatics these days, you need to expect there to be some questions.
The story I referenced above happened in a state that isn't very gun friendly and the home owner was in a left leaning area. Even though the guy was shot twice it didn't really stop him. He turned around and walked outside, then leaned against the home owners car until the cops got there. Home owner had to get a lawyer, go to court, etc, but he did get off. Of course there are a lot of stories that are just the opposite, where it's ruled justified right off the bat and everything is fine. That is normally what happens in my area.
^ wHAT State was it if I can ask?
I get all of my legal gun defense knowledge from the new TV show "Justified". I mean what better source could there be? He shoots someone every single show so he must know what he's doing!
In reply to Bobzilla:
Somewhere in MA. I forget where exactly but will try to find out. I'll also try and get the rest of the details. For the record I am big pro gun and gun rights. I just relayed that story in response to one of the "how many times to shoot questions". IMO it's shoot to stop, dead or not, because the last thing I want to do is end up in prison for defending myself.
My inlaws are from northern NJ and have always been the "guns are bad" mentality but they've never known anyone with a gun. Just whatever teh boob toob tells them. Then their daughter marries a man with "an arsenal!".... a little culture shock.
Clay wrote: I get all of my legal gun defense knowledge from the new TV show "Justified". I mean what better source could there be? He shoots someone every single show so he must know what he's doing!
didn't in the latest one, someone else actually shot the guy. but yes, i think he has shot someone in every one of the other episodes. and his response is always "he pulled first"
this thread needs the internets armchair bravado dialed down a bit..
Regarde ca
Cotton wrote: .... IMO it's shoot to stop, dead or not, because the last thing I want to do is end up in prison for defending myself.
One of the reasons I am curious about the stop vs dead thing is that if you hit someone with your car, it can sometimes (perhaps this is just a myth?) be better to kill them than to injure them. Dead people don't sue, and make bad witnesses. Of course their relative can...
Bobzilla wrote: What a person carries for personal protection is not a legal issue. I always carried my .45 for knockdown/staydown power. At this point you're grasping at straws for a reason to argue.
What you say SHOULD be true. Sadly, that's not always the case. In the Harold Fish case, the prosecutor made a huge deal of the fact that Fish carried a 10mm auto and that somehow shooting him with a 9mm would have been nicer or something.
What about muzzle rise? A lot of people will probably end up head shooting someone if they fire multiple times, even with a .38 let alone a .45ACP or something.
I am not familiar with the legal definition of "clear intent to kill" as based on precedents set in the various courts. But in the real-world, most cases of home-invasion or self-defense shooting are NOT intent to kill. They are intent to survive. I highly doubt the thought process (if you can even call it that) goes:
This person is threatening my life, I intend to kill them. Bang.
Its probably more like:
OMG WTF how do I get this thing off-safe....Bang. OMG what now.
Now if you head shot a guy from 50 feet as he tries to drive off in your car...OK...there might be a bit of intent and pre-meditation there. Though I think in TX you can legaly do that anyway. Not sure how I feel about that particular case.
You'll need to log in to post.
