I see it as intent. If I intend to go to the Burger King but end up going to the Smashburger, the intent to go to Burger King was still legitimate.cb1000rider wrote:I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.
It is interesting that we all point out what is probably obvious - the jury is going to consider physical capability. IE - if you're physically capable, you start at a disadvantage in the courtroom.
- In the event of threat to my wellbeing, I intend to produce a handgun in defense. If it ends up not being necessary, bonus.
- But following that, if I produce a self-defense firearm, I need to have intent to squeeze the trigger. And again, if that turns out to be un necessary, bonus.
- But finally, if I squeeze a trigger, I need to have the intent to stop a heartbeat. Any thing else is a mistake.
You have to have a doctrine established before hand. doctrine differs from a plan in as such as plans are made to play out against predetermined elements and environment. Doctrine is a response theory (ie., A happens, B is my reaction...C happens, D is my response.)
Your actions have to just happen unless the conscious decision to stop it is made. There should be no, "should I do this?" right in middle of the engagement. The only decision that should have to be made is to decide when to shut it down.
I may take heat also for my third bullet point above but it is just logic applied. In a self defense shooting situation, aiming for anything other than center-mass is hamstringing yourself. If you are aiming center-mass and hit your target (as you would hope,) stoppage of a heart is a very likely result.
Just my 2¢ but really only worth what you paid for it probably.