I am sure that was not what he meant, but some people don't see anything but a literal interpretation of what is said. Shoot until the threat is eliminated, but stop shooting once it is. And make sure to try and distance yourself from the former threat during that time if possible.OneGun wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:14 amI remember that incident and the trial. The pharmacist reloaded and returned to shoot the bad guy again after the bad guy was already incapacitated and not a threat. The pharmacist executed the bad guy after the bad guy was out cold. I do not think that is what the sheriff meant in the video.Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:02 am I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that
https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/
The Oklahoma incident was a blatant execution of the subject because he came back and put another round into the guy when he was incapacitated on the ground. However, don't think for one minute a anti-carry prosecutor wouldn't try to prove you used excessive force when you shot someone, and that the additional rounds you put into them were unnecessary.