Thank you, these are important points. Lots of people have memorized the "I shot to stop the threat" mantra, but haven't really taken to heart the logic and meaning behind that phrase. It's not a magic stay-out-of-jail phrase, and won't work if you don't understand what deadly force is, and when it is justified.fickman wrote:There's a couple of false presuppositions that have gone unchallenged in this thread so far:
1. Shooting center mass is not "shooting to kill".
2. Shooting somebody in the leg is not "not shooting to kill".
A firearm is deadly force no matter where you aim it. There are critical arteries in the legs that - if hit with a bullet - could cause death as quickly as an abdominal or chest wound would. Most victims of a handgun wound LIVE.
You can be in a lot of trouble if you "shoot to injure". Why? Because you used deadly force and then admitted that you didn't feel like the BG's death was necessary. If the situation doesn't warrant the possibility of the BG dying, then you shouldn't be using deadly force.
A justified self defense shooter should be able to say: "I fired my gun to stop the attacker. I aimed center mass, because that's how the police train. If I missed him and he stopped the attack, that's great. If I wounded him and he stopped, that's good. If he died instantly, that's sad, but the important thing is that his attack was stopped."For proper self-defense, we're in the business of stopping threats. We aren't looking to kill. We aren't looking to injure. We are looking to stop the actions of another that seriously threaten our lives, the lives of others, or serious bodily injury.