When local law permits.  In most states (Texas being the notable exception), that requires that you be in a situation in which a reasonable person would fear for his/her own life, or in which a reasonable person would be required to use deadly force to protect the life of another.  As a general rule, one is legally entitled to meet force with commensurate force; when the bad guy goes down, you must stop hitting him. 

Whether one is armed with guns, knives, clubs, or fists, the only three tools that matter are:

Deescalation.  Deterrence.  Defense. 

Use them in that order.

Go Postal!!!!


or UPS.

I'd say in self defense.  If someone is firing a weapon at me with intent to kill, shouldn't I be able to defend myself?  Not kill the person, but just injure enough so s/he can't shoot at me no more.  Not that I'd ever be in possession of a weapon anyway, but if that person ever harmed a member of my family or a friend with a weapon, then I'd have no choice but ...


































































"Say hello to my little friend"

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/11/scarface_million.jpg

Why would someone act like Al Pacino?

Why would someone act like Al Pacino?


Because it's fun to say "Hoo-aah" :D

I'd say in self defense.  If someone is firing a weapon at me with intent to kill, shouldn't I be able to defend myself?  Not kill the person, but just injure enough so s/he can't shoot at me no more. 


If someone is firing (implying a firearm) at me, they're using deadly force against me.  Nobody's going to argue that he's a good enough shot and trying to shoot my belt buckle off, so that my pants fall to the ground, and they can take my wallet while I'm running away in my underwear.

Because nbody's that good a shot.  Therefore, you can safely assume that anyone firing a weapon at you intends to kill you. 

And that goes both ways.  If you're firing a weapon at someone, you're using deadly force against them.  Nobody's going to assume that you're a good enough shot to shoot the guy in the leg (missing the center body mass, missing the groin, hitting the leg, and missing the femoral artery) and run away while he hobbles after you with a flesh wound.

Because nobody's that good a shot.  Therefore, if you've made the decision to pull the trigger, you'd better have had a damn good reason, because whether you wanted to (a) wound, (b) kill, or merely (c) stop the guy, you have used deadly force. 

(a) "So, you didn't think the situation warranted deadly force, because you just finished saying you didn't want to kill him.  But you pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger anyways, even though you didn't think the situation warranted killing the guy.  Officer, charge this man with reckless endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon, torture, and anything else the DA can come up with!"
(b) "So, regardless of whether or not the situation warranted deadly force, you wanted to kill him.  Officer, this man intended to kill my client.  Charge him attempted homicide - my client is obviously only alive because this man couldn't shoot straight!"
(c) "Crap.  If the circumstances justify it, using deadly force to stop an attack is actually legal.  I can't have the victim charged with anything."

At that point, the only question is whether or not the situation justified your use of deadly force.  If a situation requires the use of deadly force, there's no legal advantage in shooting-to-wound; there's only shooting to stop the attack, and the most effective way of stopping the attack is to aim at the center body mass and continue firing into it until the attack stops. 

If you're lucky, you miss with every shot, you manage not to hit any innocent bystanders behind the bad guy, and the bad guy turns around and runs away.  If you're unlucky, you kill the guy and the attack stops.  If you're very unlucky, you only wound him and the attack stops -- but he sues you from his hospital bed for every penny you're worth.  If you're extraordinarily unlucky, you run out of ammo and he kills you.  If you're even unluckier than that, you wing an innocent bystander, and it doesn't matter whether the bad guy kills you or not, because either way, your life is over.

Most crimes deterred by firearms don't involve the firing of a single shot.  The most common outcome is that the CCW carrier draws his gun, the bad guy sees it, realizes the risk/reward odds are poor, and runs away, at which point the CCW carrier has no justifiable (Texas being the notable exception) reason to shoot.

The easy way around the dilemma of whether or not to use deadly force is not to carry a firearm.  It's a right, not an obligation.  But I couldn't let that original comment about "just injure enough so he can't shoot me no more" pass.  In an ideal universe, you'd do that -- but it's not an ideal universe.  The laws of physics and human physiology are such that nobody's that good a shot even on a firing range, let alone in a life-or-death situation.  There's no such thing as a threat that demands shoot-to-wound: a threat either requires the use of deadly force, or it does not.  No middle ground.

Because it's fun to say "Hoo-aah" :D


Say Hello to my Little Friend.