You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
Watch “For Greater Glory”. That was one of the key questions being discussed. Great story of Mexican History.Would clergy ever join an armed movement to overthrow an oppressive government?
R
Rau
Guest
So, if I’m not good with a gun, and I fail to kill the attacker, but gain time to run away, I’ll be sued. But if I’m good, and shoot him in the head, I’m in the clear? I suggest that if my life is in the balance, the outcome will be the same, regardless of my shooting prowess.church, say hello to a lawsuit.
guns = deadly force. do not ever use deadly force unless you need to kill.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
if you use deadly force with the intent to wound someone, you’re in trouble deep. better to leave no living unfriendly witnesses.So, if I’m not good with a gun, and I fail to kill the attacker, but gain time to run away, I’ll be sued. But if I’m good, and shoot him in the head, I’m in the clear? I suggest that if my life is in the balance, the outcome will be the same, regardless of my shooting prowess.
R
Rau
Guest
If that is so, I understand why the law is oft compared to a 4- legged animal!if you use deadly force with the intent to wound someone, you’re in trouble deep. better to leave no living unfriendly witnesses.
Does the same apply to policemen in the course of their duty?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
that is true.If that is so, I understand why the law is oft compared to a 4- legged animal!
Does the same apply to policemen in the course of their duty?
its hard to shoot to wound, any wound could be fatal. admitting you only wanted to wound someone who died of the wound means that the force was disproportionate to the need, a violation of penal, civil and CCC law.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, it could be hard.that is true.
its hard to shoot to wound, any wound could be fatal. admitting you only wanted to wound someone who died of the wound means that the force was disproportionate to the need, a violation of penal, civil and CCC law.
But I’d dispute that my decision to try and wound says anything about what force I’m entitled to use. It may only reflect my earnest desire to avoid killing. I’ve used my Gun because I have no other choice with which to confront an armed assailant.
Never mind, I’m not about to succeed in changing the law. Anymore than I can get the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reworded to something appropriate to the 21st century - though heaven knows it needs to be addressed!
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I like it just where it is.… Anymore than I can get the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reworded to something appropriate to the 21st century - though heaven knows it needs to be addressed!
O
otjm
Guest
Actually, shooting to wound would be a defense against either a murder or attempted murder charge.as a lawyer, I can tell you that would be a horrible idea. valid use of firearms = deadly force was necessary. shooting to wound someone shows that deadly force wasn’t necessary.
Shooting to wound is for the movies. The rush of adrenaline one gets when one is fearing an immediate attack is so great, and civilians are so untrained generally in shooting, that the risk is fairly high that the shot will not even hit the intended target - the aggressor.
And lest anyone think that is poppycock, read reports of shootings by police; these people are trained in shooting, go through numerous practices, and when the brown stuff hits the fan, report after report will detail the number of shots fired and the number of hits. At times there are numerous rounds fired and few hits.
Center of mass is the instruction most often given because it is the biggest target, try hitting a target that may be 6 inches wide (about the width of a thigh) at fifteen feet when it is moving erratically, and you are under pressure. The results should be a wake-up call.
O
otjm
Guest
Police get sued on a fairly regular basis for use of deadly force.If that is so, I understand why the law is oft compared to a 4- legged animal!
Does the same apply to policemen in the course of their duty?
Much of whether or not you are going to face criminal charges may center around the attitudes of both the police and the district attorney, given the same set of facts. And the facts are going to be critical in a civil suit brought either by the person you shot, or someone related to them. Even though the district attorney ad the police say "justified shooting’, that does not stop someone from filing a civil suit against you.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
those shooting instructors don’t teach you to wound. they teach you to shoot at the best target to stop the threat, center mass.Actually, shooting to wound would be a defense against either a murder or attempted murder charge.
Shooting to wound is for the movies. The rush of adrenaline one gets when one is fearing an immediate attack is so great, and civilians are so untrained generally in shooting, that the risk is fairly high that the shot will not even hit the intended target - the aggressor.
And lest anyone think that is poppycock, read reports of shootings by police; these people are trained in shooting, go through numerous practices, and when the brown stuff hits the fan, report after report will detail the number of shots fired and the number of hits. At times there are numerous rounds fired and few hits.
Center of mass is the instruction most often given because it is the biggest target, try hitting a target that may be 6 inches wide (about the width of a thigh) at fifteen feet when it is moving erratically, and you are under pressure. The results should be a wake-up call.
shooting with the** intention of wounding **is an admission by the shooter that he or she didn’t think the situation required deadly force. but shooting a gun is, by definition, using deadly force. using deadly force when deadly force isn’t required is a crime and a sin and a big insurance liability. this is an important distinction if you’re mistaken and you shoot to wound the mailman instead of a rampaging murderer and the mailman dies from his wound; or you shoot to wound a pickpocket.
the best testimony would be that the shooter shot to stop what he or she though was a deadly attack, not to wound, and not to kill. you know, principle of double effect where the intended effect is to stop, the unintended effect is death.
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Unless at very close range, the idea of a reflex shoot to wound is a little fanciful. I have a couple of old friends who are ex-SAS and say blame Hollywood for such ideas. -Also, at close range and in a ‘crowded’ environment it is likely the bullet(s) may hit more than the intended target. :imsorry:One thought, along the proportional defense idea, is that you could WOUND them rather than kill them, if possible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.