1 shot too many?

[Bill B]

How many times have you heard that the law allows you to keep on shooting until the bad guy is dead?
1) If you shoot, there had better be a definite threat that can't be stopped by other, less violent means.
2) There is no "shoot to kill," and anyone who winds up using deadly force who uses that phrase around the authorities after using it is bound to cause legal action.
3) Shoot to stop the threat, period. No shooting if the foe attempts to flee, before or after you start shooting. No shooting once the foe is down and out of action. And you definitely don't keep shooting just because you're "afraid of getting sued."
4) It needs to be clear from the beginning exactly which person was the aggressor and which was the defender. Doing or saying anything that could possibly cast doubt on you being the latter party is flat stupid.

The only thing I would disagree with is number 1. Can you show me, either in the IC or in case law where I realsitically believing that I am under threat of death or bodily harm, have the duty to attempt to use "other, less violent means?" I believe that the definition of deadly force is not limited to means but defined by possible outcome, of which "lethal" is only one part.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for understanding.

 

[AndersonIN]

This is why you use shotgun with double 00 buck! That way you do multiples with each shot!

 

[foszoe]

I was looking at it in the context of what Denny referred to as each application requiring a justification. For example, quick 6 could be justified because he pointed a weapon at me, aassailant drops weapon collapses.. One application one justification. 3 pause 3, I was thinking, I fire 3 times, assailant drops weapon collapses. 1 application 1 justification. Pause. Assailant makes move for gun 3 shots stops threatening action. Second application second justification. Hope that makes more sense.

 

[oldpink]

The only thing I would disagree with is number 1. Can you show me, either in the IC or in case law where I realsitically believing that I am under threat of death or bodily harm, have the duty to attempt to use "other, less violent means?" I believe that the definition of deadly force is not limited to means but defined by possible outcome, of which "lethal" is only one part.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for understanding.

Sure, and I'll admit my wording was a bit clumsy there.
Mainly talking about those times when you can avoid confrontation, such as when the threat chooses to run away or drops his weapon and surrenders before you start shooting.
The flip side of that is that (of course) there is no responsibility on the part of the defender to wait for the aggressor to do something that could get him killed before firing.

 

[Bill B]

Sure, and I'll admit my wording was a bit clumsy there.
Mainly talking about those times when you can avoid confrontation, such as when the threat chooses to run away or drops his weapon and surrenders before you start shooting.
The flip side of that is that (of course) there is no responsibility on the part of the defender to wait for the aggressor to do something that could get him killed before firing.

Ok, yeah I'd agree. If there is no immediate threat, there is no justification for deadly force.

 

[stephen87]

Depends. Don't believe all the gun shop commando/Timmy Tactical bs about "eye kin dooo whatever I want in meye house". No, you cannot.

My favorite is the "shoot them, then drag them into the doorway." Not that the blood drag marks is a dead giveaway that he was dragged. :rollseyes:

Can you explain the pause? Some circumstances it may make perfect sense, in others it may be an execution.

Sure. He tried to get back up.

 

[mondomojo]

One in the torso and a clean one to the head and you don't need to empty the gun. Two shots surely must be reasonable if you're getting attacked.