I don' t remember exactly what I said before, and the search function on this website is notoriously ineffective. But I think the summaries of my opinion stated already were correct. I'd have used the technical legal term which is unpublishable, but starting with "bull" or alternatively, "horse" (a technical term coming from our Anglo-Saxon past legal history).
If you have a good and necessary reason to shoot, then you've got a good and necessary reason to shoot. Nothing else matters at that point. If you're charged with a crime, the eight-hundred pound gorilla in the room is going to be the fact that you shot someone; everyone's going to know it and there's no point in dancing around it. So my position is that you should meet it head on, and be prepared to testify that, in the situation you were facing, it was a good thing you were adequately prepared to meet the contingency. If you're found guilty, there's a possibility that such stuff could be used in sentencing, but even there it's not really relevant to anything whether you're using hollow-points, lightened springs, skeletonized hammer, a lasergrip, or whether the shape of your nose is aquiline or bulbous.
