gamestalker
Regular Member
imported post
From a legal stand point, and I must add that I am in no way a qualified adviser in this area of the subject matter and thus ask that no individual take my advice and use their own common sense to conclude. However, with that said I have researched cases nation wide and extensively in Arizona and can find absolutely no case in which a self defense case was lost due to the reload used being of the most possible configuration of components available. If an individual in this state is posing a life threatening or serious bodily injury circumstance, or the potential victim is elderly, disabled or in some way diminished capacity to defend with equal force they have the legal right to use deadly force of epic proportion meaning what ever will do the most damage or impose the maximum obtainable deadly force they can. We are not asked to try and diminish the weapons potential in order to hope and stop such assault by minimal means as that could lead to failure to prevent death or serious or life threatening injury to the victim. Shooting to kill is OK and isn't considered excessive in any circumstance that posses a reasonable deadly threat to us or another individual. Again I'm only giving my interpretation of the laws and not direst quote or legal jargon interpretations to be considered official or fact, my opinion and interpretation is all this represents!
gamestalker
From a legal stand point, and I must add that I am in no way a qualified adviser in this area of the subject matter and thus ask that no individual take my advice and use their own common sense to conclude. However, with that said I have researched cases nation wide and extensively in Arizona and can find absolutely no case in which a self defense case was lost due to the reload used being of the most possible configuration of components available. If an individual in this state is posing a life threatening or serious bodily injury circumstance, or the potential victim is elderly, disabled or in some way diminished capacity to defend with equal force they have the legal right to use deadly force of epic proportion meaning what ever will do the most damage or impose the maximum obtainable deadly force they can. We are not asked to try and diminish the weapons potential in order to hope and stop such assault by minimal means as that could lead to failure to prevent death or serious or life threatening injury to the victim. Shooting to kill is OK and isn't considered excessive in any circumstance that posses a reasonable deadly threat to us or another individual. Again I'm only giving my interpretation of the laws and not direst quote or legal jargon interpretations to be considered official or fact, my opinion and interpretation is all this represents!
gamestalker