imported post
SaltH2OHokie wrote:
I know the difference is subtle and very screwed up. That's why if you are EVER in a shooting you NEVER talk to the police. Let the lawyers do the talking. If you don't know the difference and they trick you into saying you meant to kill the intruder you can be in big trouble.
However, you should still shoot center mass as that is the easiest way to stop an intruder. You still do not shoot to wound, always shoot to stop.
SaltH2OHokie wrote:
Yes it does. It's all about intent. If an intruder is attacking you or others with the possibility of deadly harm it's lawful to shoot to stop. Meaning you don't want to kill the person, just save yourself and others. If a jury is convinced you where shooting to kill a person, which is above and beyond just trying to save yourself, then you can be convicted of a crime.ravonaf wrote:I'm not sure I follow...my .45 doesn't know the difference in shoot to stop and shoot to kill, are you saying that the law does recognize such a difference?That's why you shoot to stop and not to kill. If you are legally in a situation where it's lawful to shoot to stop and your target gets killed then it's still lawful. The jury must have been convinced that he wanted to kill the intruder.
I know the difference is subtle and very screwed up. That's why if you are EVER in a shooting you NEVER talk to the police. Let the lawyers do the talking. If you don't know the difference and they trick you into saying you meant to kill the intruder you can be in big trouble.
However, you should still shoot center mass as that is the easiest way to stop an intruder. You still do not shoot to wound, always shoot to stop.