Jaytex absolutely nailed it.
He's claiming that I should only shoot to wound because the law will come down harder upon me if I kill the threat than if I just incapacitated it.
We do not shoot to WOUND. If you are in a situation where you could legally shoot a weapon at someone (anywhere on their body), you are in a situation where you are justified in your actions whether they live or die. There is no pass for "less lethal" shots. You either (counter-)attacked them with a deadly weapon or you didn't. That action was either justified due to immediate fear of death or grievous injury from the other person, or it was not.
Further, shots intended to wound someone require that you aim deliberately at a non-vital, non-life-threatening area of the body. An effective center of mass shot is hard enough to make under great fear and duress. How much harder is it to deliberately shoot a foot or hand or knee or whatever?
So to be justified in shooting someone (at all, anywhere on their body) you must be in fear that they are bearing down on you with the intent and ability to kill you RIGHT NOW. Under those conditions, and knowing that a great many shots fired in self defense are clean misses, you're going to take careful aim for a flailing limb or some "non-critical" target? Uh, no.
...
We do not shoot to KILL! Killing is NOT a justified intent under any circumstances. We are not judge, jury, and executioner. We are NOT attempting to take a life. We are merely, only, and entirely, shooting to make someone stop attacking us.
The first is that a seriously injured opponent can still seriously mess me up.
Yes. You should shoot, center-of-mass, until they flee, break off their attack, become incapacitated, and/or give you time to get away.
But, when their attack stops, our counter attack has to stop, too --
IMMEDIATELY. (Do a search here for
Jerome Ersland.) The fact that they may die of the wounds we inflict is
irrelevant. The fact that they might NOT have died of those wounds is similarly irrelevant.
The second is that if they survive, I may be sued for personal injury.
Woah! Back up. Flag on the play! We cannot kill them to stop them from showing up in court. We cannot kill them in revenge for what they've done. We cannot kill them from fear of what threat they
might pose to us later if they survive. We may ONLY shoot to stop their assault on us.
He is also the idea of being found guilty of murder for such a shooting
That entirely depends on the success of your "affirmative defense" that you plead to the court. You will need to show that you were under a reasonable fear that the attacker had the ability and the opportunity to kill you or gravely injure you (or a few other serious felonies in some states). You were
forced to stop his attack by the fastest, most sure means you had at your disposal, or you were sure you would die. If those things ARE true, whether your attacker lived or died is not relevant.
If those things are not true, and he dies, you could indeed face a murder or manslaughter conviction. But even if he lives, and they are NOT true, you will still be a in jail, with a ruined life, as a felon with "assault with a deadly weapon" or various other charges on your record forever.
while I am saying that shooting is considered lethal force; if I fire, then I'd better have a damned good reason for doing and and proof that I was entirely justified.
That's exactly right. There is no such thing, legally, as shooting someone "just a little."
If you are FORCED to shoot someone, make them the most effective shots you possibly can. If there is any other option to live through the event without shooting them, TAKE IT.
And understand that shooting anyone, under the "best" of circumstances, is just about the
second worst possible outcome to a hostile confrontation. Once you've shot someone, you are at the mercy of the justice system and life is going to be complicated for a while ... maybe for the rest of your life.
