[MJRW]

I was discussing with a co-worker defending the home. My revolver being my primary, I said I would likely empty it. He having a Beretta 92 said he would empty his as well, and the said (I couldn't tell if he was joking) he would reload and continue firing. In my mind "shoot to stop, if they die in the process so be it" is Rule 2. Rule 1 being "anyone deserving to get shot, deserves to get shot well." A six-shot revolver seems to be the right answer to both these rules, imo.

However, a couple of weeks ago while investigating an odd noise, I grabbed the Glock 19 which had a 15+2 mag and a 1 in the pipe. When does one stop in that situation? When they stop approaching? When they stop moving? When they hit the floor? I can easily see a jury being convinced that 18 rounds was malicious on the shooter's part and then the shooter getting a conviction. I can see that situation more easily if one reloads to continue perforating the bad guy.

Where is the line between shooting to stop and shooting maliciously?

[Zundfolge]

I'd say its when the attacker is clearly not a threat ... the clearly part is the difficult part, and probably varies from state to state.

I believe if the criminal is no longer advancing and has been disarmed that would probably be the cutoff point. Also I imagine you shouldn't run down the street after a fleeing criminal and shoot him in the back.

I remember reading about some guy in Utah (I think) who shot a burgler in his home. The burgler staggered out of the house and was dying on the patio when the homeowner walked up and plugged him in the head. Homeowner is now in jail, and will be there for a long time.

[Greg L]

Also with the forsenics today they can easily tell the angle of the bullets where the entered the body. If you plug the guy with 4-5 shots and he drops, the powers that be will be able to tell if you emptied the rest of the mag while he was laying there. Granted he still could be trying to point his pistol at you and you were still in fear of your life....

Greg

[Glock Glockler]

at what point might home defense be seen as malicious?

In my opinion, the sidewalk scene in American History X, would start to push the line, maybe, but I'm probably not going to be on too many juries, so don't use me as a yardstick.

[Darrin]

If her using a shotty, only 1 shot is needed unless you miss. :)

[Jim March]

There's a related issue:

How many rounds do you keep on tap for the OTHER bad guy? You know, the one you ain't met yet but who's "waiting in the wings"?

[MJRW]

Yeah, Jim, that part has been brought up. I'm just trying to keep it to this single point right now. Not really trying to get into a tactical discussion. Then skunk starts bringing up carbon fiber and the thread goes haywire.

[Graystar]

When does one stop in that situation? You stop when you are sure you are safe. You are under no obligation to risk your life for appearances.

[cobb]

Lets say the attacker has a knife, and it will vary state to state.

If you are being attacked, you shoot to stop the threat. This means that if you shoot the attacker in the little finger and he falls to the floor screaming like a baby, or now runs away from you, you can no longer shoot, the attacker is no longer an immediate threat.

If you shoot and he drops to the floor, gets up and advances towards you, shoot again. If again he goes down, but gets up and again continues to advance, shoot again and again as needed to stop the immediate threat. You use your weapon to stop the threat, that may mean zero shots, or several may be needed.

Remember, you are defending youself and are shooting to stop an immediate threat, not shooting to kill. The death of the attacker is just the after effect of stopping the immediate threat of grave bodily harm to yourself.

I'm not that good at putting it into type, but I think you get the idea.

[Chipper]

This really begs the question, "How can you measure a fear-based response?" And, conversely, "How can you measure a person's discipline and self-control in a life-threatening situation?" There is no such standard. Neither, indeed, can there be. Training is to shoot to stop the threat. Not all persons are trained. Neither can they be expected to be trained because the right of self-defense is not contingent upon receiving some level of "approved" training. Neither is training a "be all and end all" type of thing. It certainly helps but, it cannot and does not guarantee outcomes.

The two examples, the man in Utah that shot the escaping bad guy, and the friend that claimed that he would reload and continue shooting are both examples of excess or malice. Yet, I question how malice or excess can be defined as such in defense of one's life and property. I find this to be a more grave consideration in the Utah example. Could the intended victim decide that there would be no satisfactory justice delivered by the state and simply effect that justice on his own? What if the bad guy was a rapist? Perhaps he was discovered in a child's room. There could be extenuating circumstances that would effectively justify the bad guy's execution.

This is not to say that I agree with the execution by the Utah man. I am simply pointing out that I have inadequate facts here to make an honest judgment of the situation.

Chipper

[Tamara]

Well, generally I think you should keep shooting at them until they stop doing whatever it was that made you start shooting at them in the first place. ;)

[jimpeel]

at what point might home defense be seen as malicious? At the point you cross the border into the state of California.