Posted by Skribs: My point is that anything you do, or don't do, can be construed as a desire to use your weapon to kill.
Not everything, and certainly not with damaging effect.
If you use JHPs, a prosecutor can say you're using cop-killer bullets that even the Army doesn't allow.
That has happened, and it is easily countered by expert testimony.
If you use FMJs, a prosecutor can say you're negligent because you obviously don't care if anyone behind your target gets hit.
More likely to happen in a civil trial, but if you do injure someone in a manner in which evidence of reckless disregard indicates criminal negligence, it
could come up.
So yeah, I worry primarily about what's legal and what's right when I approach self defense, not about what could potentially be used subjectively against me.
Never underestimate the importance of not creating evidence that you do not want to have used against you.
Signs, posters, bumper stickers, email, letters, internet posts, and T-shirts....
The slogan we have been discussing was in fact used with damaging effect against one defendant.
Anyone who has any familiarity at all with the judicial process should have been concerned the first time it was ever presented to him or her; I would have raised an objection on the spot. It sounds terrible to the average person, and it paints a picture of a dangerous person who may well be predisposed towards violence.