I had a thought while reading the thread "A Righteous Shoot?" but I felt the discussion might veer too far off topic to keep it in that thread...
Regarding justified shootings, witness statements, and the right to remain silent, I wonder how much of a difference it can/would make for a defensive shooter to be well-versed in what defines justified use of deadly force. We see a lot of discussions about knowing local laws, having a good lawyer, and planning what to say if you ever have to use your weapon. My question, I guess, is what would be the best presentation of good intentions and a "right mindset" to inspectors, juries, and judges.
In my case, being a military member, I have recited on a nearly every-day basis for the last 5 years the Navy's rules of deadly force, which I will quote here.
DEADLY FORCE is that force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which that person knows (or should know) creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
DEADLY FORCE is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed. Its use is authorized under one or more of the following conditions;
-Self defense or defense of others
-For protection of assets vital to national security
-For protection of assets not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others if stolen or destroyed in place
-To prevent serious offenses against others
-To assist in the apprehension of, or prevent the escape of, a person who has committed, or for whom there is probable cause to believe has committed an offense of the nature specified above.
As far as I know, most branches of the military have a similar mantra or instructions regarding deadly force. So if one were to present this knowledge (or something similar) during investigation or trial, would it be helpful in proving sound mind and "righteous" intent?
Sorry this got kinda long-winded
Regarding justified shootings, witness statements, and the right to remain silent, I wonder how much of a difference it can/would make for a defensive shooter to be well-versed in what defines justified use of deadly force. We see a lot of discussions about knowing local laws, having a good lawyer, and planning what to say if you ever have to use your weapon. My question, I guess, is what would be the best presentation of good intentions and a "right mindset" to inspectors, juries, and judges.
In my case, being a military member, I have recited on a nearly every-day basis for the last 5 years the Navy's rules of deadly force, which I will quote here.
DEADLY FORCE is that force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which that person knows (or should know) creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
DEADLY FORCE is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed. Its use is authorized under one or more of the following conditions;
-Self defense or defense of others
-For protection of assets vital to national security
-For protection of assets not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others if stolen or destroyed in place
-To prevent serious offenses against others
-To assist in the apprehension of, or prevent the escape of, a person who has committed, or for whom there is probable cause to believe has committed an offense of the nature specified above.
As far as I know, most branches of the military have a similar mantra or instructions regarding deadly force. So if one were to present this knowledge (or something similar) during investigation or trial, would it be helpful in proving sound mind and "righteous" intent?
Sorry this got kinda long-winded