Cosmoline,
No offense, but I believe your understanding of the general concepts regarding the use of deadly force are incorrect.
There's still a lot of misunderstanding here. The firearm is lethal force,
So far, OK. Using a firearm in self defense IS the use of "lethal force" against the attacker. Lethal force is generally defined as that level of force that is reasonably expected to be able to cause death.
The firearm is lethal force, which does not mean it "stops" the foe. It means when you shoot the foe, you are intending to kill him.
NO! Your INTENT is to preserve your own life by stopping the threat posed by the attacker. If you use a firearm, you are indeed using "lethal force" to stop this threat. This DOES NOT mean that you INTEND to kill the attacker. Your intention is to STOP THE ATTACK. Whether the attacker lives or dies at that point is irrelevant. The important thing is that the attack has been stopped.
When we say we want to "stop" the foe, we acknowledge that this might kill him. Killing the attacker would "stop" him. A wound that disables the attacker so that he is no longer a threat also "stops" him. The threat is also "stopped" if the attacker surrenders or runs off when we draw the pistol with the intent to stop the threat.
(Even though a disabling wound also "stops" the attacker, the reason we don't "shoot to wound" is because we can not guarantee that we can create such a wound that would stop him. He may still die if we "shoot to wound" or we may miss entirely. The most reliable "stop" is to shoot center of mass.)
The word "intent" carries a lot of weight in the legal vocabulary. If you say you used deadly force to stop the attack, you acknowledge the fact that the attacker might die due to your actions, but that does not mean your "intent" was to kill him. By using deadly force you realize that one likely outcome is that the attacker might die. But, the death of the attacker is NOT the only possible outcome that would preserve your life.
Now, if you instead say you intended to kill the attacker, that puts you in a different legal situation. Now you are saying that your goal was to kill this other human being and that stopping the attack was only secondary to this goal. You've plainly stated that you intended to kill the person, whether or not the attack was stopped.
The problem is, once the attack is stopped, the use of deadly force is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED.
Cosmoline, let's assume you were attacked and you used your pistol to defend yourself. If the attacker fell to the ground, dropped his gun, and was unconscious and bleeding, would you walk up to him and give him a "coup de grace" shoot to the head to finish him off?
If not, why not? If your "intent" was to kill the attacker, that would kill him and finish what you intended to do. The very fact that you would NOT administer that "coup de grace" shot to "make sure he's dead" shows that, even though you used deadly force, your INTENT was to stop the attack. If your "intent" was really to kill the attacker, than you would take the shot to "finish him off."
I'm not going to refute your other arguments point by point. I will refute this next point because I think it shows the crux of your misunderstanding.
If you used lethal force without intending to kill, then there's real doubt whether it was justified.
What you don't seem to understand is that the willingness to accept the fact that the attacker might die does NOT mean that you *intend* to kill the attacker. Intent implies "desire." I do NOT "desire" the death of another. I only desire the preservation of my own life.
Saying you "intend" to kill the attacker puts you in a very poor situation legally. You can accept the responsibility for the use of lethal force without saying you intended to kill. You intended to stop him and accepted that fact that it may lead to his death.
I'm not an attorney. My understanding of the general principles regarding the use of deadly force is based on the training I've taken.
This training includes Massad Ayoob's LFI 1: The Judicious Use of Deadly Force (40 hours), LFI 2: Threat Management for Civilians (40 hours), The NRA Personal Protection in the Home course as a student (8 hours to receive my Michigan CPL). I am also a NRA Instructor certified to teach the Personal Protection in the Home course. I get constant refresher training on these issues since I am required to have an attorney teach the portion of the class that includes the legal use of deadly force in self defense. ( I teach four to six classes a year. The most recent one was last Saturday).
Not to get into a pissing match, but what training and education do you draw your understanding of the law from?
