CHEVELLE427
Member
Along time ago when I took the class to get a carry permit. We were told you never shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat, death was just a by product of the act.
If I have to shoot someone, I am going to shoot to stop their aggression, whatever that takes. And if that means that person dies as the result, then so be it. California law says you have to stop shooting when you have stopped their aggression. But it also says I can shoot if I feel my life or anyone else is in danger of being killed or injured, to prevent a violent felony, or to defend my habitation, property, and person against a violent felony.When discussing this same subject with someone who has an emotional bias, do you think the "center of mass - shoot to stop" argument would really hold any weight? Or would they only hear "blah blah blah I wanna shoot people blah yadda yadda guns and bibles blah blah blah"?
As an aside, some years ago I had LEXIS access and heard someone make the "reloaded ammo" argument, so I decided to look into it. Basically, I could not find one case in LEXIS, in any state, at any time, where reloaded ammunition had been any kind of legal issue at all.It has been mentioned that a jury could look on reloaded ammo or a modified gun as labeling me as a hotshot shooter looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
Along time ago when I took the class to get a carry permit. We were told you never shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat, death was just a by product of the act.
Never underestimate a civil suit and an unethical lawyer.
Maybe not. But the 911 tape can. And the witness you didn't see. Also the forensic evidence -- bloodspatter patterns, bullet trajectory analysis, gunshot residue pattern analysis.Last I heard a dead man cannot take the stand to testify against you..