And we've discussed on any number of occasions why this sort of analysis is meaningless and useless.gvf said:....The means used in Lethal Self-Defense are Lethal so their is an intent to cause death if that is necessary to stop the attack, the over-all intent. You're explanation I believe treats the two, Lethal Means and Stopping an Attack as oppositional. "You are not doing this, you are doing that."
But they are inclusive, the second including the first: "You are Stopping an Attack by causing the death of the attacker [if there is no other way]. Your intent to stop the attack includes the intent to cause death [if necessary]...
For example:
- In this post:Frank Ettin said:PTMCCAIN said:Tell me about how you shoot to stop the threat.
If you are shooting to stopping the threat you had better have decided to kill somebody.
That is a fundamental difference between shooting with the intent to stop and shooting with the intent to kill. If I'm forced to shoot someone to protect my life of the life of an innocent, my purpose is served if the assailant stops, even if he doesn't die.
The assailant's death may be a natural result of my use of lethal force to stop him, and I must accept that; but his death is not my intended result. If it were, I would continue shooting even after he stopped. But ask how well that worked out for Jerome Ersland.
Shooting to stop is more than just "politically correct." It is the legal limit on your justified use of lethal force. If you have stopped the threat, you are not justified in continuing to use lethal force against the aggressor, even if he is still breathing.
And by the way, this distinction is recognized in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (footnotes omitted, emphasis added):Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."...
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's....
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility....
- This post by another lawyer:Bartholomew Roberts said:I think a lot of times where this conversation breaks down is the difference between accepting the mindset that your actions are likely to result in the death of another person and the incorrect idea that your goal is to kill the other person. Those are two different concepts but on the Internet anyway, many people do not distinguish between them well.
- This post:Frank Ettin said:Byrd666 said:...I am in defense of my life, or others lives that are in need of protection, and am now willing to kill my perceived threat...
True, I accept that the death of the assailant is a possible consequence of my use of lethal force to stop him. But there is still a fundamental difference between shooting with the intent to stop and shooting with the intent to kill. If I'm forced to shoot someone to protect my life of the life of an innocent, my purpose is served if the assailant stops.
The assailant's death may be a natural result of my use of lethal force to stop him, and I must accept that; but his death is not my intended result. If it were, I would continue shooting even after he stopped. But ask how well that worked out for Jerome Ersland.