Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
No matter where the shot is placed, you never shoot to kill; but you always shoot to live.
No matter where the shot is placed, you never shoot to kill; but you always shoot to live.
Well, probably one of them needed some relief.What if there was fear that he might hit his cousin who was getting beat up? I think I would justify a warning shot in that case. You wouldn't want to accidently kill who you were trying to protect.
I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell you shot them outside... that's just silly. If they are threatening you... shoot to kill. It shouldn't matter where they are unless there's no possible way for them to get you. Other than that... if they are coming at you threatening you with bodily harm... kill them. Because you don't know if they might have a knife or not... you don't know if they might have a gun in their waistband... or a iron pipe or something... just kill them if they're coming at you... and if they're in your house... kill them. Of course... be sure to make sure it's not grandma raiding the fridge... but as soon as you ascertain that it's a thief... kill them.I'm only 30 years old, but I have been telling people this most my life. It goes along with supposition that: "if someone is breaking into your house and you shoot them outside, drag them inside the front door." I'm sure just about everyone has heard that from another person.
Who's this "WE" you speak of kemosabe?? If someone is in my house threatening my family... I shoot to kill. I don't take any chances. If you're not thinking you're going to kill them... but instead, maybe just wing them... you might just end up dead. Why is killing someone for threatening your life a bad thing? If they're on your property and coming at you... kill them.Just an FYI we don't shoot to KILL we shoot to stop the threat! Saying you shot to kill is a good way to make a trip to the big house!
Bravo_Sierra wrote:I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell you shot them outside... that's just silly. If they are threatening you... shoot to kill. It shouldn't matter where they are unless there's no possible way for them to get you. Other than that... if they are coming at you threatening you with bodily harm... kill them. Because you don't know if they might have a knife or not... you don't know if they might have a gun in their waistband... or a iron pipe or something... just kill them if they're coming at you... and if they're in your house... kill them. Of course... be sure to make sure it's not grandma raiding the fridge... but as soon as you ascertain that it's a thief... kill them.I'm only 30 years old, but I have been telling people this most my life. It goes along with supposition that: "if someone is breaking into your house and you shoot them outside, drag them inside the front door." I'm sure just about everyone has heard that from another person.
Oooo I'd not say a word to police. Not even to give my side of the story. I'd first call 911 to report the incident... then, I'd call a lawyer and tell them to get over to my house asap to talk with police. I will not talk to police about an event... ever. Let my lawyer to the talking. Me... I envoke my 5th Amendment rights and say nothing.I always thought it was a dumb statement as well. Hasn't anyone seen NCIS, CSI or other crime shows? Messing with the crime scene implies you feel guilty. Leave the scum bag where he falls and explain yourself plainly.
Oooo I'd not say a word to police. Not even to give my side of the story. I'd first call 911 to report the incident... then, I'd call a lawyer and tell them to get over to my house asap to talk with police. I will not talk to police about an event... ever. Let my lawyer to the talking. Me... I envoke my 5th Amendment rights and say nothing.
Call 911 and say: I was afraid for my life and was forced to defend myself. Please send an ambulance right away.
When police arrive:
1. He attacked me
2. I'll sign the complaint
3. There's the evidence
4. I need to talk to my lawyer and I do not consent to any search
lol, who said anything about trying to "wing" somebody? Always aim for center mass, because that's the best way to STOP a threat.If you're not thinking you're going to kill them... but instead, maybe just wing them...
You're the one playing stupid word games. You seem to lack understanding of "intent".Cops train to shoot to kill.
Just like all liberals.... you cannot argue without using a logical fallacy. The first clause highlighted in red is a classic Strawman. I never said I would do any such thing. I have no intent to kill every criminal I come across nor did I ever say that. I really don't even know why I continue to argue with a bunch of children. Learn to debate... stop using logical fallacies and maybe, just maybe you might be able to formulate a proper defense of your position.If the threat requires me to kill him, say due to ballistic armor, that is not my fault. If the perp dies due to center of mass hits, not my fault. If I demonstrate intent to kill, that is a different story.
What do you suppose the law has to say about all this in most states?
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
You're the one playing stupid word games. You seem to lack understanding of "intent".Cops train to shoot to kill.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that the very problem is your intent to kill every criminal you come across, and the very thing that will save some of us if we come in front of a jury is that we had no intent to kill anybody, but were rather forced into it after being forced to use a potentially lethal weapon to defend ourselves.
The law permits you to use potentially deadly force to defend yourself. Show me where there is a law saying you get to intentionally kill anybody.
I have no qualms about killing to defend myself. That doesn't mean I want to kill anybody. I'd rather not have to fire because mere display was sufficient, or find out later that my assailant survived at the hospital.
A jury is going to look at someone who talks like you as a person who wants to kill criminals, to be judge, jury, and executioner. They're going to wonder that you wouldn't have shot the guy anyway, even if he surrendered after seeing your weapon. Personally, I suspect you would shoot a surrendered robber just because you want to kill criminals. God forbid the perp is wearing body armor, because a jury is going to look at a person like you and assume the head shot you were forced to make was a coup de grace, which is murder.
No they don't my friend. They train the same as the military does, they shoot center-mass to stop the threat. Shooting center-mass on a most likely moving target gives the greatest possibility of stopping the BGs actions, period. Most of the time the BG will die from his wounds. But it is not with the INTENT of killing the BG. The only exception to this would be Special Forces, SEALS, Rangers, SWAT teams, and the like, for obvious reasons.Cops train to shoot to kill.
Talk about strawmen. :quirkyLiberals like you should just give up your guns and get tazers and pepper spray... because the use of deadly force to you is this thing that can only happen in extremely special circumstances that only a lawyer could understand... and by your standards... more than half of those defending themselves would be tried for murder.
lol, if we're going to get into irrelevant semantics, I could just as easily argue that something is only deadly in the event it actually causes a death. If anything, that's more accurate.What I highlighted in lime also makes no sense. The potential deadly force is a bullet in the magazine of your weapon. It is always potential deadly force... however, shooting your gun is always deadly force... even if you miss... the force itself, if it makes contact with your target is deadly force. Guns are not toys.. they're designed to kill people... hence the term deadly. Potentially deadly is like saying kinda pregnant... it's an oxymoron.
But for calling 911, don't you risk being charged with misuse of the 911 system?
If he is dead there is no emergency. If you fire a warning shot (not me though)
and they run off, also no emergency.
Why did he wait around for the police is the big question. Or did the poor
thug get scared and report him?
They are going to need a ballistics match before I will "confess" to a discharge.
And then I will still challenge the results and lack of warrent.
If it is a crime to discharge a weapon, then there is no way you can report
a self defense as you would be violating your right to not incriminate yourself.