[IMachU]

Originally Posted by STG

Hey Dave,

I'm going to have to look up California case law on this. Women do this crap all the time. They shoot to wound. Given the fact that you are only supposed to shoot if you believe you are in fear of your life or great personal injury, you can open yourself up to a nasty lawsuit.

"Your Honnor, if the defendant truly believed his life was in danger, he would have killed my client. Since he shot my client in the arm, he obviously didn't believe my client was willing to kill him."

Some poor California crime victim admitted to shooting to wound, not kill and the jury was pursuaded that he wasn't truly in fear of his life of great personal injury. The crimal was awarded significant damages. I think the poor guy was also convicted of illegally shooting his assailant.

Stan: The theory is to shoot to stop someone's threat to your life. Not shoot to wound. People are getting that all mixed up. If you shoot someone in the head, it stops their aggressive attack on your life. If they are killed in the process, well, sorry. It is not the intent of the victim to kill the other person, just to stop their attack and preserve life. If you go into court and say, "Yes, jury of my peers, I shot to kill that guy," you will be looked at in a different light here in the land of fruits and nuts. But if you say, "Hey, guys....I shot him to save my life and get him to stop what he was doing. Unfortunately he didn't stop before he lost his life," you will be seen as a true victim, not someone bent on revenge for his attack against you. Do y'all see the difference here? The difference is a reverence for human life, which all deadly force decisions MUST BE BASED UPON. I hope this clarifies things.