I am presuming that you object to my statement that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound."
That wasn't a legal statement, it was an objective statement.
Getting shot is a highly physically traumatic event, no matter where you get shot. If you shoot someone, you are throwing the dice and gambling that the person won't die if you think you are "shooting to wound."
Think about shooting yourself in the arm with a .22.
You think it ain't gonna hurt? You think that you have no chance of nicking an artery?
There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" because when you shoot somebody, there is a very real chance that they will die as a result.
As long as you want them dead, go for it. If you really don't want them dead, then shooting them is at odds with your desire.
I am presuming that you object to my statement that there is no such thing as “shoot to wound.”
***At first I didn’t really object to it; it just sounded off kilter. Now I object to it because you acknowledge it is not a legal position. This guy obviously was just wounded, not killed. How can you say there is no such thing when it happened on the very example we are discussing?
That wasn’t a legal statement, it was an objective statement.
***I think you may possibly mean SUBjective, rather than OBjective.
Getting shot is a highly physically traumatic event, no matter where you get shot. If you shoot someone, you are throwing the dice and gambling that the person won’t die if you think you are “shooting to wound.”
***Uh... and your point is...? If you’re a pipsqueak and the criminal is a 300 pound thug who tried to break into your house, you have no way of detaining that person except with the threat of tremendous force. The criminal is the one who threw the dice and gambled that he could get his own way and then get away.
Think about shooting yourself in the arm with a .22. You think it ain’t gonna hurt? You think that you have no chance of nicking an artery?
***Straw argument. When did I say there is no chance of nicking an artery? There is obviously a chance, but if the criminal is not submitting and you have a gun, using the gun as a means to detain & arrest the thug is a personal choice.
There is no such thing as “shoot to wound” because when you shoot somebody, there is a very real chance that they will die as a result.
***There is such a thing, and this guy did it. He obviously chanced the thug’s life and in the heat of the moment chose to take that chance. I doubt the thug will ever bother his daughter again. Of course there is a very real chance they will die, but that is the chance that the THUG took as well as the homeowner. If a victim had a taser he wouldn’t be second-guessed about shooting a fleeing felon, even though tasers sometimes kill people. In this case the chance of more lethal damage is higher.
As long as you want them dead, go for it. If you really don’t want them dead, then shooting them is at odds with your desire.
***Shooting the thug is not at odds with the desire to capture the thug. Thugs running away from gun wielding victims (rather than submitting to detention/arrest) is something that should scare the average person. You put me on that homeowner’s jury and he gets away clean. Unless it’s a head shot. Ankle shot, it’s evidence he did not intend to kill the person; head shot, I’m thinking it over. It goes back to those chances of lethality — more chance for a kill with a headshot than an ankleshot. The fact that this thug was shot in the ankle is evidence that the victim had correspondingly less intent to kill. That says a lot when the adrenaline is pumping.