That would only make sense if the only way to stop the threat is by killing the person.
Sent from my DROIDX using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Breaking News out of Florida!!!!!
- Thread starter krichardson
- Start date
Sent from my DROIDX using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
You shoot to stop the threat. The only way to ensure stop the threat is to drop the threat in their tracks. They could still be capable of continuing what they are doing with a bullet placed in a non critical area. There is also a humanity factor to consider. What are you gonna do? Shoot the person in the femoral artery and watch him bleed out?
When the time comes that deadly force needs to be used you are past the point of scaring some one off. Also you apparently have very little experience with handguns. There is no shooting to wound and really no shooting to kill. You always aim at the largest target which is called "center mass" the area around the chest and down to the abdomen. The reason why you aim there is because even experienced shooters have a hard time placing accurate shots under duress and this is the easiest spot to hit.
You must also understand that firing a warning shot is considered using deadly force and if proven in court that you werent under eminent threat firing the "warning shot" is pretty much the same as shooting some one who wasnt threatening you.
So to answer your question, its best to shoot center mass until the threat has stopped if you believe your life is in danger. Period.
Now you're going to attempt to turn it around and say it's more human to kill a person than injure them. I'm sure a person that shot someone in defense that had the consciousness to try not to kill them would immediately call 911 or get help someone. You're trying to turn a humane person that wants to spare another's life into a monster who would shoot a person to watch them slowly die. I'm not playing your game. Maybe someone else on here wants to forever go in circles with you.
Sent from my DROIDX using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Thats funny, I typed out my reply before you posted that and what I typed is almost the exact same thing...
So that applies in every situation? Every state? Hawaii and Florida support that kind of action, what if you live elsewhere? What constitutes a situation where deadly force is necessary? I think that we all can agree that if someone is trying to shoot you then you're justified in shooting them, but what if you have a gun and they have a knife? A bat? Just their fists? Who's to say that you're not overreacting to the situation and are making it out to be a bigger threat than what it is? What I'm trying to say is that this needs to be considered in a case by case scenereo, there isn't a blanket rule that will apply to every situation everytime.
Hawaii for the most part is pretty anti gun. Florida is in the middle. Most all states have laws very similar to both. Most states laws regarding the use of deadly force either say something to the effect of "you believe you are in danger of great bodily harm or death." or some states say that you can use DF to prevent a felony crime against your body or even some one else such as rape or kidnapping. Being able to use deadly force to defend yourself is nothing new in this country. Before the so called stand your ground laws, using deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or death was legal. The stand your ground laws in most states were put there to protect the victims of criminals from scrupulous DAs who just wanted to put people behind bars. They often protect the victims from civil cases from the criminals family. The laws also usually allowed for the defense of a persons home or vehicle.
For your info, a knife, bat and fists can kill you just as dead as a bullet so a deadly threat can come from all kinds of sources.
