Read this and find it interesting....Not sure why its saying actor though.... Shooting to wound is “intentional maiming”. Intentional Maiming has been a tort and a crime since the Laws of King Stephen, circa 1150 AD. It is lawful under many circumstance to cause the death of someone while defending yourself, it is NEVER lawful to “intentionally merely wound”. That’s maiming. Even if the Grand Jury no-bills you and they probably would in most jurisdictions, the civil case would ruin you. 1) An actor can (in most places- certainly in Texas) shoot a burglar to defend your home, if Mr. Burglar dies its tough luck on him. If he’s crippled, it’s tough luck on him too. On the other hand, the actor cannot PURPOSELY merely injure his assailant and cause an amputation or a life in a wheelchair. If you do, you will be paying him forever. 2) Shooting to wound is extremely difficult – the Lone Ranger was able to do it, but could most real people? Even for an excellent shot who practices a LOT, hitting a knee or a gun-holding hand, in the dark, during a gun fight with the adrenaline pumping while ducking incoming bullets is probably an impossible task. Even wounded bad guys may choose to fight on and perhaps wind up killing you anyway. 3) Shooting to wound expends precious ammo and critical seconds trying to non-lethally solve a deadly force problem. During this silly exercise you might get shot, so the maneuver puts YOU and YOURS in additional deadly danger. If Mr. Bad Guy center punches you while you are trying to shoot the gun from his hand, will he be merciful and kind to your survivors? In other words, “shoot to wound” puts you at more risk, and garners no value to you if you fail. 4) Shooting to wound suggests that the actor (the Good Guy) was NOT in “fear for his life”. If the actor truly feared for his life, he wouldn’t have hesitated to try to kill the assailant. In many jurisdictions, you MUST be in fear for your life before using deadly force; admitting to attempting to “merely wound” undercuts the assertion that the good guys life was in jeopardy. 5) It is bad tactics. As noted in 3) above, it may get YOU killed. As for “Shoot to Kill”- this is a meaningless term. We don’t shoot to kill, we SHOOT TO STOP an unlawful deadly attack or armed felonious action. Many times this will result in the death of the attacker, but that is truly not a required outcome. If the Bad Guy throws up his hands and surrenders, that’s just as good result- he stopped attacking me, he abandoned his armed felonious action. If he leaves the scene in handcuffs in a deputy’s car rather than in the Medical Examiner’s van, it is all the same to me.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 04:50:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015