Okay. However, if you're going to go to all that trouble, I fail to see why it would be ethically reprehensible to spare a second to try to disable your target without actually killing him.

So, if someone were to misinterpret your intentions in such a situation and shoot you dead, would he be within his right?

We are having this discussion now. I'm well aware that it would be futile to ask you to speculate on what your thoughts, or reactions, would be in a specific situation. How could you know, right?

Okay. I can certainly understand if you don't want to entertain the notion that you might, in fact, have been wrong.

Because it would be ethically reprehensible to use deadly force to disable someone.

The only time one is justified in shooting someone is to stop an imminent, deadly threat.

This just shoot them in the leg and they''ll fall down and stop trying to hurt you nonsense is the stuff of fantasy and movies.

Honestly, the whole car accident scenario is a farce anyway. The subject getting out of the car and yelling isn't armed and does not present an imminent deadly threat. If he gets too frisky, he's going to evolve through a gamut of options from verbal de-escalation to possibly hand to hand or perhaps chemical deterrence before he gets to the point where I am even thinking about contemplating the possibility of shooting him.

It's not like there are no other responses available besides shooting him. Any remotely reasonable armed civilian is going to use alternative means to defuse / de-escalate the situation.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Why?

Disabling the guy is rather synonymous with stopping the threat.

Okay. lol.

LOL...It's not me you need to convince...I fully agree.

Because killing someone to stop less than a deadly threat is wrong. I thought this would be pretty obvious.

Sorry, I can't compete with your movie experience. I was only on the street handling shooting victims as a medic for 15 + years.....

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Because there's always the very real possibility that the person may disable me.

Sorry, but that's just not an option I'm willing to entertain...

Yes, he would. I've never gotten out of my car screaming and approaching someone in a threatening manner after an accident, though...

I'm pretty certain that I'd react as reserved as possible...

Why would I? I wasn't wrong. At no time did I think I was wrong. So, no, I won't entertain the notion that I might have been wrong...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

It appears you're trying to suggest that good people would do bad things just because they have a gun. Either that, or only people with guns kill people. Both are flawed positions.

Regardless, no the police CAN'T know - even with witnesses really. This is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone chooses to arm himself. My rights are not subject to being rescinded because it might make some paper-pusher's job easier.
Again, irrelevant. That is their job. Just because they might have to do it once in a while doesnt justify disarming the law abiding public.
I dont think you could present a single circumstance in which it HAS. You're saying "well because I can come up with this bizarre scenario, guns should be illegal".
I agree.
For the times when it does happen so there are punishments which can be applied. That is the whole point of a law after all.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

That's two sophisms in a row, MattLarson, you're being deliberately obtuse. Disabling is not synonymous with killing. Disabling is explicitly NOT killing.

Wtf...How is that even remotely relevant?

Something to keep in mind is that the purpose of using deadly force is not to kill, it's to disable; to stop someone from performing the act that required the use of force.

If the person dies, that's just an ancillary benefit.

It's called "deadly force" because death is a possibility stemming from its use...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Actually, I'm attempting neither. You, on the other hand, seem to imply that every person implicated in a "legal" shooting is a good person. I find this questionable.

I don't recall questioning your rights, at least not in the recent past, except perhaps your right to shoot whomever you please with impunity.

I am questioning whether existing laws really allow them to do their job properly. And again, I didn't advocate outlawing guns, at least not in this thread.

NO...I'M...NOT. Grrr.

Well, certainly. But first you have to be able to determine when such a punishment would be appropriate. I don't see how that is possible when anybody can gun down someone and just claim they were attacking them.

Okay. Then perhaps you should have phrased that differently. If the person dies, it's an unfortunate and not to be desired consequence. After all, you already have a system for killing people legally, correct?

Then surely it is desirable for citizens defending themselves to try to minimize the possibility that disabling their assailant will result in his death. I'm sure it may prove impossible occasionally, but it is still desirable, wouldn't you agree?

I found myself in a situation which dictated I use a firearm against four assailants.

Do I wish I hadn't been in that position? Yes. Do I wish there had been another way to handle the situation? Yes. Do I regret using my firearm? Not for a second.

Minimizing the possibility of death when using a firearm is not a consideration.

When I used my firearm, I shot two people in the chest, twice each. That's how I was trained: "double tap, center mass". I wasn't going to fire a "warning shot" (which is an idiotic concept), I wasn't going to shoot them in the legs or try to shoot the weapons from their hands.

The only thing I found that was "desirable" was that my wife and I walk away, so I acted to that end...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Nonsense.

Shooting someone in the leg and having them bleed to death is both disabling (maybe) in the short term, and then fatal in the longer term.

Your quote above demonstrates exactly how it is relevant. You seem to believe that you can injure someone with a firearm severely enough to disable them without a significant risk of killing them.

That belief is devoid of basis in reality. Reality (as revealed by many years of handling actual gunshot cases) is that any injury sufficient to immediately incapacitate is also very likely to be fatal.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I assume they have committed no crime - after all, in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty.

If it is ruled a legal shooting, then they certainly have not committed any crime.
I never claimed a right to shoot whomever i wished with impunity. This could never BE a right as it would violate other's rights.

I most certainly DO claim a right to be armed, as well as a right to defend my life.

You most certainly have been questioning them sir, and I'm highly offended by it.
Individual rights and freedoms are of far more importance than the ease with which some government drone can do his job.
You certainly do, and you certainly have.
YES...YOU...ARE! Pay attention to what you're saying, and how it will be perceived.
Ah, so in order to be able to better solve murders, people should be murdered rather than defend themselves?

Yeah - THAT makes a whole bunch of sense...

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.