[QUOTE=Gloria;7784709]
Wait - so you shoot to kill, but never say you shoot to kill? And never say you shoot the air, or the ground, or you are “brandishing” the gun - so what exactly do you say?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is confusing, isn’t it.
I have read Cssutton reply and other comments and I appreciated the summary on gun use in self-defense very much.
This sounds crazy, but, apparently, in recent years, criminals have gained a lot of rights and measures are being taken in some states so that the citizens do not overdo their right for self-defense.
As a consequence, there is a discrepancy between theoretical advice and practical one you get from the cops and other law enforcement personnel (sometimes on the site right after they arrive).
So, I would like to add, what I have been taught about “real life” self-defense issues by various cops, agents, and lawyers with vast experience.
I am using generic “you.”
In many places, you cannot start any sort of defense until a person enters house, so backyard does not count (= unleashing hounds in the yard can get you sued, if they hurt anyone and this includes the criminal).
As Cssutton already stated, if using gun, you have to be scared for your life (and you will have to be able to prove it later on), hence, you cannot shoot it in the air or ground, since you are shooting to stop the attack- you have to aim at the perpetrator.
Repeatedly, cops and agents told me that, if you are not prepared to aim a gun at a living person, you should not pull it.
One of the reasons is that many criminals know that ordinary people are not used to operate guns, let alone hurt anyone in this manner, and will exploit it (such as, take that gun away from you).
Even, if you are ready to aim and shoot, you should first, if possible, put more obstacles between you and the perpetrator, such as barricading yourself in a room, as this will strengthen your case later on (=You did everything you could to prevent one-on-one battle).
If you end up one-on-one with someone, do your best to stop the attacker to the point of killing him/her, so there is only one story to tell.
Awful, not?
You are probably going to get sued by criminal’s family members anyway, but, again, your case is going to be much stronger that way.
It is a perplexing issue and not the one I would like to tackle for real!
A story to exemplify the “mixed up” state of affairs:
A woman shooting an intruder (notorious criminal with an awful intent) on her porch, i.e. before he got in. Cops arrive and … pull his dead body in the house, before proceeding with the official business.
Another one:
A 911 call recording of a woman, who barricaded herself in a room with her child and a gun. She got on phone with the dispatcher. The perpetrators found the room and started to dig in and she pleaded the dispatcher for the support. She repeatedly asked, if she could shoot and the dispatcher repeatedly advised her to do whatever it took to keep herself and child safe. She did not seem to get it, so she kept asking, whether she could shoot. It was horrible. For both, really, because dispatcher could not say it out loud. In the end, the dispatcher said her “do whatever it takes” mantra in such a manner, she finally got it and, when the guy got in, she shot him dead. Never charged and, thanks to that call, never second-guessed.
Self-defense might become a tricky issue even here in the US (it is already a tricky issue in Europe, as far as I know).