'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

Then youre probably more left than I thought.

 

Let me guess...you're still in high school, right?

 

Bad guess. im not surprised youre wrong about that too.

 

Oh...so you're an 'adult' who's still into labeling. Got it.

 

In German court this is probably accepted, if gun violence is the only way to prevent a crime.

I personally know of a man who lethally shot an intruder. The man is a +70 years old former hunter who legally owns some rifles. Some day three juveniles breaked into his home. He killed one of them by using a shotgun and wasn't punished for that.

 

Legally, if you use a firearm you are using deadly force; even if you aim at his legs. If you can't articulate that you yourself felt at risk of death or great bodily injury, firing a gun at somebody is a bad idea.

Also, under stress and adrenaline fine motor control is compromised, and aiming at a specific body part is very difficult. A shot aimed at the legs is highly likely to miss completely, and now you have a stray round flying downrange addressed "To Whom It May Concern".

This is why law enforcement (and all serious training schools) train to fire center mass.

I have insurance, and nothing material I have is worth killing over. Defense of myself and my family, on the other hand....

 

Self defense, sure. If a criminal shoots someone in the leg as part of a crime, I don't think that the courts will look upon the victim dying due to a severed femoral artery as "as accident".

 

Is that my label? lol. facepalm

 

I leave this to the LEAs, but I would never fire at his body.

If I have a firearm as only option to defend my property, I would use it in the most harmless possible manner. Simply meaning: the suspect is still alive when police and medics arrive and my stuff is not taken away by him. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

Adult? Um...no...that's not a label at all. You're really struggling with this aren't you?

 

If someone were stealing my car, I would shoot the tires to make it easier for the police to catch them.

I would not want to kill them, and I would feel bad if I missed and hit them instead.

But not real bad. Their dumb decision.

...if I had a car that was worth the trouble, that is. No one would steal any of my cars...

 

besides , depending on the state, this was also the commission of a felony

 

no not at all. Im laughing at your struggle and subsequent skin irritation of me being under it.

 

You're giving yourself way too much credit.

 

No Im not. Your posts are written above in black and white. ***scratch scratch***

 

Hahahaha...thank you for the laugh.

 

Just put some hydrocortizone on that. Youll be ok.

 

Are you sure you're not in high school?

 

I would stop scratching. The skin irritation just gets worse. Id give it a rest and it will go away.

 

Or one simply recognizes what is ultimately a matter of reality.

 

If you are not comfortable with firing at someone's body in a self-defense situation, then I would suggest maybe using a gun isn't the right option for you.

I don't say that flippantly, nor do I intend to be in any way insulting; but the reality is that attempting to shoot someone in the legs in a stress situation is a recipe for disaster for you and your family. You're opening yourself up to legal and financial consequences that could prove catastrophic.

 

Agreed. The average person shooting someone in the leg in a highly stressful situation only works in the movies. The avg person needs to shoot center mass.

 

Life is obviously cheap for you fellows. However, that's far from the norm!

 

Once a firearm has been discharged against another, it legally constitutes deadly force, no matter where they were shot, or even if they were hit. Legally it would make no difference if they were shot in the chest, or in the foot in a manner that resulted in the bullet amputating their toe.

That matter aside, shooting someone in the leg is no guarantee of survival, as the femoral artery can easily be severed and cause the individual to bleed to death immediately.

Beyond that matter, the prosecution could easily argue that shooting someone in the extremity would indicate you were not in fear for your life, and thus were unjustified in the use of deadly force.

 

No, that is a fairly stressful situation. And could be confusing to who may be doing what and the victim is the one the shooter shoots.
Civilians have no business shooting other civilians. Except in life threatening situations. Property can be replaced, an innocent victim can not.