Since nothing that he said supports the notion that one should "shoot the perp in the leg", but all of it supports the notion that you "shoot to stop" in the center of mass, it is difficult to discern how you went about deciding that anything that he said supported your argument.
Quite frankly you're coming across as an idiot, and I'm not wasting any more time on you.
Good grief! You've gone from self defense in a "Castle Doctrine" state directly to a "wrongful death". Care to move the goal posts again? What an asshole.
Name one that didn't.
You are really getting tiresome. See ya!
Sorry if I got too far ahead for you to keep up.
I hope your home is broken into so you can reason with the perp. You're just too stupid to live.
Poor baby!
What a sorry excuse for a man you are.
Oh, no! KRW is trying to hurt my feelings! He's one of those usenet tough guys!
You think you're the only one here? I couldn't give a s*it for you. What a sorry-assed loser.
Yet you can't stop responding!
Love your new sig. It's so YOU!
The part where you say, "If you could stop somebody by shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head." In this sentence, you imply that a person confronted in a situation in which the Castle Doctrine applies would be expected to select shot placement (leg vs. head) depending upon the circumstance. The fact is that once a person has judged that use of deadly force is needed (just to be clear here, the moment you point a firearm at another person implies intent to use deadly force), it doesn't matter what part of the perp you hit -- you are using deadly force. Your statement further implies that if the person using deadly force could pre-determine that shooting the perp in the leg would stop them, then any other shot placement would be criminal. In reality, once you start firing at a perp, you are engaged in the use of deadly force, you are justified to fire and keep firing at the perp so long as you feel you are still in danger (i.e., up to the point where the perp stops). Further, my point was that once the perp has stopped, you have achieved the objective for the use of deadly force and must then also stop. If the perp dies as a result of his aggression and your use of deadly force, that is not a criminal act on your part. Your statement implies that if it was determined you could have shot him in the leg to stop him but hit him elsewhere then you would be held criminally liable -- that is what is plain wrong.
Don't waste your time. This "Salty" twit is an ignorant troll. He has no idea what he is talking about and has no want for and intelligent discussion. I plonked him a while ago.
Excellent idea.
You should see some of his stuff over on rec.boats.cruising & rec.boats.building.
It's while kill files were invented.
Lew
Yeah, everybody over there just LOVES Lewy.
LOL!
Oh NO!
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, chucklehead.
In news:Nq-dnTMBx9vH-7DWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com, CW spewed forth:
who?
Tell your mother I said hello.
Both.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required