O/T: Protection

Okay, I'll simplify: There is NO legal difference between shooting someone in the foot or in the head, assuming that the subject lived or died in each instance.

If the shooting is not justified, the shooter is guilty of either murder or assault with a deadly weapon. The location of the bullet hole has no bearing on the criminal charges.

"I walked over to kick the gun from his hand and he twitched. So, being in fear for my life, discharged my weapon one more time."

(nudge-nudge, wink-wink)

I agree. That's why I carry a .45.

I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46.

You really want a gun ban don't you?

I think this can boiled down to a simple thought.

If you are in a close quarters conflict, requiring force, the first priority is to stop the son-of-a-bitch. Not pick legs, arms, heads, or toes. That usually calls for a dead-center torso shot.

RonB

Ok, let me try this again with shorter sentences. You make no sense. Could you please ask the question(s) again? I'd like to know what I'm answering.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I missed that part.

But they do make a .50Mag.

Simplicity is eloquence. Well distilled. :-)

You asked: Are you always this dumb?

I asked back: Are you always this TIC impaired? AND Or have you never seen a perp's relatives sue the victim?

So, the answer to your question is No, not always and not in this case.

Now, you can:

a. ignore and move on b. answer my questions c. request further clarification d. come up with a joint statement that we can both sign

No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

Which is true but irrelevant unless you feel that it is better to be dead than be sued. If you do feel that it is better to be dead than to be sued, when they sue you you can always shoot yourself with the same weapon with which you shot your assailant.

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can "reach out and touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open carry or guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship before being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell funny.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of "Castle Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death or injury.

If you would provide your home state (instead of posting via an anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is active where you live.

If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners. You're playing into a stereotype here.

And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

Only if there is finding of self-defense. He quite rightly points out that if the matter is never adjudicated then one is open to civil suits.

Not in this state (Washington) and others that have laws to prevent this.

The specific wording of the Washington statute is: "(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030."

The statute provides no non-judicial means for ascertaining whether a person was "protectiing by any reasonable means necessary . . .". So if you have not been tried in the criminal courts and acquitted on grounds of self-defense the relatives can still sue you and you still have to pay for a legal defense. Further, unlike a criminal trial there is no specific provision that you are due compensation for a civil trial in which it is ascertained that you acted in self-defense. So to actually obtain protection under the statute you have to persuade the district attorney to bring criminal charges and go to court so you can get acquitted by reason of self defense. It's going to be an uphill battle to persuade him to do that--generally DAs don't like to waste the state's money on cases that they know they are going to lose.

If the statute provided, for example, that an affadavit from the district attorney stating that he did not bring charges because he was certain that you would be acquitted on grounds of self-defense would suffice as evidence that you did so then things might be different, but there appears to be no such mechanism provided in the statute.