Originally Posted By: thseng
Originally Posted By: TheSock
People think by saying you don't have a gun purely to kill, you are advising to shoot to wound.
They repeatedly insiste on a public web site that one can only have a gun to kill people but are expecting a jury to believe they tried to disarm a burglar, only shot when they were forced to and stopped shooting as soon as he was incapacitated.


I have no qualifications to comment on this but I just have to ask...

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
No, not at all, I only wanted to stop him.
But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?
Well, yes, I guess so...
So, you only neeeded to stop him, but you shot and killed him, anyway? I rest my case, your honor.

--OR--

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
Yes.
But why?
I didn't want to, but the only way left to stop him was to kill him.


I'm not a lawer or a judge, but I might be a jury member some day.



You'd have to be a pretty dumb jury member to fall for that twisting of what I said.
If I was asked 'But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?' I'd answer the truth: 'No I didn't. There are plenty of places in the centre of the body you can get shot without dying and that's where I aimed like the police recommended firearms course I took advised me to'.
To the question 'did you shoot to kill him?' I'd answer the truth: 'no, I shot to stop. As soon as he stopped I stopped shooting. See the answer to my your previous question as to whether he was bound to die by being hit in the main body mass'.
The Sock
_________________________
The world is in haste and nears its end – Wulfstan II Archbishop of York 1014.