Yes of course, shoot to stop the threat, and I guess if the person you shoot happens to die it's a totally unrelated and unfortunate coincidence. I think this says something about our so-called justice system.
Since those aren't true statements (it obviously isn't a totally unrelated and unfortunate coincidence) I don't really think it says anything about our justice system.
Note: this doesn't mean I'm happy with our current justice system.
There is, however, a significant difference between acting to stop an attacker, and deliberately choosing to kill your attacker. In the first case, one can act in the most effective way possible to stop the attacker as fast as possible--and the attacker may die. But we don't really care, as long as they are
stopped. If one shot to the chest makes them stop (and they don't die), that's perfectly fine. If it takes 5 shots, that's also perfectly fine, even if they die.
We don't care. The point is to
stop them.
If, on the other hand, the point is to
kill them, then you ARE going to run into trouble. Because "stopping them" and "killing them" are not the same thing. Yes, killing them will stop them. But if they have already stopped, then killing them after that is something else entirely.
Plus the fact that I can kill someone and not have them know it for awhile---example, by stabbing them in the femoral artery. They are going to die from that most likely, unless there is an ambulance right nearby. However, they aren't going to die RIGHT NOW, which means they aren't stopped, and are still likely to be a threat. I've already killed them, they just aren't done yet. And it hasn't stopped them, either, so it isn't going to help me much.
I don't shoot to kill, because I don't care if my attacker dies or not. I care if they STOP, and I want them to STOP as soon as possible.
So if shooting a person in the leg might stop the threat, is that what's recommended?
Obviously not. After all, we want to have a high percentage chance of stopping the threat immediately. Leg shots are 1) not high percentage, and 2) not a high chance of immediate stop.
Or maybe a warning shot will stop the threat, because it shows that you're really really serious about pulling the trigger. Kind of like drawing a red line. So should warning shots be encouraged?
For the same reason, obviously not.
We act because we want a high percentage chance of an immediate stop, and we continue until the threat is stopped. Not only is that the best way to keep yourself safe, it is also legally defensible in court.
If your opinion is different, that is of course your opinion. However, that doesn't mean that 1) it makes for the best chances for an immediate stop, and 2) that it will be legally defensible in court.
