The question of the day: What accounts for the apparent discrepancy between what is routinely taught as legally prudent and what the appellate courts are holding?
As you noted, one is a tactical decision, one is a legal issue. Apples and oranges.
So far, not a single case has mentioned that there was an expert witness for the defendant who testified that a warning shot or attempt to hit a limb was an unsafe and unsound practice. Perhaps this means that those who get such experts tend not to be convicted, and thus don't need to appeal (and the prosecutors don't think they'll win reversal on appeal). Or perhaps such
experts are commonly used, with varying success, and just don't warrant mention in the appellate decision.
It is easy to sit in judgment and rule on the escalation of force through the use, or lack thereof, of a warning shot. On the other hand, what would a court's reaction be if the defendant/victim fired a warning shot and caused damage or death to a third party?
On another note, I do not think that there is or ought to be any legal doctrine concerning how one aims one's pistol. Aiming to wound involves the use of such sufficiently deadly force that to claim it to be a prerequisite to aiming at the perpetrator's heart and vitals would seem to be legally impossible.
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
