Re wounding shots, you cannot separate the tactical issues from the legal issues--they are too tightly interwoven as described below. Warning shots and wounding shots are a bad idea. The fundamental problem is that (a) you may only use force if someone poses a grave and imminent danger to your life (b) someone posing such a grave danger must be stopped immediately but (c) there is no sure means of stopping him that does not cause such severe damage to the nervous system -- and/or massive blood loss -- that your attacker is likely to die before he reaches a hospital.
Massad Ayoob is a top police trainer who has written several books on the use of firearms in self defense. In Chapter 2 of his book "In the Gravest Extreme" he spends 20 pages discussing the law re use of deadly force and explains the legal reasons for why one does not fire either warning shots or shots to wound. I won't excerpt his full discussion here--read the book --, but my understanding of some points he makes in that book and in his other publications (Stressfire, etc): a) State laws vary but in general, one may ONLY use deadly force in order to protect oneself or another from the imminent and unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm. b) You have to avoid a fight if it is at all possible. c) You put yourself at great legal risk if you provoke or sustain the argument and then later have to use a gun to protect yourself. If someone spits on you or calls your wife a dirty name, you must still retreat. d) Handguns do not have much stopping power against an adult man --particularly if your attacker is enraged or on drugs. Someone with a knife 12 feet away can kill you even if you shoot him several times unless the bullets are precisely placed. (Note: We're talking about placing shots to a rectangular area about 4 inches by 10 inches --i.e, the brain, throat with spinal cord and arteries, heart and major artery above the heart. This small area is hard to hit if assailant is moving. Assailant may continue attack for several minutes if your shots hit elsewhere.) e) Massad notes elsewhere in his book that our fine motor skills disappear under stress -- we fumble things and move clumsily/slowly. Precise accuracy in shots becomes very difficult. The implication is that if you try to wound someone , you are equally likely to either kill him or to miss him. In the latter case, he may kill you while you are screwing around with indecisive measures. f) You do not have the right to shoot someone out of "bare fear". If your life is in grave danger, it is stupid to do anything other than to shoot the threat several times until he is down. g) Shooting to wound is evidence that you knew you were not in sufficient danger. If you are not in grave danger, you have no right to fire and you are stupid if you do not try to get away as soon as possible. (Massad even suggests tossing a $20 bill to a potential attacker and asking them to go have a beer) He notes that the high legal costs of defending yourself in criminal and civil suits may bankrupt you even if you act in a legally justifiable way and are later found innocent. "The High Price of Handgun Machismo" h) If you pull a gun --or fire a warning shot -- you have given an attacker a strong claim that he attacked you in self defense because you threatened him with a gun. i) In testimony, you do NOT say that you shot to wound or to kill. You say you simply shot to STOP the attacker. j) Any nonfatal shot to an opponent is likely to gravely cripple the opponent for life. You face a huge civil liability if a lawsuit is filed by an attacker in a wheelchair. It is his testimony against yours-- as opposed to the situation in which you alone are testifying. ( The earlier post on firearmsregprof overlooked this aspect. Plus Ayoob notes that an attacker in a wheelchair can sue you for a far larger amount than his estate can--pain , suffering,etc.) k) If you see an armed assailant --with a gun -- in your home, the sensible thing to do is to shoot him in the back several times until he is down. You are not obligated to call out a warning and it is very dangerous to do so. If you do so, a hardened criminal is likely to whirl and kill you before your brain recognizes what is happening. l) You have no right to pursue an assailant if he flees or to shoot in his direction. You have no right to use a gun once the threat subsides. m) Massad makes the point that an unarmed attacker --e..g, a burly Hells Angel type -- can greatly cripple or even kill you with his bare hands. (E.g., gouging out the eyes, kicking someone in the temple or throat, etc.) He notes that the safe life of lawyers and judges tends to give them an unrealistic view of this threat and that they tend to treat a citizen unfairly if the citizen has to an shoot unarmed assailant. On the other hand, an unarmed attacker who moves toward you is making a grab for a deadly weapon --the one you are holding in you hand -- and therefore threatens your life. n) If you can't accept the above and get the needed training ( both in gunhandling and the law) you shouldn't own a gun. o) However, alternative methods of self defense are worthless. "Guns are the only weapons that put a physically small or weak person at parity with a powerful, very possibly armed, criminal." (p. 38) (My Note: There is a large trade in knives for self defense. However, the viable strikes with a knife --cuts to the arteries in the neck,etc --are not only as likely to kill the attacker as gunshots but are also far riskier to execute. ) Above is just my rough understanding of Massad's points -- I suggest that lawyers with questions in this area talk with Massad or other police trainers if they become involved in this area. Don Williams _______________________________________________ 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
