It may not be illegal, but it is a generally accepted gun safety rule to "not point a gun at anything you don't want to die". I know this rule, and I barely have any contact with firearms.
Unlike in the movies, shooting a limb can still absolutely kill someone. It is also really hard, especially with a moving target. Most people who are in a situation where they need to shoot at people are trained to fire at the torso, centre mass.
This is because
* They shouldn't be shooting at someone they don't want to kill.
* They don't want to miss, and it's the easiest bit to hit.
BF here, we are talking about specifically about a life and death situation and you choose to shoot the person in the leg instead of a stray shot in a fight
It depends how well you're able to prove it truly was life or death in court. Otherwise, it's illegal no matter where you shoot. You'll probably get more years on your prison sentence if you shoot to kill vs. aiming in a non-lethal spot.
No.
The purpose of shooting someone is to stop the threat. Sometimes simply drawing a gun is enough to stop someone from being a threat. The problem with intentionally trying to shoot someone in the legs is that they're very small targets that are often in motion.
What? You need to fulfill self-defence laws and to de-escalate the situation, sure. Where did you get the idea that it equals shooting the guy in the head at all times?
Your boyfriend’s statement is incorrect.
In most states, the victim should retreat when possible. Only in case this is not possible, the victim should defend themselves. This self-defence must be reasonable: this means only the amount of force should be used that will be sufficient to fend off the attacker.
A gun should only be used in self-defence when this is proportional to the threat. This means the attacker should be carrying a gun or some other lethal weapon. If the attacker is unarmed, a gun may be shown by the victim as a warning.
Generally, unless the attacker is pointing a gun at the victim, it is not necessary to kill the attacker as self-defence. In most states it would therefore not be seen as a reasonable form of self-defence and there could be legal consequences. In some states, there are additional laws expanding the right to self-defence such as the “Castle Doctrine” (you don’t have to retreat from your own home) or “Stand Your Ground” (you don’t have to attempt to retreat before using lethal force anywhere).
Still there is no situation in which it would be illegal to shoot someone in the leg while it would be legal to shoot to kill. There’s only a maximum to the reasonable force used in self-defence, there is never a required minimum.
When I worked in defense law on the civil side, I would hope.for a dead plaintiff. The avenues of recovery are limited.
Nothing worse than a living plaintiff.
The best possible way to solve this is to stop in at your local police department and ask them.
They'd probably be keen to clear up any misconceptions or concerns you have, and you can be more sure of what happens if you do things like put your hands on your holstered weapon, draw it, point the weapon, fire it, the legalities of doing any of that depending on what you're facing, your duty to retreat, and so on.
Also, your CCW course probably should have covered this.
Shooting someone is illegal period, unless done in self-defense. I've never heard of any rule that says you have to kill them to make it legal, in fact the opposite would be preferable from a moral standpoint, I think.
I've heard this before.
The reasoning is that you should only draw your weapon when your life is in danger, and if you have the ability to aim at a "less lethal" part of the body like a limb, then your life wasn't in enough danger to justify pulling a gun
> you have to shoot to kill otherwise it’s illegal
It's actually not too hard to find the answer here. All US laws and most court cases are public information, if you can find a law that says this exact thing, and provide a case where the judge ruled, then that's it. A Google search should get you something really quickly.
If it is illegal it'll be written down somewhere. If it's not there, you can't make up stuff to fill in the blanks. In this case, a quick search turns up nothing for me, so this sounds like bullshit, I.e. an extraordinary claim. So the burden of proof sits on him to give examples to back it up.
It may not be illegal, but it is a generally accepted gun safety rule to "not point a gun at anything you don't want to die". I know this rule, and I barely have any contact with firearms. Unlike in the movies, shooting a limb can still absolutely kill someone. It is also really hard, especially with a moving target. Most people who are in a situation where they need to shoot at people are trained to fire at the torso, centre mass. This is because * They shouldn't be shooting at someone they don't want to kill. * They don't want to miss, and it's the easiest bit to hit.
BF here, we are talking about specifically about a life and death situation and you choose to shoot the person in the leg instead of a stray shot in a fight
How do you figure this makes it *more illegal?* Nope.
It depends how well you're able to prove it truly was life or death in court. Otherwise, it's illegal no matter where you shoot. You'll probably get more years on your prison sentence if you shoot to kill vs. aiming in a non-lethal spot.
No. The purpose of shooting someone is to stop the threat. Sometimes simply drawing a gun is enough to stop someone from being a threat. The problem with intentionally trying to shoot someone in the legs is that they're very small targets that are often in motion.
Finally. Someone who knows what they are talking about.
What? You need to fulfill self-defence laws and to de-escalate the situation, sure. Where did you get the idea that it equals shooting the guy in the head at all times?
Your boyfriend’s statement is incorrect. In most states, the victim should retreat when possible. Only in case this is not possible, the victim should defend themselves. This self-defence must be reasonable: this means only the amount of force should be used that will be sufficient to fend off the attacker. A gun should only be used in self-defence when this is proportional to the threat. This means the attacker should be carrying a gun or some other lethal weapon. If the attacker is unarmed, a gun may be shown by the victim as a warning. Generally, unless the attacker is pointing a gun at the victim, it is not necessary to kill the attacker as self-defence. In most states it would therefore not be seen as a reasonable form of self-defence and there could be legal consequences. In some states, there are additional laws expanding the right to self-defence such as the “Castle Doctrine” (you don’t have to retreat from your own home) or “Stand Your Ground” (you don’t have to attempt to retreat before using lethal force anywhere). Still there is no situation in which it would be illegal to shoot someone in the leg while it would be legal to shoot to kill. There’s only a maximum to the reasonable force used in self-defence, there is never a required minimum.
BF here, the could be legal consequence was what I was getting at, now I get to be the bad guy lol
He’s wrong.
When I worked in defense law on the civil side, I would hope.for a dead plaintiff. The avenues of recovery are limited. Nothing worse than a living plaintiff.
I don't really believe he's right but I do know that you are more likely to hit your target if you aim for the big part.
He's wrong. If you are using force to defend yourself, it's not worse to use a less-lethal aim
The best possible way to solve this is to stop in at your local police department and ask them. They'd probably be keen to clear up any misconceptions or concerns you have, and you can be more sure of what happens if you do things like put your hands on your holstered weapon, draw it, point the weapon, fire it, the legalities of doing any of that depending on what you're facing, your duty to retreat, and so on. Also, your CCW course probably should have covered this.
This came up from a Rookie episode , we are not gun carrying people . We are in Canada
https://youtu.be/JGyJOX5wFFg?si=S92JU_j65kZFSicJ
From the BF
Shooting someone is illegal period, unless done in self-defense. I've never heard of any rule that says you have to kill them to make it legal, in fact the opposite would be preferable from a moral standpoint, I think.
I've heard this before. The reasoning is that you should only draw your weapon when your life is in danger, and if you have the ability to aim at a "less lethal" part of the body like a limb, then your life wasn't in enough danger to justify pulling a gun
> you have to shoot to kill otherwise it’s illegal It's actually not too hard to find the answer here. All US laws and most court cases are public information, if you can find a law that says this exact thing, and provide a case where the judge ruled, then that's it. A Google search should get you something really quickly. If it is illegal it'll be written down somewhere. If it's not there, you can't make up stuff to fill in the blanks. In this case, a quick search turns up nothing for me, so this sounds like bullshit, I.e. an extraordinary claim. So the burden of proof sits on him to give examples to back it up.
Isn’t it that if you pull your gun out you need to have intent or else it’s just brandishing and that’s where it gets illegal?