I disagree—and did when Nemo mentioned it—and I’m curious where such a requirement is stated in either case law or a statute. One is not obligated to respond to a deadly threat with the minimum amount of force necessary to stop that threat.
Example time. A knife-wielding assailant, charging at someone, and within ‘close range,’—an imminent deadly threat—does not need to be stopped only by another knife, or other hand held striking or stabbing weapon. Shooting him is fine. Shoot him with a rifle, if that’s what you have. Immediately stopping the deadly threat is what is important here, however it can be done, and without affecting anyone else. There is no proportionality requirement, nor should there be.
“Why’d you have to shoot him so much?!”
“Because that’s the only way I could get him to stop trying to kill me.” Just be prepared to get convicted anyway, if the fact finder decides that you used deadly force after you reasonably should have realized the threat had actually been stopped.
To me, using ‘minimal force’ is a word game, as I said. So, my use of ‘minimal force’ is the force I deem required to achieve the end I’m requiring. Nor does it require, to me, force in kind. It all hinges on my assessment of the situation and training. I might have to make a snap judgement…can I run? Can I evade? Is my life or the lives of others in danger? Is there another way to protect them and myself that doesn’t involve using a gun? Often when I see these sorts of situations debated, it’s by people who are able to watch the video or read the account and make a cool judgement with plenty of time and no threat to them, no time constraint. They judge…and the people reviewing the case, and the lawyers judge and attempt to spin a narrative that is conducive to their ends, either in defense or prosecution.
Which is why I attempt to simplify things…which gets me into endless circular arguments and semantic debates about ‘intent’ and so forth. I actually answered the OP in my first post, yet here we are pages in going over the same ground.
Defendant: In all the Action Movies I’ve ever watched the bad guys always managed to rise up at least once more to attack the hero even after they have been shot multiple times. I wasn’t going to take any chances.
A person who has been disabled is only less capable of continuing to carry out a crime. Only a person who is dead is incapable of continuing to carry out a crime.
Seems to me most gun training has people aim for the center mass because important parts are there and it is the easiest part to hit. Your chances of stopping the person are at their best when aiming center mass (i.e. torso).
But if you were trained to shoot to kill then a head shot seems best. Few people recover from that.
Right, it’s a matter of upping your averages. In a high-stress situation you are more likely to get more hits aiming at center of mass AND that is highly likely to disable, in the sum total of possibilities. Because, the average common assailant is not an action hero and he is not going to keep coming at you after taking 3 to 5 rounds to the chest.
The head is at the end of the body and moves a lot more than the chest does. Moreover, the part of the head that’ll shut the guy off instantly when hit, is pretty small. Combined, it makes it really tough to hit consistently unless the shooter practices that sort of thing really frequently. Hostage rescue team member kind of frequently. I certainly don’t think I could reliably do it under stress, off a shooting range.
Or there’s always sticking the muzzle against the guy’s head and emptying the magazine. Which, if the shooter is worried about something like a suicide bomb, is sometimes done.
Like I said, it’s Hollywood to think that shooting someone in the chest is not a kill shot. Just like that shooting someone in the head is automatic death, it’s all about probability. The point that seems to be being glossed over, at least from my perspective, is that you don’t shoot to disable (i.e. the Hollywood shot to the leg or arm or shoulder), which, honestly, could still kill someone…you shoot center of mass. And that will likely kill the person you are shooting. Certainly, it will have the effect that I think everyone agrees would likely stop them from harming you or whoever you are trying to prevent from doing that. Others have covered already that center of mass is also the easiest and most probably place to hit someone, while shooting someone in the head, unless you are John Wick and have a good script (love the movies btw) is pretty difficult, even at close range in any sort of stressful combat situation. Oh, I can hit a head sized target (or I could when I trained with a gun) at the range pretty consistently, but I don’t have any delusions I could do that if someone was shooting back or rushing me with a knife or attacking someone I care about.
As I said earlier, you shoot to kill. But, once a person is disabled and disarmed, going up for a John Wick head shot or two to make sure is certainly beyond the pale, which is what is, again to me, implied by the OP. All this semantic dancing is wearing though, so I think I’ll bow out unless something different or at least interesting comes up, as I think I’ve covered this ground already…several times to my mind.
The reasoning behind this I had heard, as it happens from a game keeper in my home town in the UK who carried a shotgun and occasionally encountered armed poachers (hare coarsers FWIW). Was that the civil liability was much less for fatally shooting someone (and being sued by their next of kin) than for maiming someone (and being sued by the individual themselves for a lifetime of care).
I’ve always wondered if there was any truth to that (he was never called on to test the theory, and has long since retired without shooting anyone )
)