Rhymer Rule 25864 is “Nothing is ever Skald’s fault, and anyone who claims different will be bound to a chair, have his eyelids propped over by toothpicks, and forced to watch the entirety of Keeping Up With the Kardashians.”
Would you care to reconsider your answer?
Completely justified.
And how foolish could anyone be to suggest she “shoot to disable”? Perhaps the guy was on PCP and wouldn’t notice the pain of a disabling shot.
And another thing…EVERY shot not fired towards his center of mass is dangerous. She could kill her own daughter with a stray bullet. Why take a chance by shooting at anything besides the unlawful non-compliant intruder with less-than-lethal force?
It boggles my mind that this would even be an argument. Skald, your scenarios usually at least force me to think a little bit outside my assumptions but this one is a give-away.
Easy-it was absolutely justified.
There are anti-vaxers, 6000yo Earthers, and moon landing hoaxers. Of course there are those with a tenuous enough of a grasp on reality to think that disabling shots are a viable option.
Unless, of course, you’re the Gunslinger and you could just shoot the knife out of his hand, shoot the milk closed, shoot the perp’s fingers and toes off, shoot the lights out and go to bed. (Shoot the alarm too)
80-year old burglary/assault victim to possible be charged after shooting two intruders. Woman yelled, “Don’t shoot - I’m pregnant” as she fled.
StG
Claiming to be pregnant should not excuse a criminal from being shot in self-defence. Indeed, as I understand it, in America, had the foetus died, the mother might be charged with murder. But that article doesn’t make it clear if she was shot before or after she started to flee; as I understand American law, the latter is a no-no.
This looks pretty bad: