[tlm225]

TheKlawMan I also read your response in the shotgun forum and followed to continue this discussion. I applaud you for creating a new thread. Now back to the discussion at hand:

You initially took the original thread OT by your assertion that two shots on an aggressor with a shotgun could be argued as an excessive or uneccessary use of force. I get annoyed when I see these arguments brought up without supporting facts to justify them. That argument can be used to justify almost any harebrained position. For example:

-The use of a .45 could be seen as excessive force
-The taking of multiple shots when using a .22 could be seen as an intent to kill
-The act of shooting in an of itself could be seen as excessive force

If a person still presents a threat, you deal with that issue first, using the force neccessary. The subsequent crime scene and forensic examination along with the statements of those present will be used to "tell the story" of what took place.

I really wish that people wouldn't be so quick to assume the mantle of expert or being more knowledgeable by using the "could" argument.

Part II- Yes, those who live in states with the Castle Doctrine need to understand that it only covers the lawful and reasonably neccessary use of force (all force, not just deadly force).