Quote:
|
For instance, suppose my assailant was much larger than I was and advancing on me with just fists, or some makeshift weapon. Not a gun or anything, but something that could do serious harm. Would I be justified in shooting them in the leg or knee as a means to stop them? I recognize that any wound could be potentially lethal, but a shot to the knee is much less likely to kill someone than a shot to the chest or head area unless you really mess up the femoral artery. Are the self-defense laws based on lethal force, or just force in general?
|
Self defense laws are not based on lethal force per se, but appropriate force. With that said, certainly things get defined as lethal regardless of intent or implementation. Shooting somebody is considered lethal force in this manner. It isn't legal to shoot unless the local law says the situation allows it. HOWEVER, once you are in a situation that allows for lethal force, the law does not state what sort of lethal force needs to be used or how implemented except maybe for the fact that it may continue to be used so long as the criteria for lethal force usage continues to be met.
So a guy comes at you with a pipe and is threatening to bash in your skull. He is demonstrating intent, has the ability to carry out the action, and by moving towards you and being in close proximity is creating the opportunity to do so. As such, you are in fear of grave bodily harm. You can use lethal force to defend yourself. If you opt for and accomplish a knee shot and stop the threat, that is fine. However, the legal liabilities to you are equal regardless of where you shoot. Keep in mind that most less-lethal shots are more difficult shots to make that COM shots and so your chances of missing are much higher as are your chances of hitting a bystander and/or waisting a shot and the time of the shot such that you are now further endangered by the attacker.