Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

[JohnKSa]

That is followed by two pages of claims the use of deadly force is not about the intention of using deadly force.

Not at all. It is explaining why the legal use of deadly force is not the same thing as trying to kill someone even if the actual actions taken appear to be very similar, if not identical.

It may be a fine distinction, but it is an important one and the explanation of why it is important is quite clear.

The flip side to that same logic is when the decision is made that deadly force is appropriate, the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death.

You don't get to make up your own definition for "deadly force"--there's already one that is accepted, both in common use and from a legal perspective.

Here's the sentence restated using the proper definition of deadly force.

You most definitely must, by law, intend to apply actions that are "likely to cause death or serious bodily harm".

Again, it's a fine distinction, but an important one.

Your intention is to bring death. If the threat stops before that happens....

If that is your intention, then it is not legal. The LEGAL intent of deadly force is to stop the threat. The purpose of the legal use of deadly force is to save innocent life, not to kill.

Specifics is nice instead of emotional appeals.

The quote you provide absolutely does not state that one must try to kill an attacker. It merely speaks to the use of "force".

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=179726

The source you provide absolutely does not say one must try to kill an attacker, it speaks to the issues relating to having killed, and facing the prospect of possibly killing someone. We all understand that killing is a possible outcome of the use of deadly force, and some people have more trouble coming to grips with that fact than others. That is a commentary on human nature, not any sort of proof that it is required that a defender must try to kill an attacker as opposed to try to stop the attack.

By the way, it's worth noting that the military operates under somewhat different rules than apply to civilian self-defense. It's a mistake to try to mix the two and pretend that they are identical.

The source, by the way "On Killing" is worth reading, as is Grossman's other book, "On Combat". I recommend them both and have them in my personal library.

I said that if the intention was not to be lethal, then LEO would not be trained to shoot the bowling pin.

Which is a false claim. The experts have determined that shooting at that area provides the best chance of rapidly stopping an attack, which is the goal. It is true, of course, that shooting someone in that area is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, but that's simply the reality of using deadly force--it has nothing to do with it being necessary to try to kill vs. trying to stop.

So yeah, as others have said...words and terminology is important.

Yes it is. It is very important.

Our goals drive our actions and our speech. It is a tremendous mistake to fall into the mindset that the attacker's death is the goal for several reasons.

First of all, it creates a situation where the defender may take unnecessary risks to kill the attacker when the situation could actually be resolved with less danger to the defender. It can also generate a tendency for the defender to take actions that may later call his motives (and therefore the legality of his actions) into question. Remember the defender’s motive/mindset can be an important component of justifying self-defense. Finally, an improper mindset can increase the chances that the defender will make what appear to be self-incriminating comments to others. That can happen before or after the incident.

[rickyrick]

having graduated law school

Haha, lawyers give terrible free legal advice.

[Aguila Blanca]

In the absence of any new information, together with a lot of wagon circling, I think we can declare this discussion has reached a logical end. In addition, the discussion has veered far off the original question.

Closed.