Nice try. You pull your gun, your intent is to kill. There are no guarantees otherwise. It would be a complete false assumption that you would somehow incapacitate the intruder with a gun. Not unless you are a marksman that can hit a knee on a moving target, with 100% accuracy, at 20+ feet.
Damn, you are so off base, it is ridiculous.
I am not pulling my gun or firing it with
intent to kill, but I AM using deadly force in the eyes of the law. What my
intent is, is a different situation from what I realize my actions can cause by using it. My
intent is to use the force which
can be deadly to save my life, but if I
intended for the person to die, that would be attempted homicide or murder......can you understand the nuances and distinction please?
My
intent is neither to incapicitate NOR kill. My intent is ONLY to stop the attack and save my own life of the life and well being of others (or my dwelling). If they die OR are incapacitated as a result, that is not the issue at this point of the act.
When I am shooting center mass, it is not to kill, rather it is to most likely stop the attack using the best method possible to save my life. We are justified in using deadly force to save our life even if it will result in their death, but we are not justified in using deadly force to intentionally kill....got it?
For instance, if you are mountain climbing and the guy you are tethered to falls off the wall and is hanging off of you, you are not committing murder if you cut the rope to save your own life. Your action was justified even though you knew it could result in the other person's death. However, if you cut the rope because you hated the guy and you wanted him dead, then that is murder.
By the way, one quarter to one fifth of all people shot live so shooting them does not mean they are guaranteed to die.
There is no vigilante justice in defending your home. Vigilante justice is when you go out and hunt someone down that you believe committed a crime; take the law into your own hands.
Yes, vigilante justice is when you take the law into your own hands outside of the law......like killing someone when you were not saving yourself, others or defending your dwelling or when conducting a lawful arrest they resisted.
......it all has to do with "good faith" intent. If you are shooting to execute, then that is vigilantism and illegal, but if you are shooting them to save yourself and they die, then that is justifiable homicide.
Smcop has said a lot of things on both sides of the argument because he’s getting cornered and trying to be safe.
No, it is just you missing the nuances and not knowing the parts he cannot discuss, nor the case law which guides what position he has to take.
He stated early in this thread he believed burglary is a non-violent crime is not deserving of being killed over
Yes, and he is correct, there is a Supreme Court case on just this, they said unarmed burglary is not a "violent crime" and police cannot shoot (use deadly force) an unarmed fleeing burglarly suspect in the back.
(i.e. the death penalty) but covers himself by stating that if you decide to use lethal force he is okay with that,
Yes, for self defense against a percieved threat or from an attack upon your dwelling. He is very consistent with this.
but he would vote against a law that allow you to use lethal force.
Nope, I do not see where he said that the way you did.
So, he’s making it easy to read too much into his words because he is all over the place on this.
If, as a police officer, he is restricted from saying certain things, then perhaps it’s best to just stay away from these conversations. It’s a little disconcerting to have cop tell me so many contradicting opnions.
As a police officer he has a duty to represent the law as how it currently is interpreted and he is free to express how he feels it should or should not be with future legislation. I do not see where this man has stepped over the line professionally, ethically or morally. I do not see anywhere he has contradicted himself. He is just going by current law interpretations......and THAT is the part that seems contradictory. Do not blame the man for how the legal system is in MD. It is not his fault this is how the courts have made things over the past few hundred years.