OK let's finish this: Killing when is it OK in self defence?, read OP before Poll.

[shortylickens]

In America this notion of shoot to maim is not mainstream because of our litigious society. Criminals will bring civil suits against those that hurt them, even in the commission of the crime. Dead men cannot sue and ruin your life.

As someone who's had a lot of firearms training from multiple sources, I'd have to say Shoot To Kill is more a tactical decision than a legal one.
You'd be amazed how hard it is to hit a limb with a pistol, especially when someone is rushing you. The main reason we mostly learn to aim center mast is its the most reliable way to get a disabling hit on the first shot (death or incapacitation).

Deliberate wounding is actually pretty fancy shooting especially in a close assault situation and requires a lot of advanced instruction. For the average person basic lessons at your local range is best.

 

[davmat787]

I voted "The man walks towards you with the knife" as that is the first time I would be legally allowed to in my state. Realistically, you may not see the knife before he starts walking towards you. It wouldn't take more than seconds for the attacker to close the distance and perhaps fatally injure you. Sure you may have shot him enough to stop/kill him as well but its not worth the personal risk. Life isn't a movie and even if you get a fatal shot, he probably won't just drop dead on the spot.

Good point, and not sure many people realize this. Police are trained that if someone is 20 feet (some dept's have farther thresholds) or closer, and has a knife while displaying aggression, they are a lethal threat. There are videos that demonstrate just how fast someone with a knife can be on top of you before you can react appropriately.

 

[Born2bwire]

Hey guys, this reminds me. My green card finally came through (thank you Anandtech Forum Ads!) and I will be moving to the US. What is the best firearm that I should buy to protect myself from ethnic minorities?

 

[Mike Gayner]

My friend's father regretted not killing a burglar. His neighbor tried to break into his house once. The burglar threw a brick through the window to see if anyone was home, my friend's dad was home but decided to wait in the dark with is gun to see if the guy would come back. Sure enough, an hour later the neighbor broke in to the house and my friend's dad shot him in the leg and called the cops.

A few years later, the burglar was arrested for raping and murdering a girl. He regrets not killing him that night because he could have saved her life...but hind sight is 20/20.

That's a pretty sweet story you just made up.

 

[handyrandyrc]

A person is justified in killing another only when:

They reasonably believe their life or the life of another is threatened.

A. The threat must be real.
B. The threat must be imminent.

This is based upon reasonableness of a person in that same situation, not upon objective reality.

This is how it is in the US. My morality matches up with this.

 

[hanoverphist]

Conclusion: In a home invasion scenario the invader should not be killed until it is absolutely clear that he/ she poses a very real an definite undeniable threat to the life or lives of others.

i voted for opt 3

if i tell him i will shoot him if he doesnt leave and still advances with a knife, im going to assume he is still meaning to do me or my family harm and drop him to the floor. no guilt, no hesitation beyond the first warning. you dont mess with a guys family, youre going to die.

its not even that i dont value the life of another human, id feel terrible having to kill someone. but, in the defense of my kids, ill kill anyone that crosses that threshold with the intentions of doing us harm.

 

[hanoverphist]

Hey guys, this reminds me. My green card finally came through (thank you Anandtech Forum Ads!) and I will be moving to the US. What is the best firearm that I should buy to protect myself from ethnic minorities?

this one

 

[nick1985]

Reported. BAN

 

[handyrandyrc]

Just one more point.

Nobody can kill anybody else. People are not given free license to kill someone. They are given free license to STOP someone from killing them. Once that threat has been stopped, it is no longer justified.

Case in point: An employee shot a man who was attacking him with a deadly weapon. The attacker had even stated he was going to kill him, and was attempting to do so.

The employee drew a handgun, and shot the attacker, who then dropped to the ground. He then ran and called the police. After returning to the scene, the attacker was thrashing around on the ground, and the employee shot him again.

Employee was charged with manslaughter. In this case, there was no way to forensically determine which shot would have killed the attacker. The employee would have been justified in using deadly force to STOP the attack, and nothing more.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I chose the first option. To add to it, I like to think I'd yell that I have a gun and that he needs to promptly GTFO. If he doesn't, I'm wasting him. I'm not going to wait and see what happens.

Whether or not he has a knife or other weapon is totally irrelevant, imo.

Then again, I don't think I value human life nearly as much as the OP does.