> Yes, as a former prosecutor.
Like I thought: you're a lawyer and not the guy who actually pulled a trigger on someone. Figures.
Following your *professional* advice, then -- I take it you mean shoot-to-kill -- you'd place the hapless victim of crime in a position of defending him/herself in court on a charge of manslaughter/murder? After already being victimized sufficiently to provoke the use of a potentially lethal weapon? For *taunts*??? ie namecalling???
Incurring all of the court costs that would inevitably follow arising from your advice? Complete with appeals, that $2 bullet begins to look rather expensive...
Where is the good sense in that?
I can see where the prosecutor might benefit, but what about the hapless sod pulling the trigger? For namecalling???
Court costs will certainly ruin him/her for life. There goes the family home, the savings, the retirement pension -- all into lawyer pockets to keep him/her out of the Crowbar Hotel. Nevermind the strain of having a death on one's conscience.
All the while you -- as prosecutor -- are doing your dead-level best to take away his/her freedom because "that's your job."
Great. Just great! I hope nobody is stupid enough to take your advice on this subject.
I guess the cynic in me says that you probably mean it is probably better to kill the crim than to wound him -- corpses can't sue for damages -- but even so...!
Proper professional advice should probably read something like this: "if faced with a situation where people are taunting you and calling you names, holster your weapon and walk away. Remember: sticks and stones may break your bones, but names can never hurt you. A bullet from your firearm sent in their direction, on the other hand, can really mess up the rest of your life."
And how many folks have you winged, big talker?
I've already said it once, but I'll repeat it for the slower students. If you shoot to wound, rather than shoot to kill, it may be taken as evidence that you were not really in reasonable fear for your life. You might have to put your plans on hold for the next 20 years. If you are not justified in shooting to kill, you are generally not going to be justified in shooting at all.
It also leaves a witness whose story is going to differ from yours. If there hadn't been blood at the doorstep, the hero of this story would probably be sitting in jail at this minute.
It's easier to defend someone on a murder charge in a case like this than it is an aggravated battery charge.
If the person who taught you told you to shoot to wound instead of shooting to kill, you probably ought to ask for a refund and take a course from someone who knows what they are talking about.
Wait a minute - I just clicked on your name. You are flying a New Zealand flag. What do you know about Georgia laws to pretend to be giving advice as to what will get you into or keep you out of jail there?