Hmm, maybe. I was inspired to buy a gun after watching the looting during the aftermath of Hurrican Andrew and having witnessed the looting during the LA riots first hand. I bought the gun, not to kill people, but to protect my property. I would never want to kill someone for stealing, but I would definitely try to hurt them, if I had to. So the notion that one has to shoot to kill in all situations is baloney.
Laws vary from state to state, but most go something like this:
1. You are not allowed to shoot someone to defend property only.
2. Any time you shoot someone, it is normally considered "lethal force". Even if they don't die, shooting someone is typically considered evidence of intent to kill, even if you claim intent to wound.
Admitting that you "shot to wound", can be used against you in court. It will be considered evidence that you did not consider the situation serious enough to warrant deadly force, yet as I mentioned, shooting someone AT ALL is usually considered deadly force regardless of your point of aim. In essence you are admitting to using a lethal weapon in a situation that you felt was not worth killing over. I'll grant you that this is a legal construct whose literal application probably goes outside of common sense in some cases, but it is a fact that admitting "I shot to wound" can put you in prison.
This goes back to "when arrested, say NOTHING except 'I want my lawyer'." :mrgreen:
I am a former law enforcement officer. To my knowlege, "shooting to wound" is not a normal part of any PD's curriculum. Even a bullet in the arm can kill, by severing the brachial artery. A bullet in the foot is potentially fatal if infection sets in. In some few VERY RARE scenarios, a SNIPER may shoot to disable, but that is not typical.
"Warning shots" are also disallowed in most if not all PD's. It was found that warning shots endangered bystanders too much. Tactically a warning shot takes you off target for a moment, and gives the perp a moment of time when he is not covered by your weapon.
Now, about this business of "Waving a gun to scare someone off"... yes and no. As an LEO, if I drew a pistol it was with the intention of using it
if necessary... but in some cases the person backed down at the last possible instant and saved their life thereby.
Since leaving LE, as a private citizen with a concealed carry permit, I've been in some dangerous situations. Awareness and decision-making skills are critical, as I teach in my self-defense and handgunning classes. I don't want to ever be so far behind the curve that I am drawing against an already-drawn-gun... that's a good way to get killed, unless done from behind cover. For one example, I was once targeted for some kind of street-crime. One perp approached from the front, trying to get my attention. Being trained to watch for this kind of thing, I moved to one side and looked for the partner I assumed he probably had, and saw him coming up behind me. Both exhibited body language consistent with "threat behavior". Finding myself bracketed by two men of apparently criminal intentions, I put my hand on my weapon and prepared to draw. When they saw this, they both veered off in opposite directions and left the area. Had they not done so, I would have completed my draw if they continued to close on me, as 2 on 1 is legally equivalent to deadly force in my state. What would have happened at that point is pure speculation, but if they had immediately ceased their threatening behavior I would not necessarily have fired. Waiting until they had me pinned between them and a gun in my face or knife at my back would have been "less than ideal."
On the "square range" you are commonly shooting at ranges of 7-25 yards. In the street, perps often wait until they have you up
close, like arm's length or less, before they even let you
see the weapon... and at that point you're in serious trouble, especially if he has a partner behind you.
Things are not always black and white in the real world.