This thread is for Law Enforcement and persons with expert knowledge to demonstrate model examples where a Concealed Carry Citizen is justified in using their weapon to kill another human being. Dead serious. We all enjoy our weapons and feel safe carrying them, yet, reality is under improper circumstances any one of us may lose our life and liberty in the process. In Pennsylvania where I live, "taking another life in self defense" is a question of if the state can disprove that "the individual had reasonable belief that his or her life was in immediate jeopardy or that another was about to suffer same or immediate serious bodily injury" Recently in the news, a man in Texas was vindicated for beating another man to death who was in the process of raping a 5 year old girl. The court found that he was justified because the homicide occurred in order to stop the bodily harm to another. Another simple implication might be applied as such: "A Man with a knife raised a knife and lunged at an intended victim within very close proximity to the intended victim's body when shot"... or "was clearly in the process of abducting my child with their hands on the child"... Already I am at a loss here to make lock tight examples, because any of those situations can be complicated and construed one way of the other or misconstrued in court. Still... my question stands: What are some PRIME examples of where discharge of a firearm that results in loss of life of another human being is generally accepted as self defense. Im looking for case study type examples, even if they are theoretical. In my opinion the decision will occur instantly. -When that circuit of self survival goes off in our brain the very instant that our life -or our families lives- are in immediate jeopardy. -A moment where nothing but the survival instinct dictates, and all legal hyperbole goes out the window. But lets try and get some concrete examples so we can think ahead for what to look out for and BE PREPARED ahead of time. Lets talk about real world most possible scenarios where deadly force is warranted, and when it is not.

No such thing as a absolute in self defense . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

The Pennsylvania self-defense statute provides that use of force is “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 505

Here are some that were not considered self defense. Some are obvious some not so much

Pennsylvania | VPC: Concealed Carry Killers

Otherwise......

You can look up Gerald Ung Philadelphia.
Virginia man acquitted in Philly self-defense shooting in 2010 sued by victim; case may test Pa. Castle Doctrine law | Pennsylvania Record

Another in Reading PA maybe 5 years ago.

If you just Google Philadelphia civilian self defense shootings you'll find a lot. You can do that with most large cities.

Bucks DA: Pizza Shop Customer Justified In Shooting Of Robbery Suspects << CBS Philly

https://www.google.com/amp/6abc.com/...ander/1819538/

Armed Citizen Shoots Alleged Carjacker in Philadelphia | Self-Defense Corner



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Honestly, Im just looking for what situations to be aware of, as a concealed carry person where use of deadly force is a real option. To my common sense it is where my life or the lives of my loved ones are in imminent jeopardy. -Im looking for examples of "what to expect" as likely events that meet that criteria. Thanks.

I have just started reading through that material, and while only briefly I have scanned the content. -They are all Morons. People killing each other over road rage, fist fights...

----Persons who do not concern my quest for primary examples of clear and justified CCW use of deadly force. Honestly, I appreciate that no response here is a 'get out of jail card'. Im looking for hard cut and powerful examples of where CCW deadly force is *relatively* solid.

North Carolina Law: The defendant must have believed in the need to kill to avoid death or great bodily injury. Focusing on the first part of this requirement, decisions have held that the defendant must literally “believe in the need to kill,”

what are the most common situations that fit this criteria, and how to be wary of them is my point exactly.

This is not the forum to give you the "simple" answer(s) you seem to be looking for.

You say you are in Pa. but later quote N. Carolina law.....................

Read your State's statutes (or the State you are in)..... read case law....... take a seminar with a lawyer who practices in your State and specializes in firearms and use of deadly force.

First off what you are asking about is..... the justifiable use of deadly force..... not "justified to kill".... to stop a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Death may result from the use of deadly force......but I've never seen a statute written that justifies....... the outright "killing" of another human being.

Nonsense. Quality 'advice' on this issue exists.

Yes it does ..... and I've tried to point you in the right direction to get it!

You seem to be seeking a clear, unarguable rule about when it is justified to use deadly force. Unfortunately, such does not exist. In general, most states -- and I emphasize MOST -- and, in fact, most countries whose legal system is based on the English model, adhere to the "Reasonable Man" doctrine.

Stated simply, that means that if a reasonable man in the same circumstances would believe that deadly force was the only means available at the time to avoid death or serious injury to himself or another innocent person, the use of deadly force is justified.

Of course, certain extenuating circumstances may apply here. For instance, let's say you get in to an argument that escalates in to a physical fight. Suddenly, you realize that your opponent is far superior to you in strength and/or fighting skills, and that you may well be killed, so you manage to draw your gun and shoot him. The prosecution is going to argue that your actions were not a result of your being in immediate fear of your life, but of your voluntary engagement in mutual combat. This nullifies the affirmative defense of self defense. In a case like that, you'd better hope for a danged good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, and also hope for the opportunity to plead to a lesser offense.

But if you really want the best advice for whatever your location may be, the proper guidance has already been given here -- go talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction and pay attention to what he says.

__________________
Pisgah

I would contact my personal lawyer on such matters.

.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

That's not out there . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

^^^^ THIS IS EXPERT ADVICE ^^^^ Take it!

__________________
On the Oak Savannah

The definition of what is reasonable will be decided by a local prosecutor and maybe eventually a jury of 12 people who were not there at the time, probably don't carry themselves and (depending on what state you are in) think gun owners are at best "odd." As noted many times above there simply is no hard and fast rule and some laws seem to overlap. Also case law and statute law are often different and sometimes at odds with each other.

If you have to think IF deadly force is allowed, then maybe you should not use it. People have rarely been charged, or convicted of crime where they had absolutely no choice. Even the subway vigilante in NYC they could not get a conviction. They had to settle for gun possession charge.

Simply if you can survive without shooting, then don't shoot, your life will be much easier.

Did a six hour Continuing Legal Ed. course here in Pa last year on "Gun Laws" with a Attorney who's entire practice is centered on firearms and the law. Did another 3 hour session that just dealt with firearms and estates....and what Lawyers could and couldn't do without violating some some State or Federal Law.

It was amazing how much Attorneys who aren't "gun folks" don't know about gun laws.....same applies to Attorneys who don't do criminal law.

As Muss has stated, "There are no absolutes in self defense". Every situation is a case unto itself, and those who determine if a case involves true self defense are different in every case, even within the same jurisdictional boundaries. The only thing that comes close to allowing a claim of self defense to be validated is that the one claiming self defense must not have had any part in escalating the events leading up to the action. A plea of self defense in any situation stands on the fact, if it can be proven, that the person claiming self defense has admitted that they did in fact commit the physical acts necessary to protect their own or someone else's life that was in jeopardy of ending as the result of someone else's actions, while not accelerating the event in any way.

In other words, a claim of self defense places the burden of proof upon the person who claims it, as opposed to being innocent until proven guilty! And that decision gets to be made by someone or someones not involved in the event! The outcome depends on subjective ideas about what constitutes self defense even when the parameters described in black and white "law" have been established.

__________________
So long ... Ken

Like BAM BAM said.

There are NO hard cut facts. Most of the time it's something that happens in a split second. There is no movie "villain". A scruffy dirty looking guy wearing a hoodie down low and walking towards you with his head down may be sizing you up or maybe a tired construction worker just walking home.

Advise is be to know your laws and your surroundings. If you can avoid "it" then do so. You mentioned that fist fight was stupid, and it was, but the guy was also protecting himself. If I go to punch you would you not protect yourself? But in that case the circumstances were such that it wasn't considered self defense.

BTW the examples I linked were "examples of where CCW deadly force is *relatively* solid"

However if you want something more solid....

If your walking down the frozen food isle of your supermarket and some guy pulls a sword and starts swinging at you.....if you shoot him it would be a relatively solid self defense claim
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

The laws are too complicated and vary ridiculously from state-to-state. A way should be found to standardize statutes nationwide.

In any case, if you have doubts concerning your own judgement in the use of a firearm for self-defense, you should not be carrying.

Period.

Justification is going to vary according to state law. I am in PA, and In Post 3 by Aria there are some good examples of justified shootings.

This is a subject that has concerned me as a licensed carrier. In researching the topic I came across a brief opion by a PA croiminal defense attorney. If you are in PA, it is important to read it.

Http://fairlielaw.net/duty-to-retrea...-pennsylvania/

I've been fortunate in retirement but my daily orbits are tame. During my 30 year LEO career I had the misfortune to be involved in three duty related shootings and that was bad enough, but at least the agency had my back. As an ordinary citizen you're going to be on your own so act w/all due dillegence.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

If you claim that the deceased would have killed you if you hadn't killed him, that's a theory. If you don't kill him and he does kill you, that's a fact.

If you want to be safe from the law, stick to the facts.

So, everyone on the interweb. Don't over think it IMO. Yes, know your laws, but don't go looking for a reason to shoot someone. If it's shoot or die time you will likely know it. Thinking about what MAY HAPPEN afterwards, before shooting could be a very costly mistake. Deal with the fallout later if still alive.

Even talking about it on the internet can come back to haunt you(general). After a fatal shooting not only will police dig into your background expect the media to also.

I have never had to shoot someone, but I have made numerous arrests at gunpoint and have many times decided that if a suspect/offender carried out a certain action I would shoot. Here in NZ we never as cops will shoot to kill.

We only shoot to stop an offender inflicting death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another, or to effect an arrest/prevent an escape from custody where the offender poses a real and serious risk of death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another and where the use of lesser force is insufficient.

I have no knowledge of US laws but in my view if following a self defence shooting anyone says "I shot to kill him in self defence" there may very well be repercussions. A statement that "I shot to stop him from ......." is possibly a better option.

Anytime you shoot intending to kill is trouble.

As for absolutes, there is usually both an objective and subjective test to self defence shootings. What you believe at the time and what other people believe is reasonable under the circumstances (investigators, prosecutors, jury) so absolutes are practically impossible to give.

As Walkingwolf indicates above, the fact that you raised this question on this forum will be established if you are ever involved in a self defence shooting, and subjectively it will be held against you.

While asking your personal lawyer is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times better than consulting any forum (sorry guys), not every lawyer is equally versed in every facet of law. Your lawyer may be an expert on taxes, business, family or estate law, but may not be the best place to get this information.

I would take a CCW class in my local jurisdiction, this information is covered by NON-LAWYERS. I would not rely upon this information to be scripture, but use it more as a guideline to how Police and Prosecutors will likely react, and to formulate questions and organize my thoughts. Then see whom the organization who is sponsoring the class uses as an attorney. This attorney should be well versed in local (not just CA vs NE, but even Petrofsky v. Detroit, or Cairo v Chicago) legal issues related to CCW and SD.

Nobody wants to have to take a human life, but having to deal with foreseeable issues after the fact, just piles misery on misery.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Thank you! That is a great read on the subject. I realize in hindsight how difficult it is to answer the question I posed, but the information in your link is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again.

Let's all keep in mind how extremely low being a victim of a violent crime is. So unless a person is looking for trouble, or just is downright unlucky a firearm is just like a fire extinguisher. While smoking is against the law, ya sure would not want to spray someone with one.

Police, and civilian shootings are very different. There is no qualified immunity for civilians, or civilian union. So the best advice is how to not get in front of a fan at a manure factory.

Most of us do not want to shoot anybody, most of us will do everything possible to not get into that situation. So if you find yourself in that situation you better be damn sure you had no other option. Even if the law supports stand your ground there is no shame in running, or backing down from an argument.

Very well stated. I was taught, and I teach in my concealed carry classes that you only shoot to stop and neutralize a threat (of death or serious bodily harm) and only when no other option exists. If you draw your firearm, be willing to use it. BUT: If simply drawing it is enough to stop the threat (makes the bad guy change his mind), that is the best outcome. If you have no choice but to shoot, you shoot until the bad guy changes his mind. It might be a shot that turns out to be non-fatal. It might put the bad guy 6 feet under. It could even be a first shot that misses. It's his choice at that point. He (or she) has forced your hand.

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

There are many similar cases in which various jurisdictions or juries arrived at very different findings, from total exoneration to a murder conviction. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

Likewise, this thread makes an assumption that the American judicial system functions on fact and logic. Nothing could be further from the truth. It helps explain why rape victims sometimes feel they were raped a second time on the witness stand.

Sure hope I am entirely wrong, but the OP's verbiage suggests a questionable mindset given he asks when it's legally permissible 'to kill another human being.'

I daresay those words could come back to haunt him if he does indeed find himself in a 'shoot' situation. Note I did not say 'kill' situation.

Be safe.

PS: Kiwi cop and cgt4570 are spot on in their comments.

Of the five UNITED states (only 10% mind you) I have personal knowledge of CCW and SD laws in (My HS English teacher would hate this sentence), ALL hold that if you point a gun at a human being you are ALREADY using DEADLY FORCE.

As Police Officers we had non lethal weapons at our disposal. We were taught to use the lowest level of force REQUIRED to carry out our duties. When the revolver came out of the holster, we were trained to hold center-mass. If any firearm was used, the instruction we had previously received was clear. Fire center-mass, continue firing until the threat subsides. This was not taught in a manner any rational human being could see as ambiguous. Death is a probable result.

As an armed civilian you MAY have an option the PO does not have, to retreat, even run away. This is situationally dependent. Sometimes criminals FORCE you to act by taking away alternatives. One thing you probably don't have as a LAC is a less than lethal force option.

Just my opinion here: STATING your intent was to kill, is not wise. I HOPE this is merely a poor choice of words. (This is a really, really bad time to be incoherent or misunderstood, so I would advise anyone to take as much time as required to compose themselves before saying anything. I mean AS MUCH TIME as necessary.) If Charles Manson broke out of prison yesterday and broke into your house today, what you are doing is protecting yourself and your family. If you are accosted in a parking lot by a knife wielding thug, you are protecting yourself and your family. YOU SHOULD NOT DRAW (or use) A WEAPON UNLESS YOU FEEL THAT YOU (or an INNOCENT other was in MORTAL DANGER, and if that is what happened that is how it should be communicated.

That said in the jurisdictions I have first hand knowledge of, you should double tap center mass, mozambique or just go left eye right. You aren't the Lone Ranger trying to shoot the bloody butcher's knife out of Squeeky's paw.

I can say with absolute certainty that the absolute empirical standard is what a reasonable and rational person would have done in your situation. I can also say with absolute empirical certainty that we cannot KNOW what any Police Officer, Prosecutor, Judge or Juror will believe to be reasonable. We can only make a reasonable guess.

What will and won't be scrutinized is so situationally dependent. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is lying dead in your living room before news of his escape made the nightly news, you are going to be celebrated not scrutinized. If you are a wealthy business owner standing over a dead teenaged would-be mugger holding a airsoft gun he painted to look real, well, lots, lots, lots of scrutiny.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Having worked in a city with like 3 million residents born somewhere else, most of them speaking a different language like Swahili, Spanish, Russian or British;-), I am taking it as imprecise language. But it is something for the OP to consider, others may see intent where none is meant.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

IMHO it is MORE important what the Police and Prosecutor think about the LACs actions than the letter of the law. It is my experience that if the Police don't hold you, you are unlikely to be charged, If the Prosecutor does not see fit to charge, end of story. A good lawyer can portray the reluctance of Police to detain or the State to charge as being fact based. Charges that come later based on public outcry are seen as political.

I am not saying that the letter of the law is not important, it can be, but if you aren't charged, because your actions were seen as reasonable to the PO and DA, the letter of the law is irrelevant to a great extent, leaving even the sharks little to bite.

As an example, richardw linked a brief on PA law. In the brief it said that PA law doesn't recognize the obvious fact that a 300 pound body builder could be a lethal weapon by himself. If a legally armed 90 pound 4'7" woman shot said 300 pound body builder to prevent his commission of a forceable rape. Technically has she committed a crime? Would a reasonable PO or DA stand on the letter of the law or their sense of justice and desire not to be understandably pilloried by the media, public?

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

It's the same in the US. Shoot to stop, NOT to kill.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

There is no clear cut answers to the question. If you are a person of good morals and understand the fact that you will do the right thing when and if that times comes I wouldn't worry about what laws apply you will know you did the right thing. You may be looked down on by the law or your friends but if you save your life, the live of a child or the lives of others who are they to look down on you!

Good Idea, since California is biggest, the other 49 PR and DC should just adopt their statutes .

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

While I agree that you shoot to stop, and sometimes the sight of a weapon is enough, good hits that make involuntary stops are likely going to be lethal. If you are not making shots that stand the highest percentage of incapacitating the threat you are likely to get killed yourself. Saying you don't shoot to kill is not exactly....

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

I do not mean to be a spoiler but there is no meaningful evidence that a hit that leads to incpacition or another type of stop is likely to be lethal. The lethal stops are mostly going to be those that cause a person to bleed out quickly before aid can be applied or a devestating central neevous system hit like the brain or the brain stem.

If you were correct the number of KIAs in war would exceed the number of WIAs. But the fact is that WIAs are usually five times the number of KIAs.

A hit that incpacitates is one that stops the aggressor from continuing the fight. During my four tours in Nam I was shot twice. The first time my skull was grazed. It knocked me out but 15 minutes later I was back in the fight. The second time my left lung was deflated and I was out of action for a year. Both hits stopped me. Obviously, neither killed me. Keep that KIA to WIA percantage in mind and you will recognize that most stops are not lethal.

I will take the 'under' on that clearly erroneous statement. (Specifically referencing that stop shots are likely lethal. They are not.)

Be safe.

I would never question the word of a Combat Veteran, but the probability that a LAC sees a Police type firefight let alone a combat type firefight is astronomically small. I don't see how statistics from the battlefield can be applied in civvie SD situations.

That's just my opinion, maybe criminals where you live engage you at a distance, utilize mines and indirect fire, adhere to Hauge and Geneva, and subscribe to VonClauswitz.

As a civilian hopefully the scum accosting you has a switchblade and not a stolen G27. Remembering your CCW training you pull your M640 and yell "I have a GUN go AWAY". Scum runs, changes his underwear, congratulations.... Maybe you fumble pulling that Bersa Thunder out and put a round into the ground six feet in front of you, again scum runs off, better lucky than good, right... Maybe you aim at his sternum with your G42 but hit his humerus, he doesn't enjoy the sensation, he leaves the scene. Any shooting you walk away from is a good one.

But that isn't what I am talking about. INVOLUNTARY stops, what is the best way to make an INVOLUNTARY stop? Brain? CNS? Heart? very high probability of death.

I hope no LAC goes looking for a fight. You win every fight you don't engage in. But when every other option is exhausted and you are focused 110% on your front sight as you smoothly pull the trigger. That sight should be on a spot that, should the bullet hit right there, more likely than not the target dies. (After that first shot, you should be reacquiring the sight picture and sending a second downrange, again likely to cause a death.)

Its a fine line (and I feel a bit of a smart donkey for saying). Don't shoot to kill, shoot to incapacitate. (By hitting a spot that will likely kill.) It isn't something everyone feels morally justified in doing, and there is no shame in that, but it shouldn't be hidden behind euphemism.

George S Patton is reputed to have said that no war is won dying for ones country, it is won making the other poor ******* die for his.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

First and formost, thank you for your respect. I truly appreciate it.

While my previous post used a military example to support my opinion I have a civilian study to support it. The link at the end of this post will take you an authoritative article about stopping power. Regardless of the caliber statistics you will find that the % of lethal hits is far exceeded by the % of incapacitating non lethal stops. The article is at:
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

Yup, and you have to pay a lawyer to get it

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

I keep coming back to the M. Brown case in these type discussions. Most gunshots in shootouts are woefully inaccurate. DW shot 11 times, only 6 hit, only two stopped the threat. Those two shots were fatal.

Lung shots, not likely to stop, or be fatal. Sometimes gut shots are fatal if the infection cannot be stopped. Shots to a major artery, or the heart is destroyed is likely to be fatal, as well as cranial shots. A shot to the brain stem will most likely put the lights out. We call it pithing when putting down an animal, though usually done with a knife.

Many wounds can be fatal, even a blown off pinkie, even pepper spray can be fatal. An attacker can still kill, and be dead(no beating heart). The attacker has several seconds before incapacitated, and that is a longggggg time.

As stated, the best self defense is situational awareness, and common sense. Every gunfight that never happens is a success story.

Well said. And, yes -when carrying in public places I observe every person and look for unusual behavior. I carry a different weapon for different situations. Locally, at "trusted" places I carry a very light, compact 9mm. On family outings where I can wind up anywhere unexpectedly I will usually carry a larger capacity .40sw

In restaurants I'll sit on the outside position of the table, between the pubic and my family. Often I look for seating near an exit. I avoid troublesome places like Walmart...etc..

I am very aware that alertness and observation are the best way to ensure you are prepared for an encounter should one occur, and the best way to avoid one altogether -preferably.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

This is great stuff, thanks for posting!

Get readin'. There are a wide variety of accredited authors with many good books. Ayoob, Farnham, Cunningham, and others.

The one thing that they will tell you is that there is no such thing as a typical deadly force encounter.

Commonly, you will not see it coming, because if you could see a dangerous situation developing, you would get the hell out of there.

To answer your question more directly--when use of force is the only option.

This is accurate advice. If you want to know what the particular "climate" for deadly force is like in your area, you have to find somebody with a thermometer in your neighborhood. That means either a qualified CCW instructor--and frankly, finding a good one is hit or omigod-how-does-this-person-not-drown-in-their-Cheerios miss. So find a good criminal defense attorney and ask him.

But what it generally boils down to is not "Under what circumstances am I justified in using deadly force?"--but rather, "Do I have to shoot?". Some locales give you a little more protection, but that's the universal minimum standard.

No matter what pulling the trigger changes two lives. Maybe that means losing your freedom. Maybe it's a costly legal battle and the loss of your money, house, and possessions. Maybe, as many survivors report, it leads to depression and alienation of family and friends (Mark of Cain Syndrome is real). No matter what your buddies may act like now, it's not all slaps on the back and free beers later.

That was my initial reaction. I wrote a post yesterday that would have been first, but decided to let the thread play out instead. But more or less, it was "Threads like this are a bad idea, read a book, talk to a criminal attorney."

Or he's just reacting to that half-witted plea on Bearing Arms--normally a not-terrible site, but "Talk to your idiot friends about when it's okay to shoot" was pretty pants-on-head dumb.

Two bits.

But Numero Uno is that just as many folks have been hauled out and tried when every scrap of evidence corroborated their claim of justifiable homicide.

Bit Numero Dos is that at the time of the Bernie Getz shooting (1984), New York City was neck-deep in a violent crime wave the likes of which would make 2017 Chicago look like Disneyland. And the demographics were different. No, I'm not talking about color, I'm talking about people's level of engagement with the system, with the idea of law and order, and so on.

The simple fact of the matter is that people--all people--expected different things from the system than they do today. No matter where you lived in the city, and what color your skin was, if you were a law-abiding citizen you expected the city government and the police to keep crime to a minimum. There was a bigger middle-class in the city, and there were a lot of hardworking folks in each of the metropolis' ethnic enclaves that were just sick to death of a tiny minority of criminals making life hell for everyone else.

That's why Bernie Goetz didn't get pilloried. Everybody was just sick of it.

When the danger is about to take place and your life is in danger...then you have that right to defend yourself. Distance from the attacker and yourself is also key.
Gene
Police/FF
Lt. Ret.
IROCC

That study is also somewhat flawed. It doesn't take into consideration the type of ammo, and I realize it's not something easily done. It doesn't mention if fatal means dead on the spot or dead in the hospital. Thats a big difference. Dead in the hospital may mean you're laying next to him! You could use the one shot stop data but that doesn't say if the guy got hit in the elbow and said ok thats enough for me, or he died right there. Although in this case it probably wouldn't matter since you're shooting to stop a threat. Number of rounds fired until incapacitation also doesn't mean it took the person X amount of hits to get to stop. It could mean that the shooter just kept firing. If the shooter went BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG in a second that could mean 5 shots or 1 shot that actually stopped. Some people will empty their magazine in a second.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Here is how cloudy something simple can be in the criminal law.

2 people end up doing almost exactly the same thing in the same state.

Variables that have nothing to do with the actual act or legal wording of the law.

Prosecutor. Mind set of the local head prosecutor. How does he interpret the wording. Pro or anti gun. Yes, personal beliefs enter into this. Plus, his mind set may well have been a factor in his election by the local populous. Just in pro gun, stand your ground, castle doctrine Montana you has Missoula county (the Berkley of Montana) with the University and law school and then less than 100 miles away Lincoln where it is still a bit of the wild west or farther east in some of thee small population counties where it is still the wild west. Huge differences in what would shake out. New York state is the same way to a degree. New York city vs some of the rural areas.

That districts judge. What some judges will "buy" as an argument is different than others and the prosecutor has a pretty good idea how the decisions will be made. So, does any good defense attorney.

Then there is recent history. Feelings of populous and prosecutor can be swayed by recent events. If the citizens are up in arms over similar events this can very well effect the decision to prosecute. Been a bunch of home invasions and people are upset because of it,, and event occurred during such an act, he may well drop it. If on the other hand there have been some defense shootings and people felt the shooter got away with something he may well be more apt to file charges.

Then of course there is the people involved. Both the shooter and the person shot and their record and standing in the community.
Same actions butt, shooter is a local businessman and decon in the church, person he shot has been a pain in societies side for years. OR. The owner of the strip club shoots little Johnny who was a choirboy in the church. A woman shooting a man may well have different results than a man shooting a woman. A 250# man vs a 135# man differs if the big guy was shooter or the little guy was. Even the time of day could be a factor.

Witnesses and victims statements. Plus, what they "think" they saw.

Whole lot more than just the say 5 minutes during which the "attack" and the "defensive shooting" occurred.

and now days who has postdated what on face book of forums.