Defensive shooting

>>32750312

You also got more than just the heart. You got the lungs and the nerve stem running through that. If that gets severed, the brain can no longer send msg to the body and you die.

>>32750312
>So it's better to kill the attacker because if they live you'll be neck deep in legal shit, right?
Myth.

>And the most commonly taught way is to shoot center mass, right? So how hard would it be to get a heart shot on your first shot? Technically you're shooting center mass and it'd be easier to get away with self-defense that way and the attacker would survive the encounter
Center of mass is taught because it's far easier to hit a larger target like a torso than anything else.

>get away with self-defense
Doesn't matter where you shoot your murder victim, an actual self defense claim isn't predicated on shot placement unless you shoot them in the back of the head.

>>32750371
>the nerve stem running through that
You mean the spinal cord? Hate to break it to you, but many a spine has been severed and the person lived.
You also forgot the liver, kidneys and pancreas. Hitting any of those almost guarantees the target dies without immediate emergency attention.

>>32750371
But if you only manage to hit the nerve stem you'll cripple your attacker and have to pay support

>>32750312
You shoot center mass because when the time comes you'll be a shaky little bitch and lucky if three rounds out of the whole mag you dump hit anything at all.

If you thought that you would actually be able to pick out organs to shoot please turn in your firearms immediately you stupid cunt.

>>32750312
its best to get leagal adivse from the internet.

>>32750416
>killing to avoid legal myth
not a myth.

Criminal defense attorneys and private lawyers are complete bastards and people have legitimately been sued for defending themselves by the surviving assailant. people have also been sued by the deceased families but it still helps to have only one story for the incident in the police report.

also remember to paraphrase this sentence: you were in fear for your life and the lives of your loved ones and acted to ensure our survival. then shut up until your lawyer gets to you.

File: text-merchant.png (5KB, 280x316px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 280x316px

>>32753205
You put jews in a position of power in anything and it can turn into some shit. Just kick out all these merchants and have goy lawyers in charge and then Tyrone can't sue you after getting shot while trying to rape your wife.

>>32753205
It is a myth. It all depends on the circumstances.

>>32753205
>shut up until your lawyer gets to you
The best advice given in this thread so far.

Let me repeat: Shut The Fuck Up. You have no idea what you're saying, and you have no idea how far reaching implications the cops will draw from what you think you're saying (and from what THEY think you're saying, and good luck proving what they heard was not what you said).

Do not ever make any statements, "all you say may and will be used against you". Keep in mind that exercising your Fifth right is not an admission of guild, and juries are specifically instructed to honor that.

And when talking to lawyers... If they ask you "do you know what time it is?" your answer is "Yes".

>>32750312
>o it's better to kill the attacker because if they live you'll be neck deep in legal shit, right?

Far as the law go.

In reality it's because they have forfeited their life you candy ass.

>>32753882
>And when talking to lawyers... If they ask you "do you know what time it is?" your answer is "Yes".
Why?

>>32750312
>if they live you'll be neck deep in legal shit, right
Not in America

It might make it a bit more difficult, but as long as you had intent to kill it doesn't matter if they survived or not. You will only get in trouble if you go for anything BUT a kill shot.

Bottom line: Magdump center mass and you're fine.

>>32753926
>>32753882
i would like to know why as well

>>32753926
Not him, but:

Answer only the question that is being asked. Listen carefully to what is being asked and answer only that question. For example, if I ask you, “Do you know what time it is?” the answer is NOT, “Yes, it is 4:15!” The answer is “Yes” or “No.” Giving the actual time is too much information. You weren’t asked “What time is it?”

>>32753633

witnessed '33

>>32753973
Oh, I see.

>>32754008
Source: bariatrictimes.com/depositions-what-your-lawyer-may-have-forgotten-to-tell-you/

>>32753926
Because you have no idea what LEGAL meaning your statements make. Don't ever volunteer information, only tell what is DIRECTLY asked and not a bit more. And, only when you are calm and composed, not in a heat of an event, but later.

Remember that every word you say will be recorded and interpreted, to the interpreting party's benefit, and twist it in perverse ways they will. The less you say, the less chances to entangle you the opposing force's lawyers will have.

On the other hand, one mistake people make is they think that once they said something it's set in stone. If you said something stupid or erroneous, the worst thing you can do is try to build lies on that - it'll be discovered, and you'll be fucked in the ass. I believe it is fine to change your testimony, on record, giving reasons to do so, such as "X is what I said, and Y is what made me say so, and later I realized Z made me make a mistake so I'd like to change my statement to W". Everyone in the law machine understands it is human to err.

>>32753973
Good anon. Hope you got this information from your older and wiser friends and not by being burned with violating this principle yourself.

>>32754027
>>32754036
It just never came up when I had brushes with the law.

>>32753926
Because you don't have to tell lawyers SHIT

>>32752804
This, if it does go down prepare for it to go down in the worst and most unmanageable way possible.

>>32752804
This is also why shotguns are so popular for home defense. You still have to aim them, but they naturally and intuitively 'point,' which makes them one of the easiest firearms to use under stress.

>>32754027
Good, thorough read, perfectly pertinent here an in a lot of other cases.

>>32753882
(same anon here) Interestingly enough, I've heard the phrase about telling lawyers time well before 2007, from a friend of mine who was involved in a lengthy and bloody litigation back then. Looks like it's a part of lawyers' lore.

>>32754079
I had dealt with LE way more than I wish I had, thankfully, from the enforcement side of it, and not looking at the barrel pointed at me.

>>32754139
This is only correct for criminal cases, not for civil. Case in point: OJ Simpson won the criminal case because he had a good lawyer who told him to stick with the Fifth. But he blew the civil case because the Fifth doesn't apply there. The aggravating point is that the fuckers know that and are trying to shift cases from criminal to civil proceedings, as there is more leverage for them (another important aspect is lack of presumption of innocence - think red light camera and speeding tickets).

>>32750312
It's not like you have only one shot, anon. You don't stop shooting until the threat is terminated.

>>32750419
No, you won't. In fact, they have to pay you for your hearing loss.

>>32755516
>terminated
no. not terminated. "stopped" is the right word, per lawyers. Remember that word well, it might save your ass one day.

>>32753205
Even if you're a lawyer, wait to speak to another lawyer. High stress situations like that will fuck your brain.