This is JUSTIFIABLE homicide. Killing someone(even your partner) while committing a felony is considered murder just like murdering an innocent victim. These are killings committed in self defense or the defense of another by a private citizen who has a legally owned and possessed gun. In fact, if an innocent victim kills a home invader or other felon, his accomplice is charged with his death. I would include stopping crime by displaying a gun, but conveniently, nobody keeps those statistics. I can only show you justified homicide because other statistics are not kept. I can show you dozens of examples where the private citizen showed great restraint, but since those statistics are not kept, you'll have to keep thinking we are blood thirsty, revenge crazed savages. I know a Dallas policeman who trains the DPD officer on use of force and hand to hand self defense and weapon retention. He trains them to shoot center mass to stop the threat. If you try to shoot to disable them, you run a risk of missing them altogether or giving them a chance to return fire. Since you obviously didn't fear the threat enough to stop the threat, you run the risk of being sued. Shoot center of mass to stop the threat is almost a universal teaching in the gun world. If you want to save them after the shooting is over and the criminal is disarmed, then is the time to do so.
Nothing deters you, BB! What can you hope to achieve by adamantly standing by a policy of preposterous thinking? You say that Americans would rather kill than disable. I suppose this can be partially attributed to your total unfamiliarity with firearms and ongoing accounts of what it takes to actually stop an attack. I recall one story where a wacko had lain in ambush with a handgun. A police cruiser came into his view, and he fired on them. In the ensuing shoot-out, the wacko was hit a large number of times, but he kept returning fire. The cops finally stopped him by using a rifle to shoot under the car he was hiding behind. They blew both of his feet off, but he didn't stop shooting until he bled out. In another story, the cop hit the bad guy 17 times with a .45 ACP. Bad guy kept returning fire until the cop put a bullet through the top of his head. That convinced the cop that he now has to carry 135 rounds of ammo with him at all times. There is a reason why we call them "bad guys"! Where you ask "is that all the police do?" What can you expect them to do? They can't be everywhere at all times. Although the stats are skimpy where we see that armed Citizens killed 52 vs. the cops dispatching 50, they clearly indicate that in at least half of the life threatening situations, it was necessary to kill the bad guy to end the threat, and the cops could not possibly have arrived soon enough. You need a serious reality check.
I train people in firearm self defense. We all teach the same philosophy. Never pull your gun out unless your life is in jeopardy. The threat must be imminent. If you have no choice but to use your firearm, then shoot to stop the threat. That means center of mass so you have the best chance to get a hit on the threat. If you explain to the police after you shoot that you just tried to disable by shooting at a leg, it will be perceived that you were not in fear for your life, so the shooting may not be justified. Also, in the heat of an incident like this, almost no one has time to use the sights on the gun, so you are just point shooting. If you can point shoot in a scenario like this and just disable the threat by shooting anywhere other than center of mass, then you are a better shooter that me, and I am a state champion International Defensive Pistol Assn shooter. Also, many people have been hit by multiple shots and have kept on attacking. Especially if they are jacked up on meth.
