Okay, here are the facts in this scenario: I am upstairs in my bedroom and hear glass breaking downstairs, I grab my Mossberg 590 and go to investigate. I creep down the stairs and surprise a knife-wielding junkie-type intruder in my living room, cover him with the shotgun and order him to leave, instead he charges to attack me, forcing me to defend myself.
What do you think the legal ramifications of each of the following actions would be, and which would you consider would be most favorably viewed by the jury:
a) I shoot the attacker dead with 2 3/4" #4 buck.
b) I shoot the attacker dead with 2 3/4" #4 buck BUT my 590 has my M9 bayonet affixed.
c) I kill the attacker with a thrust of the M9 bayonet affixed to the 590.
It seems to me that (c) would be using the least amount of force to end the threat to my life, but a BAYONET?!? Ye gads, how politically incorrect! I suspect I'd get drawn and quartered in the press.
I think (b) would probably be the worst of the lot, a GUN with a BAYONET? Ack, it must be an ASSAULT WEAPON!
I believe (a) would be the action least likely to cause extra difficulty to my legal defense.
------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
What do you think the legal ramifications of each of the following actions would be, and which would you consider would be most favorably viewed by the jury:
a) I shoot the attacker dead with 2 3/4" #4 buck.
b) I shoot the attacker dead with 2 3/4" #4 buck BUT my 590 has my M9 bayonet affixed.
c) I kill the attacker with a thrust of the M9 bayonet affixed to the 590.
It seems to me that (c) would be using the least amount of force to end the threat to my life, but a BAYONET?!? Ye gads, how politically incorrect! I suspect I'd get drawn and quartered in the press.
I think (b) would probably be the worst of the lot, a GUN with a BAYONET? Ack, it must be an ASSAULT WEAPON!
I believe (a) would be the action least likely to cause extra difficulty to my legal defense.
------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.