drail said:
...A good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the weapon used...
We really need to stifle this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business.
You will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was. See, for example --
This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately
acquitted.
Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.
drail said:
...there are some prosecutors who will grab at anything they can find or dream up...
That's generally the idea. But I'd prefer to put it that the prosecutor, just as any good lawyer, will use whatever is available that could further the interests of his client. In the case of a prosecutor, his client is the state, and his client wants a conviction.
In any case, the issue for each of us is whether there are ways to avoid giving a prosecutor things he could possibly use against our interests if we ever need to use a gun in self defense.