As brother Sanchez has noted, if you aren't justified in using deadly force, you should not fire at all. If you want to give your opponent a "boo-boo," an instrument every court in the world recognizes as a lethal weapon is not the tool of choice.
The shot to the pelvis most certainly IS deadly force. Many major arteries branch there, and for a number of other reasons shots to the pelvic area are often lethal.
The only justifiable reason for using deadly force is to STOP an attacker. Saying "I shot to kill" is saying, "My reason for shooting was to deprive the man I shot of his life." That plays right into a Murder conviction or, in civil court, a Wrongful Death finding by the jury. "I shot to stop him (from killing or crippling me or someone else I had the right to protect)" is, on the other hand, the very embodiment of justifiable use of deadly force as articulated in the statutes and criminal codes. Your purpose and intent in firing the shot is critical to the legal outcome of the shooting.
Since the 1970s, I've taught my students to index their weapon on the opponent's pelvis when they must take him at gunpoint. The main reason is a tactical one: IT ALLOWS YOU TO WATCH THE OPPONENT'S HANDS! If you aim at his chest or head, your hand(s) and your gun block your view of his hands, allowing him to draw and shoot you before you can even see him reaching for his pocket or waistband. He can't hide his hands from you if you have your weapon leveled on him pelvis-high. There are other reasons -- including the psychological aspect mentioned by several posters previously -- but the ability to watch the hands is the big reason to take the opponent at gunpoint with a pelvic aim.
It alarms me a little that some folks think they can't draw a gun on a violent offender until they are justified in killing him. If they wait that long, they won't be able to do anything BUT shoot him...or die...and if they wait that long, those two outcomes may not be mutually exclusive.
Finally, a bullet that seriously fractures the pelvis tends to drop a human before he can take another step. When facing a "contact weapon assault" -- Knife, club, disparity of force unarmed assault, or an attempt to take your weapon -- this is a faster neutralization of the opponent than waiting up to fifteen seconds or so for him to collapse because a bullet through the heart has finally deprived his brain of sufficient oxygenated blood to remain conscious. It is with this in mind that many instructors suggest the pelvis as an alternative to the brain for follow-up shots if gunfire to the chest has failed to neutralize an obviously homicidal opponent.
The shot to the pelvis most certainly IS deadly force. Many major arteries branch there, and for a number of other reasons shots to the pelvic area are often lethal.
The only justifiable reason for using deadly force is to STOP an attacker. Saying "I shot to kill" is saying, "My reason for shooting was to deprive the man I shot of his life." That plays right into a Murder conviction or, in civil court, a Wrongful Death finding by the jury. "I shot to stop him (from killing or crippling me or someone else I had the right to protect)" is, on the other hand, the very embodiment of justifiable use of deadly force as articulated in the statutes and criminal codes. Your purpose and intent in firing the shot is critical to the legal outcome of the shooting.
Since the 1970s, I've taught my students to index their weapon on the opponent's pelvis when they must take him at gunpoint. The main reason is a tactical one: IT ALLOWS YOU TO WATCH THE OPPONENT'S HANDS! If you aim at his chest or head, your hand(s) and your gun block your view of his hands, allowing him to draw and shoot you before you can even see him reaching for his pocket or waistband. He can't hide his hands from you if you have your weapon leveled on him pelvis-high. There are other reasons -- including the psychological aspect mentioned by several posters previously -- but the ability to watch the hands is the big reason to take the opponent at gunpoint with a pelvic aim.
It alarms me a little that some folks think they can't draw a gun on a violent offender until they are justified in killing him. If they wait that long, they won't be able to do anything BUT shoot him...or die...and if they wait that long, those two outcomes may not be mutually exclusive.
Finally, a bullet that seriously fractures the pelvis tends to drop a human before he can take another step. When facing a "contact weapon assault" -- Knife, club, disparity of force unarmed assault, or an attempt to take your weapon -- this is a faster neutralization of the opponent than waiting up to fifteen seconds or so for him to collapse because a bullet through the heart has finally deprived his brain of sufficient oxygenated blood to remain conscious. It is with this in mind that many instructors suggest the pelvis as an alternative to the brain for follow-up shots if gunfire to the chest has failed to neutralize an obviously homicidal opponent.
for sure, unless me & the badguy are face to face. 
