shoot to kill
i think that even if your state laws are specific to what the circumstances might be in which you can legally use deadly force, someone should still be discretionary in that venture, and even when your life is threatened, you do not necessarily have to use lethal force. obviously if the other person is armed and is threatening you or someone else, you have an obligation to put that person down and keep him down. in the state of washington, which is a stand your ground state, you have the right to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony, that being said, essentially, you can shoot the suspect when he is breaking in to your vehicle, but once he is driving down the road, the crime has already been committed. if someone attacks you with a bat or a knife, the odds are that you should more then likely, if you are a person who is aware of your surroundings, which if you carry a gun and are not then shouldnt be carrying a gun, but odds are that you will notice the fact that you are about to be attacked with a knife or a bat, people really arent that sneaky unless you are completely oblivious to it. in that case, you have the ability to use force, but you should use it with discretion, there is no need to kill the attacker, when you can effectively shoot him in the leg or the arm and wound him. if it doesnt stop the attack, you can at that point resort to more force, though in the case of an attack with a gun, i wouldnt hesitate to use lethal force, cant ask questions later if you're dead. there was a case i read about in which a suspect broke into a home, the homeowner caught the suspect and pointed a gun at him, and told him to leave, the suspect laughed and advanced on the homeowner who fired a warning shot. the warning shot ricochetted and hit the suspect, killing him. the police arrived and arrested the homeowner. why? because the homeowner informed the police that he wasnt trying to kill the suspect and that he had fired a warning shot which had not been intended to hit the suspect. that being the case, he was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. the fact was, that had he told the police that he had fired in self defense while in fear for his life and in defense of his family and home and had in fact intended to kill the suspect, he probably would not have been charged or tried. the law is subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is never our own. i dont believe this individual was actually convicted by a trial jury i believe he plead because there were probably extenuating circumstances, but the facts are still the same despite who the people were, to even allow a criminal to file a lawsuit against a homeowner for being injured while attempting to commit a home invasion or a burglary is something one would only find in the united states. its ridiculous.