In the world of self-defense and gun laws, there’s a stubborn myth that just won’t die: shooting an attacker in the legs. Movies and TV shows make it seem like a neat trick – you stop the bad guy without going all Dirty Harry.
However, in a recent video, Attorneys Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes busted this myth wide open. They shared why shooting for the legs can be a legal and tactical nightmare.
Levels of Force
Richard began by sharing the legal classifications of force. Most states differentiate between two primary levels of force: non-deadly and deadly force. Non-deadly force includes actions like punches, grabs, or the use of pepper spray—measures intended to cause discomfort or temporary harm without risking serious injury or death.
What It Means
Deadly force, on the other hand, is intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, including actions that could result in permanent disability, loss of limb, or fatality. Richard added that in some states, there is also an intermediate level of force, further complicating the legal landscape.
The Category
Regardless, Taylor shared that discharging a firearm usually falls into the category of deadly force due to the inherent potential for severe injury or death. Thus, the concept of shooting to wound does not fit neatly into the non-deadly force category.
Legal Implications
Taylor and Richard shared that any use of a firearm, including aiming for the legs, is classified as deadly force. In criminal cases, defendants must justify their use of deadly force by proving an imminent threat to their safety or life.
Shooting to Wound
Shooting someone in the legs, while theoretically less lethal, still constitutes the use of deadly force and carries the same legal burdens and potential consequences as shooting to kill.
Civil Law Perspective
From a civil law perspective, the discussion took another turn. Taylor shared that plaintiffs’ attorneys often prefer cases involving fatal shootings due to the higher potential for financial compensation.
An Example
As Taylor explained, “Ambulance chasers” are more inclined to pursue wrongful death suits, which can yield substantial settlements or judgments. Conversely, non-fatal injuries, even those resulting from a leg shot, may attract fewer, less successful lawsuits. As a result, Taylor shared that some civil attorneys might advocate for shooting to wounds as a strategy to reduce financial liability.
The Practicality
Despite the legal nuances, the hosts shared that practical and ethical considerations also play crucial roles in this issue. They shared that shooting to wounds, particularly in high-stress, dynamic situations, was exceedingly difficult.
The Ethical Consideration
Moreover, the ethical dimension cannot be overlooked. Taylor shared that in a self-defense scenario, the primary objective is to neutralize the threat to ensure one’s safety. The universally recommended approach is to “shoot to stop the threat.”
The Principle
He added that this principle aligns with both legal advice and practical self-defense training. Taylor and Hayes repeatedly stressed the importance of this mindset, advising individuals to frame their actions in terms of stopping the threat rather than intending to kill or wound.
Duty to Render Aid
Another critical aspect of the discussion was whether individuals who use deadly force in self-defense have a duty to render aid to their injured assailant. Legally, they shared that the requirements vary.
Not Obligated
In general, civilians are not obligated to provide medical assistance unless they are medical professionals with a specific duty of care, such as EMTs or doctors. Even in these cases, the scene must be secure before they intervene.
Mitigate Damages
From a civil law perspective, there may be an expectation to mitigate damages by ensuring the injured party receives prompt medical attention. However, this expectation is secondary to the primary concern of personal safety.
Hayes recounted a case where a client who shot an assailant did render aid by using his belt as a tourniquet, ultimately avoiding criminal charges and civil liability.
Share Your Thoughts
So what do you think? In a life-threatening situation, would you ever aim for the legs?
