Again...you're reinforcing what the people you're 'arguing' with have already said.
'DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!'
'so, okay, here's what you should say to the police...'
You're basically just using a catchphrase and ignoring its literal meaning.
My 'mentally unfit' comment was non-subtly implying that you'd have to be a complete idiot to blurt out the kind of smug satisfaction and 'intent to kill that sumbitch dead!' that these experts are advising against.
As I said, your true opinion and the legal system will not necessarily coincide. A firearm is only to be used on something/someone that you are willing to kill. If you are properly trained, the chance that this will occur (killing) is pretty strong. So, yeah, most people need to be able to admit, to themselves, at least, that they intended to kill their attacker. I see no problem with this, but NEVER said that our legal system did not.
What some of you seem to be incapable of acknowledging is that there are problems on both sides of the fence. Since, yes, you cannot know for sure what result will come of your actions (concerning the life/death of your target)...logic dictates you basically have two choices:
1) Err on the side of wounding. Shoot once and wait to see if he collapses. Stop shooting if he drops his weapon. Ect. ...I would not advise this route, for the obvious 'shoot to wound' issues already pointed out. Also there is obviously a much stronger chance that you will be killed.
2) Err on the side of killing. Keep shooting until he goes down. And as I said pretty bluntly, I'm trained well enough that in a close quarters (and extremely high stress) situation, this is probably going to be a lot of firing. Five shots from a decent automatic (as in magazine-fed, not fullauto) handgun within a matter of a couple seconds does not seem unreasonable to me. In that kind of situation, I could very well see firing until the trigger goes limp (or stiff...whatever your gun does when the slide locks back) with a <10 shot single stack. There would be some element of a startled, scared reaction that I will plainly admit to not being able to predict. No, don't check his body. No, don't execute him (I really have to say that?).
If I am questioned? 'I shot to protect the my life.' Why did you shoot him so many times? 'He was still standing.' ...that's pretty much it. I will 100% tell the truth. In that moment, I was not counting rounds, and I had no way of knowing how many rounds hit him or what damage any hits may have done.
Perhaps the objection to things I have said comes with the assumption that I am thinking of nothing but killing my target. In that moment, no. In training? I'm going to want to be comfortable firing quickly and accurately, as many times as is needed. In training, I am going for what a gun is intended for- the action that is mostly likely to disable someone quickly and effectively...killing them. This means multiple shots placed center mass.
Am I being clear at this point? I can fully understand if it seems like a hard distinction to make. All I was ever saying was that anyone prepared to use a firearm against another human being needs to be well-aware that they are wielding an instrument of death. From a plain, non-legalistic point of view: Everything you do, from training at the range, to your choice of weapon/caliber/ammunition...is with the intent of being as lethal as possible...yet we are still debating semantics. I see 'shoot to stop' as closer inline with 'shoot to wound.' Those opposing me seem to link it with 'shoot to kill.' It is neither. I dislike the phrase because it connotates some kind of expected strong possibility of non-lethality. Like I said, official 'legal talk' aside...you should plan on it being lethal. I'm not talking about how to 'get away with' killing someone. I'm talking about what you should be prepared for.
