Why does the legal system make it easier to successfully claim self-defense if it resulted in the death of the assailant?
<p>Most (if not all) firearm self-defense courses will teach you that violent altercations can end in the following outcomes, sorted in order of preference:</p>
<ol>
<li>De-escalation - resolve the conflict before it gets violent</li>
<li>Escape - run away from the assailant, rather than allowing the altercation to happen</li>
<li>Shoot to kill</li>
<li>Shoot to maim - try to harm the assailant in a way that wouldn't kill them</li>
</ol>
<p>The justification for why #3 is better than #4 is that you won't have a witness in court when you're put on trial, so your odds become a lot better. But why is this the case? Wouldn't society prefer if self-defense altercations ended with the least possible amount of harm to the other party? Are there countries which try to actively encourage <em>not</em> shooting to kill by making self-defense more easy in that case?</p>

<p>What they teach in self-defense courses is legally irrelevant, though has a practical basis. Under the law, options 1 and 2 are &quot;preferred&quot; because those actions cannot be considered criminal. Shooting a person is potentially a crime (assault or homicide): but it can be legally excused under those circumstances deemed to be &quot;self defense&quot;. If shooting a person is justified in self defense, it isn't assault or murder.</p>
<p>It is legally &quot;better&quot; to main than to kill, because maiming is less force than killing, and the general rule is that one should use the least force necessary to defend yourself. That is because on the one hand you should not use force against another person, but on the other hand you have a right to live and if a person attempts to deprive you of your life, you are justified to use force to stop them. The degree of force allowed is related to the threat posed.</p>
<p>Every legal system encourages putting &quot;shoot to kill&quot; in last place – no jurisdiction favors using maximum possible force in self defense. I think what is confusing you is that as a practical matter, shooting to maim is riskier, and the consequences of erring in favor of less force may be your death. It has nothing to do with killing witnesses (which is illegal), even if that is what they taught you in your self defense class. Brandishing a weapon is also illegal but involves even less force, and is even less effective as a means of self defense.</p>

self-defense