[bwhite]

Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?? Or are you speaking less formally: that you might never get caught for the kill if there's nobody to turn you in?

[LyndsySimon]

> Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?

Yes.

If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.

It's entirely possible to be acquited of murder, but convicted in civil court and ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a burglar's family.

Not to mention the fact that in a criminal trial, if the guy is dead he doesn't testify against you.

"Dead men don't sue" is a thing.

[bwhite]

In situations in which it is legal for you to employ deadly force, you won't be convicted of any criminal statute if you apply that force or any lesser force. That is, if you have an adequate reason to shoot to kill, a application of force which results in a wound is treated equally with one which results in death. The reverse, obviously, is not true.

In all cases, you may be sued civilly for a wrongful death, battery, or any number of other things. And lots of parties can bring the suit: the individual himself, various members of his family, your homeowners association, etc. N is fairly big, removing one of the N probably is not meaningful. Do these sort of civil suits tend to pay more for woundings than deaths? I have no data on this but would be surprised if that were the case.

I expect the only thing the OP meant is that slain person cannot testify the killer. This is self-evident but not really helpful. How is it different than "if you're going to rob someone, you should also kill them". I suppose this might be good practical, tactical advice for criminals but it isn't advancing the discussion here.

[tzs]

> If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.

In some states you will be immune from civil action if you win your criminal case on self defense. Florida, for example [1].

If no criminal case is brought in Florida, and you are sued civilly and prove self defense in the civil trial, the court is required to award you attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses incurred for your defense.

[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

[maaku]

I think he is saying the dead don't seek prosecutory action in court.

[titfn]

one example that come to mind is Trayvon Martin's case [1] ... since he died, he could not say that the shooter was not acting in self defense... no jail time for the shooter.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin