Mas, First of all thank you for letting all of us be able to ask you these questions. I am a Firearms Instructor in the state of Florida. I train Security Officers, Bail Enforcement Agents and the general public on the Use of Force and Deadly Force. I fully understand both of these subjects greatly but there is one section of the Justification of Deadly Force that just about always confuses my students and I try to explain it to the best of my ability but sometimes it just doesnt sink home. I was hoping that you may have another way of explaining it so I could pass it on to my students. In the state of Florida and many other states the only time that deadly force can be used is when you believe that your life or the life of another within your immediate area is in jeopardy of death or great injury. There is no other justified explanation for the use of Deadly Force. Only the protection of life, yours or someone in your close vicinity is a valid choice. This is unquestionable yes there are other options such as a fleeing felon or in defense of a forcible felony but these options mainly come into play from Law Enforcement and I really dont go into extended detail with my clientele. I have always trained people that anytime that you draw, expose or discharge your firearm you are using deadly force. I do understand that there are circumstances where having a firearm in hand prior to being involved in an immediate life threatening situation should be and is an option. This is my problem area. You cannot use deadly force on a suspect to just wound them. Deadly force is used to totally incapacitate or stop the actions of the suspect. By force that could cause their death. This is where people usually get confused or I fail to explain to them properly as an instructor. I usually give a scenario to think about. This is my explanation scenario. Lets say Johnny Crackhead was coming after me with a Samurai Sword and a baseball bat and he was going to kill me. I start to run away from him and as I am running away I aim my gun at him and fire six rounds at him. I intended on killing him I was aiming for his upper chest. Five of the fired rounds completely missed my intended target the sixth round hits him squarely in his kneecap. Immediately as the bullet tears through his knee he drops to the ground dropping both weapons and now is no longer a threat to anyone or myself. The shooting would be cleared as justified. My intentions in this scenario were to possibly cause his death by shooting him in the chest on purpose get that immediate one stop shot. Then I give them scenario number two where everything is exactly the same except for my response. My response in this scenario that I give is that I didnt want to kill him, so instead of shooting him in an area of the body that could cause his death the upper chest I shot him in the knee on purpose shooting him in this area I knew wouldnt cause his death. This response still has the same affect and drops Johnny Crackhead to the ground immediately. I explain to my students that in this hypothetical situation I would be charged with a crime because I used Deadly Force shooting him in the leg I knew that a gunshot to his kneecap would not cause his death and because I knew it couldnt cause his death I then used too much or too high of an amount of force. My students make a good argument about maybe just wounding the bad guy as being a more acceptable response than just shoot to kill as I have always been instructed to do. Am I totally screwed up and out of date in my explanations or is there an easier way of explaining to my students. I hope I have explained it enough to allow you to understand my situation if I havent please ask away, I should be able to explain it further if needed. Thank you sir I appreciate all your help.