>Just to add to this, I've heard that a single, well-placed headshot can be counted against you, even in self-defense, due to its implications.If the two shots to center mass somehow results in a headshot, then that's a different story - and you'd better stick to it.
Your intentions and state of mind during the shooting will get a lot of questions.
If you say, "i aimed at his torso both times, just like I was trained", but one of the shots somehow hits him in the face", that's not actually a big problem, because the prosecutor doesn't expect you to be a perfect shot. Cops are notoriously inaccurate shooters.
If you said, "i decided to shoot him in the face", you've got a problem, unless you can explain why that was the appropriate decision, consistent with your training in how to STOP an attacker.
So, along those lines: We were trained in one specific scenario to start with a headshot.
Suppose that you come home, and a bad guy is in your house, holding a knife/gun to the neck/head of a family member. They may or may not be hiding behind your family member, with just their head sticking out.
In this situation, it is appropriate to attempt a first-shot head-shot against the bad guy.
Again, if you have had professional self defense training with handguns, you can explain to the jury that you behaved the way you were trained. You can even offer a copy of the training materials into evidence during the trial.
The prosecution will attempt to say you acted recklessly, or put others at risk, or were a crazy racist, or thought a gun made you able to become a police officer.
Your rebuttal is to know what the use-of-force rules are, know what respected/accepted self-defense schools teach you to do, present that training as evidence, and show that you followed the training to the best of your ability, given the difficult situation that the attacker placed you in, with no opportunity for you to escape the situation.
