The power of the weapon shouldn't matter since the .44 Mag is clearly within the bounds of the law. And, lethal force is lethal force. If you are justified to shoot them, it doesn't matter if it's with a .22 or a .44. Excessive force only comes into play after the threat is neutralized.
The whole idea of carrying a gun is that you can take down an opponent quickly. So any attorney worth their salt would, if someone started to make an issue of using a .44, argue that you were trying to stop the threat as quickly and effectively as possible.
There simply is no such thing as killing someone deader. You can kill someone faster, but not deader.
In my mind, the only reason to have rules about caliber would be to prevent over penetration and harm to innocent bystanders. So, if you are loading 300 grain hardcast lead bullets in a .44 Mag and the bullet goes through the BG and kills a kid behind him, then it could be argued you used excessive force. But even then it would have been because you kept applying lethal force (ie, bullet kept traveling), not that it was excessive force used on the BG.
The whole idea of carrying a gun is that you can take down an opponent quickly. So any attorney worth their salt would, if someone started to make an issue of using a .44, argue that you were trying to stop the threat as quickly and effectively as possible.
There simply is no such thing as killing someone deader. You can kill someone faster, but not deader.
In my mind, the only reason to have rules about caliber would be to prevent over penetration and harm to innocent bystanders. So, if you are loading 300 grain hardcast lead bullets in a .44 Mag and the bullet goes through the BG and kills a kid behind him, then it could be argued you used excessive force. But even then it would have been because you kept applying lethal force (ie, bullet kept traveling), not that it was excessive force used on the BG.
