Your intentions should you have to pull the trigger.


PDA






Diesle
December 31, 2002, 03:26 PM
Simple poll on how you intend to respond to a deadly force senario.

Elaborate if you like...

EDIT: I cant edit the poll, sorry. I would certainly add to stop the threat, whatever the outcome may be. I knew i would nd up flubbing this thing up.....

But in its simplest form, when you are shooting to stop the threat your are pointing at a limb (maim), center of mass/head (kill), away warn). Or is that just too damn simple???

Diesle

If you enjoyed reading about "Your intentions should you have to pull the trigger." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
11xray
December 31, 2002, 03:34 PM
None of the above. We shoot to stop the threat, and only to stop the threat.

The side effects of shooting to stop the threat may well be death or maiming, but that is not our intent.

The intent is to stop the threat. Nothing else.

Stephen A. Camp
December 31, 2002, 03:36 PM
Hello. EXACTLY what 11xray said.

Best.

2nd Amendment
December 31, 2002, 03:37 PM
The intent on my part is to stop the threat AND make as sure as possible I don't get sued afterwards.

Straight from the mouth of an ISP Trooper "Dead men don't have a story, remember that..."

I know that doesn't sound good but in the context of todays law suit happy society you fail to consider it at your own peril.

Triad
December 31, 2002, 03:42 PM
One of the mods can probably edit the poll for you.

JMLV
December 31, 2002, 03:43 PM
SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT. :ar15:

Schuey2002
December 31, 2002, 03:45 PM
11xray summed it all up ..

This discussion doesn't lead to responsible "RKBA", in my opinion.

Just my 2 cents... :)

Mike Irwin
December 31, 2002, 03:46 PM
My reply would be shoot to stop the threat, but since that sort of thing means shooting at the center of mass, shoot to kill is close enough.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 03:48 PM
This discussion doesn't lead to responsible "RKBA", in my opinion.

Dont mistake this as patronizing you....

How is asking the question or engaging in the discussion irresponsible RKBA? Or did I miss your point....?

Diesle

CRUSHER
December 31, 2002, 03:56 PM
As others have already said, Shoot to stop!
Ans aim for COM
If that dosent work go to plan B

2nd Amendment
December 31, 2002, 03:57 PM
Like I said, it doesn't sound good. Stating one will "shoot to kill" is just fodder for the kind of mind-set that sees any gun owner as a bloodthirsty vigilante. But still, failure to consider the repercussions of doing otherwise is foolish.

Anyone worth shooting is probably worth killing or you probably shouldn't be shooting at all. That said, it's still not polite conversation. :D

10-Ring
December 31, 2002, 03:58 PM
To end the threat as quickly as possible would be my response.

cratz2
December 31, 2002, 04:00 PM
Two shots to center of mass. If God is really on his side and the bad guy is still coming, a couple in the head should end it.

I am shooting to stop - to stop for sure! If he ends up dead or twitching or whatever, so be it.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 04:07 PM
My applogoies if this thread ends up being veiwed as poor taste on my part. To me it seems unpleasent, but very real and certainly possible.

I view this board as a medium to discuss gun realated topics that would be very difficult to discuss in normal conversation.

Personally, I occasionally go over drills with myself ( in my mind ) that breach this very question. As Im sure many of you do. "Am I prepared to pull the trigger", "how far am I willing to go...". I hope the answer to those questions is always just out of my grasp. Because, I beleive that the only way to really find out is to go through the experience. Not where I ever want to be.

Ill pray i make the right decisions and that I have a fair amout of luck on my side if and when needed.

Diesle

JPM70535
December 31, 2002, 04:14 PM
The only answer is to shoot to stop the threat. If in the process the BG expires, remember, that was not your intent.

telewinz
December 31, 2002, 04:14 PM
With the liability laws and the court system its a very tuff decision to make. Most often you don't have time to think, just react. Fire 1-2 warning shots and see what happens. Life and death is often a compromise, the prisons and cemetaries are full of people who have never learned that.

11xray
December 31, 2002, 04:18 PM
Re your latest editing: cratz2 is correct.

Two rounds to center of mass (the Hammer), pause,and take precise aim at the head while evaluating.

This is the Mozambique drill.

If the threat is stopped after the double tap, the more precise head shot is not neccassary.

For me, the target would be a triangle drawn between the nipples and upwards toward the declivity at the base of the throat where the collarbones meet. ( don't know what it is called)

Two rounds into the center of this triangle will usually stop a threat.

The end result would very likely be death.

But that is not the intent.

To the others who have questioned the validity of the topic, allow me a question:

If one does not know, how else shall he come to know, without asking?

Is not one of the purposes of this board education, which in the end will only strengthen our RKBA?

Truth can never harm us, if we are in the right.

Schuey2002
December 31, 2002, 04:24 PM
Diesle,

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything.. :)

But, it's just that every thread on this subject on TFL has a little locked symbol on it. Now, one has to ask themself why that is.
Threads like these head down hill fast,as it is a slippery slope.

All you have to do is look up "shoot to Kill" threads on TFL and you will see my point. What was said over there applies just the same as it does over here.. :)

Matthew Courtney
December 31, 2002, 04:27 PM
Shoot to stop the bad guy. Shoot to save the good guy. Injury or death of one's assailant is merely a side effect, certainly not intended by the shooter.

11xray
December 31, 2002, 04:29 PM
telewinz, I must respectfully disagreee.

Never fire warning shots.

It can be very bad , afterward, from a legal point of view.

The only justification for the use of deadly force in most states is to stop a deadly threat ar the threat of great bodily harm.

In a courtroom, it may be found, however wrongly, that if you had time to fire warning shots, then the threat could not have been as imminent as to require the use of deadly force.

This is why the police never fire warning shots.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the legal reasoning above.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 04:31 PM
Schuey2002,

Understood.

I take full responsability for the thread and the thought, whatever becomes of either...

Diesle

MitchSchaft
December 31, 2002, 04:34 PM
Shoot to kill

jjmorgan64
December 31, 2002, 04:37 PM
Diesle the thread is not the problem, the problem is that you are asking others opinions, when there is only one right answer, Shoot to stop the threat, never do anything other than that. There are many ways to stop the threat, however very few work better than shooting center of mass. If this leads to death, than the BG has taken responsibility for his actions.

King
December 31, 2002, 04:45 PM
None of the above (poll not posts), Shoot to "stop" the threat.

Hypnogator
December 31, 2002, 04:46 PM
None of the above. Shoot to stop the threat. That's all you are legally and morally entitled to do.

MLH
December 31, 2002, 05:13 PM
It won't matter if he's dead or not. Either him or his family is going to sue you so get ready.:uhoh:

sm
December 31, 2002, 05:22 PM
I agree with 11xray first post, and subsequent posts

Blackhawk
December 31, 2002, 05:42 PM
Diesle,

Having "intentions" before the fact is premeditation, and your intentions if you end up shooting somebody had better have been purely defensive carried out while you're convinced that you had no other reasonable choice.

It's a dumb bunch of answers you've put up without the requisite "To stop the threat" one, as you're no doubt aware of by now.

Chances are pretty good that an attacker who puts me in fear of my life will end up taking a dirt nap should one of my guns get drafted, but that's another matter entirely from my "intentions" in such a situation.

My intentions are to survive any attack unharmed, and I've had those same intentions since I was a little child.

Shooter973
December 31, 2002, 05:49 PM
If you don't have the right to shoot to kill you don't have the right to shoot at all. Shooting is the very last option of the things that you can do, but you don't have the right to just shoot to stop if you don't have the right to shoot to kill. Don't shoot if you have any doubts about it. :(

pax
December 31, 2002, 06:13 PM
Shooter973,

The difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" is not where you aim.

The difference between the two is a mindset difference -- it answers the questions, "When can I shoot?", "Why am I shooting?" and, "When am I done shooting?"

If you are shooting to stop:

1) You begin shooting when there is an immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or severe bodily harm to the innocent.
2) You are shooting to save lives and to prevent harm to the innocent.
3) You are done shooting when the threat stops -- whether that happens with the death of the BG, with him incapacitated, or with him fleeing. You might rejoice that he is dead, but you didn't set out to kill him. You set out to make him stop what he was doing, and you stopped shooting when you accomplished that.

If you are shooting to kill:

1) You begin shooting whenever you are angry enough to kill someone. Normal people only get that angry in the presence of a true scumbag who is trying to kill them or a loved one, so it doesn't make much difference ... yet.
2) You are shooting because you are angry enough to kill someone. You might have gotten that angry because he was threatening your life, but you are shooting because you want him to die. You aren't shooting primarily to save life, but to take it. Still doesn't make much difference in your actions. Point 3) is where it gets sticky...
3) You keep shooting until the person who made you angry is dead. This might be okay, if he was still on his feet and still a deadly threat when you fired the killing shot. But what if he wasn't? What if he was unconscious and in no way a threat to you ... and you shot him in the head, when he was helpless, just to make sure he was dead? After all, you were in the mindset of "shooting to kill" and he wasn't dead yet ... so you finished the job you started. Then what? Well, our laws would call that action "murder" and you a "murderer."

And that is why we shoot to stop, but not to kill.

pax

Murder is always a mistake. One should never do anything that one cannot talk about after dinner. -- Oscar Wilde

44Caliber
December 31, 2002, 06:21 PM
You had better shoot only to "stop the attack"
If you are involved in a shooting and claim anything but that you will be in deep doodoo!
44 Caliber:uhoh:

blades67
December 31, 2002, 06:27 PM
With that force I deem necesary.

Diesle
December 31, 2002, 07:10 PM
"It's a dumb bunch of answers you've put up without the requisite "To stop the threat" one, as you're no doubt aware of by now."


Fair enough. Im no lawyer, but I can see that I need to be very aware of symantecs out here...

How about:

In the event that you are attacked, at what exaclty do you intend to point your gun at/shoot at to stop the attack. Will your choice of point-of-aim became a legal data point post incedent.

Anyhow, I think Ive got the point, and the 'language'. Or some of the language anyhow.

Diesle

pax
December 31, 2002, 07:15 PM
Oh! Point-of-aim?

Center of mass.

If that doesn't work, the brain case.

pax

I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise, and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me now, I would go to that man and take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot, and kill him. -- Mark Twain

KMKeller
December 31, 2002, 08:12 PM
Shoot to stop. Echo the above.

KRAUTGUNNER
December 31, 2002, 08:39 PM
I don't want to shoot human beings!!!

But if that is unavoidable, I would shoot to kill!

Either you shoot to kill, or you shouldn't shoot at all!

PATH
December 31, 2002, 08:43 PM
If I am shooting at somebody it is a justified action or I am not shooting. It is center body mass if I shoot and the intent is to kill.
Life is not the movies. God willing I never have to shoot anyone.

El Rojo
December 31, 2002, 09:04 PM
I am still amazed at how many people don't understand the concept "shoot to stop the threat". It is mere semantics in a legal world. Everyone understands that when you shoot someone at center of mass, the results are often death to the threat. However, if you state to the officers that you shot to kill the SOB, plan on it coming back to haunt you in court.

Never fire a warning shot. If you had time to fire a warning shot, your life wasn't in much danger. When the time comes, I am going to shoot for center mass with the intent of stopping the threat to my life or someone else's. My response to the police when they arrive will be simple and short.I had an immediate fear for my life and I shot the person to stop them from killing me. I have no further comments until I contact my lawyer. Thank you officer.

MR.G
December 31, 2002, 09:09 PM
Shoot to stop the threat.

pax
December 31, 2002, 09:37 PM
Rojo,

It is most emphatically not mere semantics. The difference in the two is the difference in mindset, which can in turn affect your behaviour (whether you draw a gun to begin with, when you fire, when you stop firing, whether you render aid to the wounded). All of these behaviours are affected by your mindset going into the situation.

pax

WilderBill
December 31, 2002, 09:54 PM
Well, I said I'd take it on a case by case basis.
The thing is, that if it is a case of "him or me", I'm WAY more attacted to me. My premeditated intent is to survive. If that dosen't happen then any suit or other action won't be happening either.
If I have to shoot, then it follows I would need to shoot to stop the threat. If the most expediant way to do that happens to permanantly stop that threat and any others that might have followed, then so be it.

Gewehr98
January 1, 2003, 01:09 AM
Avoid the circumstances that would lead to such a confrontation. Then, if things escalated to a physical attack on either myself, family, or friends, then I would shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more - and that's what the judge would hear, too.

Pax brings up an interesting question:

(whether you draw a gun to begin with, when you fire, when you stop firing, whether you render aid to the wounded)

I've been thinking about that one as long as I've had a CCW. Would you, or should you, render assistance to the bad guy as he's leaking out the holes you just created when he attacked? Good Samaritan ethics notwithstanding, I'd have a hard time with it. Maybe it'd look better in court if you did?

dfrog
January 1, 2003, 01:19 AM
As so many have already stated. None of the above. Shoot to stop the threat or aggression. :ar15:

TheLastBoyScout
January 1, 2003, 01:20 AM
As many others have said YOU SHOULD SHOOT ONLY TO STOP THE THREAT. Now, do you mean 'how would I stop the threat?" My answer would be (AFTER I ordered him to get on the deck and freeze, AND he refuses said order) .45 ACPs to center mass, until he stops what he's doing and hits the deck (whether under his own power or from multiple gunshot wounds).

Don Gwinn
January 1, 2003, 01:21 AM
Center of mass. Sorry, but there are no good choices on that poll with the possible exception of the fourth. Even that one seems to imply that you will take each situation as it arises only insofar as you choose whether to kill, maim, or warn.

Don Gwinn
January 1, 2003, 01:24 AM
Everyone understands that when you shoot someone at center of mass, the results are often death to the threat.
Yes, and understanding what the results often are is not the same as continuing to shoot after the threat is ended in order to ensure that result.

I will shoot center of mass. If he dies, he dies. But I will not plan to shoot him until he's dead. There IS a difference and it is most assuredly NOT a matter of semantics.

Bottom Gun
January 1, 2003, 01:34 AM
To stop.
In the event you are forced to pull a trigger, you are ALWAYS shooting to STOP the threat.
That's probably the single most important statement you can make afterward.

pax
January 1, 2003, 01:45 AM
Would you, or should you, render assistance to the bad guy as he's leaking out the holes you just created when he attacked?
Gewehr98,

As a matter of safety, I would not approach him, even if he appears unconscious or dead.

However -- if the situation ever happens to me and I call 9-1-1 after a shooting, I intend to start with, "Send an ambulance! A man has been shot..." so that there is a record of my voice asking for medical attention for the BG. That first 911 call is when you start working on Problem Two, I guess.

If there are other people around and one of them is willing to render aid, I'd think you could let them get close IF the weapon is well and truly away from the BG and IF you have warned them that they are taking a risk. I'm not as sure about this one, though ... because it is a risk. Legally, I'd hate to have to stand up in court and explain why I wouldn't let anyone else render aid if I had been too fearful to do it myself -- especially not the fellow who murmured, "I'm a doctor..."

However, right up until the police arrive, it would be "my" crime scene to protect ... and my responsibility if another person got hurt or killed because I made the wrong call in keeping them away from the BG.

So I dunno. Other thoughts?

pax

You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you. -- Steve Munden, quoted by Jeff Cooper in his commentaries

trapshooter
January 1, 2003, 03:02 AM
the "Mozambique drill" headshot business, you moved from stopping to killing. And we all know it. Just like a jury would.

If the BG ain't down from two CM shots, (disregarding that maybe you should be backing away, or getting something more effective than a paintball gun;) ), then you keep shooting at CM as long as the threat is still there. And you stop when the threat is gone. A good rule of thumb is when the BG quits shooting, hits the ground, or both.

You will end up in court. Period. (Some few exceptions, like no BG relatives, home defense, LEO righteous shoot, etc.) Otherwise, it's court.

If you walk into court having executed a perfect MD with your hotrod custom carry gun, you will be in for a very rough time with the oppo lawyers, or the prosecutor. Ditto an imperfect MD.

Headshots are very, very hard to make on a moving target under stress. I don't give a hoot how good you are down at the range. Paper don't move (much), and it sure as heck doesn't shoot back.
But if you try, you just gave a very clear signal of intent to do more than 'stop' a threat. JM2C.

UnknownSailor
January 1, 2003, 03:27 AM
My/his/her/their life was in danger. He had a weapon. I want my lawyer.

Those are the only words I will say to the constabulatory upon their arrival.

When you start shooting is when you feel your/his/her/their life is in jeprody, and you keep shooting whatever's available, aiming at whatever's available, until the person who forced you to start shooting stops what he was doing that made you start.

IOW, shoot to stop the threat.

Triad
January 1, 2003, 03:28 AM
As a matter of safety, I would not approach him, even if he appears unconscious or dead.
IMO, the smart thing to do.
However -- if the situation ever happens to me and I call 9-1-1 after a shooting, I intend to start with, "Send an ambulance! A man has been shot..." so that there is a record of my voice asking for medical attention for the BG. That first 911 call is when you start working on Problem Two, I guess.
You have nothing to lose by asking them to send help. They may even be able to help him.
If there are other people around and one of them is willing to render aid, I'd think you could let them get close IF the weapon is well and truly away from the BG and IF y
ou have warned them that they are taking a risk. I'm not as sure about this one, though ... because it is a risk. Legally, I'd hate to have to stand up in court and explain why I wouldn't let anyone else render aid if I had been too fearful to do it myself -- especially not the fellow who murmured, "I'm a doctor..."
They're adults. They're responsible for their own actions.
However, right up until the police arrive, it would be "my" crime scene to protect
You're not a cop. They have authority to protect crime scenes. Do we? Anybody know? I don't, but it seems to me all you need to do is NOT tamper with evidence.
and my responsibility if another person got hurt or killed because I made the wrong call in keeping them away from the BG.
Like I said, they're adults. See above. If they're kids, I guess the best thing to do is tell them to stay back. If they don't? What authority do we have to restrain them? Anybody know?
I have some thoughts on the shoot to stop-shoot to kill debate, but I'm not sure I'll add them.

pax
January 1, 2003, 04:00 AM
Triad,

Mostly agree with your reasoning.
You're not a cop. They have authority to protect crime scenes. Do we? Anybody know? I don't, but it seems to me all you need to do is NOT tamper with evidence.
Yes and no. You don't have the authority to boss people around who are not a threat to you, but you do have the continued need to protect yourself and your loved ones from the BG -- and you need to worry about Problem Two.

If the BG is conscious (or faking unconsciousness), he could whip a knife out of his pocket and take a hostage if anyone gets near him. So the question is whether allowing someone close enough for that to happen is something you want to do. Sure, the other folks on the scene are adults, but you are the one who will have to decide whether to shoot the wounded man if he attacks when they get near.

And, if you do let someone near him -- you do not want to point your gun at an innocent, but you do want to keep the BG on the ground and under control until the police are on the scene. How are you going to do that if there is an innocent between you and him?

If you put your gun away, how fast can you react if the BG does jump up and come at you? Does he have other weapons which you haven't yet seen? Can he get to them? Is there a blade in his pocket? A holdout gun?

Since you know that you will, one day in the not too distant future, be standing in court to explain your actions, it is to your advantage that the evidence doesn't walk off. If the BG's weapon is out of his hand, stand on it -- or pick it up and put it in your pocket. If BG has friends, that weapon will walk away when you are not looking, and your fingerprints on it would be much easier to explain than a completely missing weapon.

Same thing -- if there are spatters of blood on the street and it's raining, throw a jacket over 'em if you can.

It's not about being a cop. It's about protecting yourself. You're going to need as much help as you can get with Problem Two, and will have a harder time if evidence walks off or gets destroyed before the police arrive.

Most of that came straight out of the lecture by Marty Hayes in FAS-3, (http://firearmsacademy.com/fas3.htm) at
the Firearms Academy of Seattle. (http://firearmsacademy.com) I think it makes sense.

pax

Triad
January 1, 2003, 04:30 AM
If the BG is conscious (or faking unconsciousness), he could whip a knife out of his pocket and take a hostage if anyone gets near him. So the question is whether allowing someone close enough for that to happen is something you want to do. Sure, the other folks on the scene are adults, but you are the one who will have to decide whether to shoot the wounded man if he attacks when they get near.

And, if you do let someone near him -- you do not want to point your gun at an innocent, but you do want to keep the BG on the ground and under control until the police are on the scene. How are you going to do that if there is an innocent between you and him?

If you put your gun away, how fast can you react if the BG does jump up and come at you? Does he have other weapons which you haven't yet seen? Can he get to them? Is there a blade in his pocket? A holdout gun?
pax, the issues you mention are good examples of why shooting to stop and shooting to kill, are essentially the same. Basically, it boils down to the fact that if he isn't dead, he can (does?) still present a threat. Thoughts? Perhaps it is best to engage the BG with the goal of stopping the threat by eliminating it. (I hope you folks understand what I mean by that)
As far as protecting the evidence,I need to get some sleep before I discuss this any more. Hopefully in the meantime some of our resident cops and robbers, oops,lawyers will chime in with their professional opinions.

BogBabe
January 1, 2003, 09:05 AM
What someone said somewhere else recently:

Shoot to live

riverdog
January 1, 2003, 10:47 AM
I never think about it terms of shooting to kill, maim or warn. Firing a warning shot is irresponsible in a crowded neighborhood. I want to know where that shot is going. Since I'm using a 12ga shotgun, shooting to maim is rather arrogant, I'm not that good. I shoot COM, then I cycle the slide and do it again until the threat stops and let the chips fall ... The responding officers can determine kill or maim.

ojibweindian
January 1, 2003, 11:11 AM
My Dad taught me at an early age that if I am to pull a gun on someone, it had better be because either me or my antagonist is about to die.

Fair 'n Square
January 1, 2003, 01:25 PM
I have to agree totally with Schuey2002. The only correct answer to the question is to stop the threat that makes us fear death or serious bodily injury, to ourself or innocent others.
The only value of this thread is to emphasize that point.

Diesle
January 1, 2003, 02:51 PM
to ourself or innocent others

Symantecs again, but.... I think thats too broad. It suggests that you should use your gun to protect anyone you perceive to need protection.

On the other hand...

The only value of this thread is to emphasize that point

That was a HUGE value for me! THANKS ALL!

Diesle

Erik
January 1, 2003, 05:09 PM
I "shoot to stop the threat."

Might that result in the death or serious injury of the threat?

Yes.

I'm comfortable with that reality.

Ala Dan
January 1, 2003, 05:42 PM
I too, am only going to shoot to stop the threat; by
using only the amount of force necessary.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

If you enjoyed reading about "Your intentions should you have to pull the trigger." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!