I was surprised at this...


PDA






cz75bdneos22
November 25, 2005, 07:47 AM
from a conversation amongst guys with CHL.
i quote....

Dave: "wow, jack, you showed more restraint than i would have. i've always told myself that if i'm in a position where i have to draw my weapon i will pull the trigger not once, but twice. nothing would be worse than getting sued in civil court by the guy who threatened your life and losing to him and having to pay him damages. if you have to shoot someone shoot to kill not injure. that makes it your word against the dead guys.

end of quote....:eek:

yeah or nay..what do you reply??:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "I was surprised at this..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TarpleyG
November 25, 2005, 08:02 AM
In reality his quote is right. It's a shame it has to be this way. Look to your friendly, neighborhood, ambulance-chasing lawyer for who's to blame.

A couple of years ago, a friend awoke to barking/snarling dogs out back. He grabbed the shotgun and went to investigate. Dogs were dining on some creep that had cut the screen to the enclosed back porch. Cops and paramedics came and toted creep off. Weeks later, friend gets a court summons. He's being sued by the creep now because of the dogs. Luckily my friend won the civil suit. Had he just shot the *********, or the dogs had killed him, what then? Maybe a suit by the family, I don't know.

Now, luckily in Florida, we have no worries about civil suits in a justified defense shooting. It should be that way everywhere IMO.

Greg

benEzra
November 25, 2005, 08:05 AM
I disagree.

I would shoot to stop the threat, no more. I'd then call 911, request EMT in addition to the police, and IF it was safe to do so, I'd probably render first aid, if feasible.

The problem with this guy's attitude is that in his worry about civil suits, he is setting himself up for a criminal case, since many people can testify that his stated intent was to kill the attacker to prevent him from suing, not just stop him...big problem there...

JMusic
November 25, 2005, 08:28 AM
If you shoot you shoot to kill. The threat will not be stopped until the other person is either dead or unconcious. I have had several professional use of force training and some do make that comment about civil suits, but bottom line you need to justify your initial use of deadly force. I see nothing wrong with the comment.
Jim

Sinsaba
November 25, 2005, 09:06 AM
I think tha what some find wrong with the comment is the fact that the individual made it in front of witnesses.

Mongo the Mutterer
November 25, 2005, 09:19 AM
Hello. Shoot to wound????

If you draw down and fire you are using DEADLY FORCE and you had best be justified. Shoot to wound is ridiculous IMHO.

What are you going to do? Shoot the BG in the leg? What if you hit an artery and he bleeds out in five minutes?

If you have to use your weapon, after the BG is down, call 911 and ask for the paramedics first, then the police... stay on the phone and put your gun down...

deadin
November 25, 2005, 09:31 AM
Prosecutor: "Sir, did you shoot to kill Mr. Smith?"

Your answer: "No sir, I shot to stop Mr. Smith. I regret that he died."

Anything beyond this and you could be in deep s**t.

Dean

1911 guy
November 25, 2005, 09:35 AM
In a perfect world, you could wing an evil-doer and he will learn the error of his ways. Reality is far different. If lethal force is called for we all had better get rid of this notion of "stopping the threat". As a legal term, it's justifiable and the only reason for firing your weapon. In practicality, this means kill the S.O.B. who is a threat to you and yours.

benEzra
November 25, 2005, 09:42 AM
If you shoot you shoot to kill. The threat will not be stopped until the other person is either dead or unconcious. I have had several professional use of force training and some do make that comment about civil suits, but bottom line you need to justify your initial use of deadly force. I see nothing wrong with the comment.
I didn't say shoot to wound, I said shoot to stop.

For a defensive use of force to be justified, the intent must be to HALT THE ATTACK, not to kill the attacker. Shooting him several times COM may, or may not, result in the death of the attacker, but if the attacker's death, rather than cessation of the attack, is the motive, you are in deep legal trouble.

The guy quoted in the initial post has broadcast far and wide that he will keep shooting until the attacker is DEAD, even if the attacker ceases to be a threat, BECAUSE he doesn't want the attacker alive to sue him. That is a recipe for serious legal trouble.

GRB
November 25, 2005, 10:41 AM
If you shoot you shoot to kill. The threat will not be stopped until the other person is either dead or unconcious. I have had several professional use of force training and some do make that comment about civil suits, but bottom line you need to justify your initial use of deadly force. I see nothing wrong with the comment.

You always shoot to stop. While killing a person may be the only way to stop him sometimes, you still only ever shoot with the intention to stop the threat. This is what currently is taught in professional tactical courses about use of force. I would certainly be interested to speak to the so called professional civilian firearms instructors who taught that you shoot to kill as opposed to shooting to stop. You see once the threat is stopped, if you then shoot to kill, you have committed at least manslaughter and maybe even murder. To say a threat will not be stopped unless the assailant is unconscious or dead is absolutely ludicrous. Hows about this testimony, from a truthful bystander, who is now testifying at your manslaughter trial: "The youth threw up his hands, dropped his knife, started to cry saying he was sorry and said in a very loud voice 'I surrender', then your honor, the guy with the gun shot him dead". I'll visit you in Sing Sing.

Shoot to wound is ridiculous IMHO. When you shoot someone dead you mortally wound them but, I will not play on that just for the sake of semantics; instead I will get to the meaning I think you meant. I believe you mean that shoot to stop is the same as shoot to not mortally wound. It is not always the case. If, however, you equate shoot to wound with shoot to stop then let me point out the current prevailing legal opinion in the USA because that opinion does not match your own; the legal system does not believe that shooting to stop is ridiculous. It is not the opinion of lawmakers, not the opinion of professionals who teach firearms training and use of force training, and it would likely not be the opinion of the jury that convicts you of manslaughter. You always shoot to stop, just as you train to shoot to stop even if it winds up you had to kill your assailant in order to sop him/her. This does not mean that you aim at an arm or leg with the hope of making a bad guy go ouch and then run home crying to mommy. This means you shoot at the center of mass of the target that presents itself and maybe throw in a head shot if you suspect the bad guy is wearing body armor or if the first two to the chest don't work and the threat remains. You keep shooting until the threat has stopped. If the guy is down, is breathing but not moving, has dropped his gun, and is no longer a viable threat to your life or limb - are you telling me you would then kill him? That would be ridiculous from a moral, legal, and civil standpoint. Let's do a scenario in which you and I are both threatened by the same psycho with a knife:

A psycho Charles Manson Wanna Be type runs at you with a large knife (like a Bowie Knife with a 14 inch blade). He is 35 feet away as he begins his charge and, he is screaming he is going to kill you. As he charges he slashes one or two people along the way. You have drawn, you scream out what if anything? Do you yell stop or I'll kill you? He keeps charging and you shoot him. After the first 6 shots, he falls into a bloodied heap and, he drops the knife. He still is obviously alive but no longer a threat as at least the witnesses see him. Yet, you continue to fire until you empty your magazine of 16 rounds. You reload and would fire ore but someone says he is dead as you grope for a reload. It is indeterminate if he died because of bullet number 1 through bullet number 16. All of your shots were to vital organs and could have killed him but we know he was still breathing when you started firing number 7 through 16. At your trial for manslaughter you will have to answer some questions like these, they will be a lot tougher coming from a slick big time district attorney: He fell after the first 6 shots in a bloodied heap, the knife slipping out of his hands, was he still a threat to you at that point? Why did you keep shooting, was it because he was breathing because he was alive and because you were always of the belief that if you ever were involved in an armed encounter you would shoot to kill regardless of whether or not the threat had stopped?

I am involved in an identical situation. I start shooting just as you did. Just before I shoot, or as I start to shoot I yell out stop or I'll shoot. He is coming though and slashing people and screaming he is going to kill me, so I am shooting. After 6 shots he falls into the same bloodied heap. He drops the knife. He is breathing. He is otherwise pretty much just a bloodied heap as he was in your situation. What do I do, I do a tactical reload. Yet I sure don't shoot him again, unless he again becomes or is about to become an imminent threat of loss of life or of serious bodily injury to myself or others. I walk over to the knife, I secure it. I tell bystanders to call the police and for an ambulance while I keep him covered. I ask if anyone knows first aid. I ask bystanders to secure him by tying him up with belts if necessary. Someone says he has died. I again ask they call the police, ambulance and secure him nonetheless. He has died just as he did when you shot him. Would it be the same for me in court as it was for you? I go to court. It does not get past the grand jury stage. I am exonerated. You maybe are in jail, maybe not. maybe you paid your big city slicker attorney enough to get you off after a 2 year trial. You used to own a house. It was sold to pay the attorney. You used to have a college fund for your child, it was taken away by the family of the guy you killed. You lose your job and your wife divorces you because you have changed because you now suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome. Sure you won the fight but lost everything else.

If you were found guilty, or just if you went through the lengthy and very expensive trial process, why did it hapen to you and not to me. If for no other reason that you had shown previous intent to kill if ever you were involved in any shooting situation. INTENT is a big thing in the criminal law.

I think tha what some find wrong with the comment is the fact that the individual made it in front of witnesses.Good people often do a funny thing when testifying under oath, even about things that close friends have confided in them, they tell the truth. Yes this could come back and bite him in the ass really hard if he is ever involved in a justfied shootout but; it is not just this reason that makes such a statement bad as I tried to point out above.

After all I wrote above, allow me to stress something: Shooting to stop may wind up becoming shooting to kill. You might even someday testify that in order to stop the threat you realized you would have to kill the guy (for a numbe rof reasons, such as he kept coming after several chest shots, so I fired at his head knowing it would probably kill him) but, I was till only trying to stop him from posing a threat to me and ohers. This is vastly different from saying that: If I ever get involved in a shootout situation, I am going to shoot to kill. If killing someone was the only way to stop the threat, then so be it; if killing was your intent before you even started to defend yourself, well that is a whole different story.

ceetee
November 25, 2005, 11:30 AM
What nobody's mentioned yet are the costs associated with fighting off any kind of legal proceeding, be it civil or criminal. If there's nobody left alive to sue you, you don't have to come out of pocket (for the civil suit, at least).

I agree that you don't want to make a blanket statement like that to others, but that's the way you have to think some times...

GRB
November 25, 2005, 11:49 AM
I thought I had just mentioned the costs. It does notmatter that the dirbag is dead and he cannot sue you - his gay lover/life partner, his wife, his mother, his child, they can all sue you. That is unless of course you mea you would also get all of them. Then you would almost definitely pay the price while in prison.

boofus
November 25, 2005, 11:51 AM
If the situation is dire enough to warrant deadly force I'm going for slide lock. Unless there are multiple adversaries and ammunition is an issue.

TrybalRage
November 25, 2005, 11:51 AM
...I'd probably render first aid, if feasible.


And then get sued because you are not qualified to give first aid.

"And isn't it true, Mr. Defense Doctor on the Stand, that the defendant's actions actually made the damage worse because he was properly trained?"

HonorsDaddy
November 25, 2005, 11:57 AM
from a conversation amongst guys with CHL.
i quote....

wow, jack, you showed more restraint than i would have. i've always told myself that if i'm in a position where i have to draw my weapon i will pull the trigger not once, but twice. nothing would be worse than getting sued in civil court by the guy who threatened your life and losing to him and having to pay him damages. if you have to shoot someone shoot to kill not injure. that makes it your word against the dead guys.

end of quote....:eek:

yeah or nay..what do you reply??:scrutiny:

I agree 100%.

If its serious enough to draw your gun, then its serious enough to shoot. If its serious enough to shoot, then someone has to die - you or your target.

Otherwise, there was a better way to handle it.

Bobarino
November 25, 2005, 12:26 PM
in WA, if the shooting is ruled justified or you are aquitted of any criminal charges, if you get charged in the first place, you are protected against any civil trials or liabilities. in other words, as long as you are in the right using a weapon to defend yourself, you can't be sued by anyone. one of the surprising yet good things about the mostly liberal state of WA.

Bobby

Mongo the Mutterer
November 25, 2005, 12:51 PM
You always shoot to stop. While killing a person may be the only way to stop him sometimes, you still only ever shoot with the intention to stop the threat. Glenn, thank you for the thoughtful post.

My shoot to wound comment related to similar posts where wannabee Wyatt Earps say "I'll wing him". I totally agree with your post.

If I have to use my weapon it will be to Stop the threat, not to issue any sort of payback. IMHO anyone who pops someone while they are disabled, down, not a threat is a murderer. Most folks, myself included, don't have any idea what they would do in a shoot, since they haven't been unlucky enough to find out. All we can do is train, and hope to react and act properly.

In any event, if you pull and shoot, your life will change forever, and I am sure not pleasantly.

My .02.

Mongo

pax
November 25, 2005, 01:17 PM
Bobby ~

Can you give me a cite for that?

Glenn ~

Good post.

pax

Strings
November 25, 2005, 02:10 PM
I have to agree with most here: I'd shoot to stop the threat, no more, no less. Given the (likely) amount of adrenaline that would be in my system, messing with my fine motor skills, I'd be aimine for the largest target: COM. If the subject was still a threat after multiple hits there, I would shift aim. And keep shooting until the threat was no longer there...

At any resultant trial, I would express remorse that I had to take the attacker's life (thereby taking away any chance of rehabilitation). I would express condolences to any family, that they lost a member.

Bragging about how you'ld "kill the degenerate SOB who jumps me!" ain't a good idea. Making the statement (in front of witnesses) that you'ld kill an attacker to avoid possible civil suit is suicide:

friend: "Well your honor, he said it was better to kill the attacker, because then he can't sue"

DA: "So, you're telling the court that he felt his finances were more important than this poor boy's life?"

Cue all your worldly assets now belonging to the attacker's family...

JamisJockey
November 25, 2005, 02:27 PM
I disagree.

I would shoot to stop the threat, no more. I'd then call 911, request EMT in addition to the police, and IF it was safe to do so, I'd probably render first aid, if feasible.

The problem with this guy's attitude is that in his worry about civil suits, he is setting himself up for a criminal case, since many people can testify that his stated intent was to kill the attacker to prevent him from suing, not just stop him...big problem there...

+1
You do not shoot to kill, nor maime, nor wound. You shoot to stop a direct threat (or indirect threat in case of defending another.).

Bobarino
November 25, 2005, 03:56 PM
standby Pax, gotta find it in the RCW's.

Bobby

R.H. Lee
November 25, 2005, 04:02 PM
I think he's right on the edge of premeditated first degree murder and is just looking for an excuse. His mindset does not reconcile with one of self defense IMO.

ceetee
November 25, 2005, 04:06 PM
Sorry Glenn. I was typing while you were editing, and yours hit first. (I type about as fast as one finger will let me!)

vynx
November 25, 2005, 04:18 PM
When I was in the military - long ago - I had some revolver training - the old S&W model 10's - we were taught IF you ever draw your weapon from the holster it had better be to kill the enemy and you draw, aim, and fire twice - this was taught to be one move, no warnings or anything else - you only draw to kill the enemy and shoot twice.

Now that is military training against enemy combatants but I think the same thing holds true in civilian life. I can only draw my weapon to defend myself from deadly force Not brandish to scare someone off and if I have to draw I had better aim and fire at least twice to make sure the deadly threat has ended.

Also, this way when the police show up their will be no conflicting stories. I will tell them the truth that I perceived a deadly threat against myself. If you don't believe me ask the dead guy.

Bobarino
November 25, 2005, 04:20 PM
RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:



answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged?

knew it was there somewhere.

Bobby

pax
November 25, 2005, 04:55 PM
A lot of people get confused talking about this.

A defender should generally* shoot at the largest part of the attacker's body that can be seen ("center of mass," which is usually the center of the attacker's chest). The defender should generally keep pulling the trigger until the attacker has stopped doing whatever he was doing that made the defender shoot him in the first place. If the attacker doesn't stop after at least a few rounds have hit him in the center of his chest, the defender might instead shoot for the attacker's head, or perhaps his pelvis. All this activity frequently results in the attacker's death ... too bad, so sorry, but that's the way it is.**

When the defender deliberately shoots at the center of the attacker's chest, the reasonably expected outcome is that the attacker will probably die from it. Nevertheless, the shortcut phrase "shoot to kill" is a really, really, really, really bad way to think about this, because its usage can lead you to make some very bad mistakes.

First, legally and (in many cases) morally, the defender must stop shooting when the attacker stops being a threat. Casual or repeated use of the phrase "shoot to kill" can damage the defender's prior mindset and cripple the defender's ability to do the Right Thing under extreme stress.

Second, as others have pointed out above, using "shoot to kill" in casual conversation can really come back and bite you in the behind if you ever end up in court. With a good lawyer you might manage to overcome this, but why muddy the waters? Better to have a good shoot that looks clean too; it'll save you some money in lawyer bills.

Third, thinking in terms of "shoot to wound" vs "shoot to kill" allows people to fool themselves into believing that they can use a firearm without risk of death or permanent disabling damage to the person they shot. This is not true. Legally and practically, any time you fire a weapon at another human being -- no matter where on the other person's body you aim! -- you are using deadly force. You do not want to weaken your resolve to use this deadly force only when utterly necessary, nor do you want your brain tricking you into believing you are doing anything except using deadly force when you pull a gun. You certainly don't want to end up in court trying to explain that you didn't mean to kill the guy and wouldn't have shot if you'd known it would kill him. If you aren't fully prepared for the possibility of killing the person you're shooting, you should not be shooting at them. Period, full stop.

And finally, even if it never comes up in court, the phrase "shoot to kill" is simply bad PR for our side. Most reasonably articulate people can get exactly the same concept across to anybody who needs to know it, without sounding like a bloodthirsty fool or a violent vigilante.

pax

* "Generally" means just that; it's a rule of thumb rather than an absolute. Of course there are exceptions, situations in which you might prefer that the attacker live rather than die or situations in which the only possible shot is one that is also unlikely to kill the attacker. In such cases, some folks use the phrase "shoot to wound." This verbal shortcut describes both point of aim and intended outcome -- two things which are congruent with each other only when Murphy and Lady Luck both agree.

** Some macho types apparently believe that avoiding the phrase "shoot to kill" somehow means that one isn't mentally or emotionally prepared to kill if necessary. While untrue in most cases, it is true that some people keep a gun for defense but never, ever consider that they could literally kill another person with that gun. If you aren't willing to kill in order to save your own life or the lives of those you love, you should not be carrying a gun. It's that simple.

pax
November 25, 2005, 05:04 PM
Bobby ~

Thanks. I don't think that section says anything about civil trials. The way I read it, it says that you will be reimbursed for everything related to your criminal trial (time off work, lawyer & specialist fees etc), if you are charged with something and your action is found to be justified because it was self-defense.

It's a pretty major protection, but I don't think it would stop you from being sued.

Was hoping you'd found a different one!

pax

Bobarino
November 25, 2005, 05:33 PM
Pax,

i guess it depends on whether or not the definition of "legal jeopardy" includes civil trials or not. i was under the impression that it did, but i can't find a definition of "Legal jeopardy" in the legislature's site.

Bobby

Zonamo
November 25, 2005, 05:36 PM
And then get sued because you are not qualified to give first aid.

Depends on the state. Many states have Good Samaritan Laws.

Here is Arizona's:

ARS 32-1471. Health care provider and any other person; emergency aid; nonliability

Any...other person who renders emergency care at a public gathering or at the scene of an emergency occurrence gratuitously and in good faith shall not be liable for any civil or other damages as the result of any act or omission by such person rendering the emergency care, or as the result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured persons, unless such person, while rendering such emergency care, is guilty of gross negligence.

R.H. Lee
November 25, 2005, 05:47 PM
The law is only a guideline. You can be within the letter of the law but if a DA decides you acted with 'malice aforethought', and can convince a judge or jury of same, you're going to the big house. If you're packing with the hope and intention of a confrontation so you can shoot/kill somebody chances are you'll pay the price someday. You want a different mindset; one that avoids confrontation and conflict if at all possible. Deadly force is an option to be exercised only as a last resort.

Standing Wolf
November 25, 2005, 08:18 PM
One of the reasons I live in Colorado is that the criminal and/or his survivors are legally prohibited from suing people who defend themselves against their predations.

Simplifies matters quite a little bit.

Hawkmoon
November 25, 2005, 08:27 PM
If you shoot you shoot to kill. The threat will not be stopped until the other person is either dead or unconcious. I have had several professional use of force training and some do make that comment about civil suits, but bottom line you need to justify your initial use of deadly force. I see nothing wrong with the comment.
Jim
The problem with the comment is that he expressed the right strategy, for the wrong reason.

Shooting to wound is not a good strategy. Too easy to miss if you aim for an extremity, plus as you already commented, a wound may not stop the threat. In all states that allow carrying guns for self-defense, while the language of the laws may vary slightly the bottom line is that you are NOT entitled to use deadly/lethal force unless you are in grave (or "imminent") danger of being killed or seriously injured by an assailant. Once you cross the threshold of having justification to use deadly force, you use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat. I don't think there is a single police department or private self-defense training venue in the country that teaches "shoot to wound" once it has become time to drag your shootin' iron out of the holster.

Ryder
November 25, 2005, 09:56 PM
i've always told myself that if i'm in a position where i have to draw

In my opinion when he is faced with using deadly force those words will not be a motivation for what he does.

He's rationalizing the taking of a life. That's something he needs to do. No sense in being prepared if you're not willing. He's psyching himself up for action.

His theory matches no motivation I hold but then I don't think it has to. Freedom of speech and all that. :)

cz75bdneos22
November 25, 2005, 10:30 PM
from what i could make of it..:rolleyes: .maybe i read too much into his way of thinking..i was beginning to equate CCW= license to kill...:eek: is that what some people with guns out there think...:banghead: then i better get my CHL soon, before they decide to up the standards..obviuosly he passed, so it shouln't be that hard..now, i do believe i might start to carry too..sheesh! i might even get the badge.:D i mean business.:evil: just the way some people think about killing someone so..what's that word i'm looking for..mhmmm.:confused: i'll keep thinking about it some more. good replies by the way, i'll definetly keep some advice as they will make good questions to bring up when i take a class. i want to know for sure.:o

jack's reply.."hard to justify shooting a man in the back when they run away after you draw....but 2 to the chest and 1 to the head are my preffered spots and it still leaves me 10 before i have to get my other clip..." Whew!! that's makes me feel good..dunno about dave though....uhummm.

yomama
November 25, 2005, 10:46 PM
I remember when I took my CHL class that's exactly what the LEO instructer told us. Shoot to kill because if you shoot to wound, you will be sued.

Ryder
November 25, 2005, 11:01 PM
CCW isn't a license to kill, it's tax on improving your odds to avoid being killed. I guess you could say it's a license to live. :D

David W. Gay
November 26, 2005, 04:56 AM
For a real world example, and it's associated discussion:

"I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do" (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122465) :D

thereisnospoon
November 26, 2005, 05:46 AM
SLIDE LOCK

Medusa
November 26, 2005, 06:47 AM
Local PD told the same - better the attorney with dead client than with wounded one.

JMusic
November 26, 2005, 07:55 AM
I believe Pax has said it best. May I add that in court any terms such as shoot to kill are not what you say. My statement was meant to show that I too have heard this said. Glen your reply makes me laugh! How you came up with shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the air from my initial statement is beyond me. Frankly you focus on "Fear for my life" statements. If you do not have that "Fear" for your life or another you better keep your weapon in your pocket. But if you think shoot to stop puts a better spin on it good luck. When you point that weapon at another you are showing "Deadly intent", when you fire whether you like it or not you are using "Deadly force". My firearms courses were mostly LE courses. Shoot to kill was used commonly, how to testify (which I have done) was another school entirely.
Jim

JMusic
November 26, 2005, 11:06 AM
I posted a thread a few days ago in general handgun discussions. It may be appropriate to read the comments and the follow ups that I gave to see how a real gunfight happens. Seldom do you have time to evaluate the situation or think about criminal or civil suits. You need to access those issues ahead of time. For those with an intrest it is titled "Hit them where it hurts."
Jim

NineseveN
November 26, 2005, 11:42 AM
I don't know if I would use those words exactly, but I am not about to shoot once, then ask the attacker if he or she gives up. Until his or her back hits the ground and he or she stops breathing, or his or her forward motion is withdrawn, or his or her weapon is dropped and his or her hands go in the air while he or she stands still, I will continue to shoot and reload if necessary.

Some people look at that as a "shoot to kill" policy, I call it a "shoot to survive" policy.

YMMV.

Judged, not carried...

ctdonath
November 26, 2005, 12:10 PM
Shoot to STOP.

If, in stopping an assailant, he dies - that's his problem. You did what you needed to stop him and save your own hide.

The problem with the "shoot to kill" mentality is: under duress, your mind will fulfill what you decided prior - which may be incredibly stupid/evil.

DA: "Mr. Doe, why did you shoot the deceased?"
You: "I shot him to stop him from acting in a way that reasonably would result in my death."
DA: "So that explains the action in the surveilance video, wherein you shot him and he fell down unconcious?"
You: "Yes."
DA: "Ok, that makes sense. ... Now explain why, when he was face-down and not moving, you proceeded to fire another 15 rounds into the back of his head?"
You: "Ummm..."
Jury: "Guilty, 2nd degree murder."
Judge: "Life."

If your mindset is "shoot to stop", you'll stop shooting when he stops attacking.
If your mindset is "shoot to kill", you may very well keep shooting long after the threat is gone.

Convicted by 12 is better than carried 6, yes, but life behind bars still sucks.

If you're sued for damages to/by your attacker, counter sue for mental anguish and being placed in a you-or-him situation. You should get more since he had the casual choice, while you didn't.

dpesec
November 26, 2005, 01:18 PM
Yes normally you shoot to stop the attack or threat. But if I'm out and I see somebody with a bomb belt getting ready to pull the cord. Headshot no question. I'm not going to go COM, brain stem.
Perhaps that's a way to stop the attack.

JMusic
November 26, 2005, 01:44 PM
Well I can't let this go and maybe I am wrong but shoot to stop and shoot to kill is the same thing. When you injure or kill another human being your training and the object you used comes into play. Lets say you are driving down the road in your new Ford. Out comes a pedestrian and you run over them. Now many considerations go into this, were you under the influence, what driving training have you had, speeding, was your vehicle in a safe operating condition etc. "Not once though were you trained how to use the vehicle to hurt another human being." The fact that you got into the automoblile and drove off does not in and of itself indicate deadly or lethal intent.
Now take the use a concealable handgun. In and of itself unless accidently discharged the use against another human is concidered "Deadly" or Lethal. Now here goes your training. You shoot at a man shaped target that gives you the highest scores that just happen to be the most lethal locations to shoot a human being in. You are taught to put multiple shots into the target until it is neutralized. In LE you are advised or told to use larger calibers against your assaliant because they are "more effective". Ammunition is chosen for its lethality. The military would rather wound an individual during an act of war and bullet design indicates that. IN LE and Concealed Carry again bullet design is based on lethality.
Jim

pax
November 26, 2005, 03:52 PM
dpesec ~

If the only reasonable way to stop the attack is to drop the attacker in his tracks, and if the only way to do that is with a brain stem shot, then you have not "shot to kill." You shot to stop the attack.

Well I can't let this go and maybe I am wrong but shoot to stop and shoot to kill is the same thing.
JMusic ~

You're wrong. ;)

The two are not the same thing.

The reason people get confused talking about this is because they often get two very different concepts mixed up with each other.

Concept one: point of aim.
Concept two: intended consequence.

Point of aim is where you point your gun and what you do when you've got it pointed there. If there is more than one attacker, which one do you point at? Where on his body do you aim? You might point at the attacker's head, chest, pelvis, gun hand, eyeball. Do you pull the trigger right away? Or do you bark a command such as, "DON'T MOVE!!" or "DROP THAT WEAPON!"? You might not even shoot, if that is the best tactical choice. So your point of aim will vary depending upon circumstances.

But your intended consequence must never vary. If you are going to be one of the good guys, you must never shoot someone just for the purpose of killing them. That would make you a murderer. The only legal (and perhaps the only moral) justification for using deadly force is to save an innocent life, yours or someone else's. That means that the moment an innocent life is no longer in danger, the legal justification for killing another human being is gone gone gone. So your intended consequence, if you are one of the good guys, cannot ever change. You will always intend to stop the attacker from killing or maiming an innocent person.

That is the meaning of the phrase "shoot to stop." You shoot to stop the attack against innocent life.

"Shoot to kill" describes both point of aim and intended consequence in one phrase (and the intended consequence is not reliably legal).

"Shoot to stop" describes only the intended consequence and says nothing about point of aim.

pax

Hawkmoon
November 26, 2005, 04:37 PM
Well I can't let this go and maybe I am wrong but shoot to stop and shoot to kill is the same thing. When you injure or kill another human being your training and the object you used comes into play. Lets say you are driving down the road in your new Ford. Out comes a pedestrian and you run over them. Now many considerations go into this, were you under the influence, what driving training have you had, speeding, was your vehicle in a safe operating condition etc. "Not once though were you trained how to use the vehicle to hurt another human being." The fact that you got into the automoblile and drove off does not in and of itself indicate deadly or lethal intent.
The distinction is intent, and legally it does make a difference.

Your car analogy is irrelevent. An automobile can kill, but the laws of no state define the act of driving a motor vehicle as "use of deadly force." Once you pull that trigger (in some states merely by drawing the firearm from its holster), you are employing deadly force. You know that, we know that, the police know that, the judge knows that. The jury may need to have it explained to them, and a "jury of your peers" does not mean that a rocket scientist gets to have his jury comprised of Ph.D.s in astro-physics.

The laws under which we employ deadly force in self-defense allow us to use deadly force for ... self-defense. Not "to kill" but "to defend." Yes, the consequence of that use of deadly force may well be that the assailant dies. But your intent, at the time and in court later, has to be "to defend," not "to kill."

JMusic
November 26, 2005, 04:52 PM
Pax thanks for the comments. I'm new to this forum and maybe I don't quite understand what we are talking here. My assumptions are that the attacker is armed with a firearm. I believe the original post was something about trainers saying you are better off killing the assailant than having them testify against you. Again my assumptions are that your life is in danger with someone pointing a firearm at you. The next comment I read was a shoot to wound. Thus my comment when you shoot you shoot to kill meaning if you think deadly force is not necessary then you are using the wrong tool to stop the assault. We will have to agree to disagree on shoot to stop and shoot to kill is different. I say the act of shooting unless courts have changed since I worked LE is a deadly expectation. Shooting a gun out of someone's hand in my opinion was a mistake made by the Columbus Sniper. It was not an extrodinary shot at 65 yards for one, but it set expectations that in my opinion is dangerous for LE. With that one shot the public now had an example of non deadly force with the use of a firearm. That was wrong. The 308 bullet could have easily banked into the subject killing him or a bystander. Was deadly force authorized when that shot was made. I'm from that area and I was never able to get a direct answer. If it was not and it went bad well you know what outcome to expect. Pax if you have ever looked down the barrel of a gun or tried to save a victim your thoughts are not shoot to stop. You shoot to kill and kill quick. Again maybe my concept is dated but if this is the direction the courts and LE is going I don't understand.
Thanks for your time and explanations
Jim

JMusic
November 26, 2005, 05:02 PM
Ok Hawkmoon it seems the opinions from obvious experts here is you do not shoot to kill. I'm far from a cowboy here and it sounds like pudent advise that is evidently current words of wisdom. I have a prosecutor friend who I have not talked to in a while. This will give me a good reason to contact him. Thanks for the debate and your time.
Jim

GoBrush
November 26, 2005, 06:56 PM
Deadin hit this dead on!


Prosecutor: "Sir, did you shoot to kill Mr. Smith?"

Your answer: "No sir, I shot to stop Mr. Smith. I regret that he died."

Anything beyond this and you could be in deep s**t.


I would only add the following. A jury may better see your side if you told them you were so scared you P****d your pants:eek:

va_1168
November 26, 2005, 08:05 PM
Pretty good thread. I just took a personal protection course here in VA in preparation for concealed carry and the instructor more or less made the points that Pax and others here did. Make your mindset be 'Shoot to stop the threat'.

cz75bdneos22
November 26, 2005, 11:30 PM
thank you for all the input..i think pax and hawkmoon seem to have validated what i thought i was confused about..:scrutiny: thank you for putting to words what i could not..:banghead: i think i was right in both sides of the issue as i think there is a lot of discrepancies in what is deseminated (sp) at the different CHL classes across the nation..:eek: i needed to get informed. you guys helped.;) pending funds, :cool: i will pursue my CHL soon.

GRB
November 27, 2005, 08:33 PM
Glen your reply makes me laugh! How you came up with shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the air from my initial statement is beyond me. You said you would shoot to kill, that implies you would shoot until the person is dead. many i this fortum have obviously expressed that same thought pattern. I am just pointing out that you should be saying NOW that you would shoot to STOP not to kill to protect your own arse in the future. Sorry if you don't get it, but it is not the world of 25 years ago or more. Things have changed, you do not get trained today to shoot to kill. not in any civilian firearms training course that is worth its salt.

Hawkmoon
November 27, 2005, 09:03 PM
Things have changed, you do not get trained today to shoot to kill. not in any civilian firearms training course that is worth its salt.
Nor in any LEO training course, as I'm sure Glenn knows. (At least, not publicly and on the record.) LEOs aren't supposed to be in the business of killing people. "Wanted Dead or Alive" was an entertaining television show, but it doesn't work today as an operational philosophy.

JMusic
November 27, 2005, 10:08 PM
I doubt that training has changed that much. Terminology may very well be different. Guys I have carried firearms for 30 years and I've managed to stay out of jail. I plan on taking a course here that may bring me up to speed. Perhaps Thunder Ranch. We never had training on shooting and moving which is something you learn as you apply your trade. The exception I took was being treated as a cowboy when I know different. I have talked my way out of Bad situations both professionaly and as a civilian. I have always used my weapon as a last resort. Excuse me for the term but you have to admit when you pull your gun you are certainly showing bad intentions. AS far as schooling goes for CCW it leaves alot to be desired. We don't allow an officer on the street for 6 months while they attend classes then they are accompainied by a senior member. How are you going to give people the answers on when and when not to use their firearms in 6 hours. My point was that when you pull your firearm and point it at another person you are showing deadly intent. Hawkmoon you indicated this language was not used at least officially in your last statement. That leads me to believe you have heard it too. I still have contacts and friends in LE both Locally and Federally that I talk to reguarly. If we need to talk code here no one let me know. I believe we all know that when a person is incapacitated you quit firing. There are people visiting this web site with little to no experience in what to do. I don't think we can emphasize strongly enough how deadly an act pulling a firearm on someone else is. Instead of arguing sematics we all should be trying to explain how to diffuse the situation and if that cannot be done then how you should use your handgun, and what to do afterwards. The lawyers will tell them what to say.
Jim

Sir Aardvark
November 29, 2005, 09:30 PM
It would be nice to see a nationwide law giving the VICTIMS of crime protection against lawsuits brought about by the CRIMINALS (or their next of kin, as the case may be), thus making discussions such as this a moot point.

It seems as though the criminals have more rights and protections than the victims of their crimes.

Also, check out NRA's insurance program that insures you for liability and self-defense:

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp
http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/epl.asp

If you enjoyed reading about "I was surprised at this..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!