To the Rambo(s) who say they'd shoot an attacker until they were down and then "continue shooting until they stopped twitching":
I've heard this said by different people. I'm a handgun owner and a handicapped person. I occasionally get targeted by criminals. So I am definately a supporter of hand guns rights and concealed weapon carry rights and the RESPONSIBLE use of those rights. I emphasize the word responsible.
Any self defense shooting is going to be reviewed by authorities. Do you want to go to prison?
I think that once the person (attacker) is no longer threatening you, you can't legally shoot them. Morally, I don't think you should. If you are still shooting them after they are on the ground and incapacitated, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that was self defense.
A prosecutor would say (rightly so) that it was self defense until the attacker went down, but after that you had no need or right to shoot him further because he was no longer an attacker. You were the attacker after the other man down. That's what they'd say, and they'd be right.
If they can then prove the final shots after attacker already down killed him, you are in for a world of trouble. Probably man slaughter at least. This if you can prove that it was self defense while the man was on his feet, which will be harder to prove since you kept shooting him after he was "down and twitching".
Kicking a person who is down is considered attempted murder in some states. i.e. - if you continue to shoot (or kick or whatever) the attacker after they are down and incapacitated or no longer attacking, then you have become the attacker. Legally you will be punished severely.
Do you want to go to prison? Do you want to kill a man or just get him to stop attacking you? What is your true goal? If you just want him to stop attacking you, then why keep shooting him after he's "down and twitching" ?
You have the right to use deadly force only as long as a "reasonable person" would believe you were threatened. Do you think a reasonable judge or juror will think you were still threatened by a man who is "down and twitching".
For your own good, and for the good of other gun owners' rights, and for society, don't think like Rambo. Rambo went to prison, even in the movie. Remember that.
Besides, not even Rambo was that ruthless as to kill an enemy who was already incapacitated. Rambo wasn't actually ruthless at all to those who were no longer a threat. That's just a movie, but I think you see my point.
My goal and the proper goal is to shoot only as long as I perceive I am threatened. An attacker who has collapsed is no longer a threat, but don't turn you back on them just the same. I would continue shooting as long as they are coming toward me or still have a weapon in their hand. If they drop their weapon AND stop moving forward or back away, or if they collapse, I'd stop shooting, but still keep my gun aimed at ready. Once I was sure they were no longer a threat I'd lower my gun and call 911. If you don't call 911, you can be prosecuted for murder if the man dies for lack of medical care, even if the shooting was self defense.
Think about these things in advance. Maybe consult your attorney. See what he says.
In any case, this is only a discussion. Thanks to everyone for participating. I just wanted to stimulate people to think about these issues, and in turn for you to stimulate my thoughts. Thanks again to everyone.
Thanks from wbond, the recoil sensitive guy (hand held together by 4 screws).
I've heard this said by different people. I'm a handgun owner and a handicapped person. I occasionally get targeted by criminals. So I am definately a supporter of hand guns rights and concealed weapon carry rights and the RESPONSIBLE use of those rights. I emphasize the word responsible.
Any self defense shooting is going to be reviewed by authorities. Do you want to go to prison?
I think that once the person (attacker) is no longer threatening you, you can't legally shoot them. Morally, I don't think you should. If you are still shooting them after they are on the ground and incapacitated, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that was self defense.
A prosecutor would say (rightly so) that it was self defense until the attacker went down, but after that you had no need or right to shoot him further because he was no longer an attacker. You were the attacker after the other man down. That's what they'd say, and they'd be right.
If they can then prove the final shots after attacker already down killed him, you are in for a world of trouble. Probably man slaughter at least. This if you can prove that it was self defense while the man was on his feet, which will be harder to prove since you kept shooting him after he was "down and twitching".
Kicking a person who is down is considered attempted murder in some states. i.e. - if you continue to shoot (or kick or whatever) the attacker after they are down and incapacitated or no longer attacking, then you have become the attacker. Legally you will be punished severely.
Do you want to go to prison? Do you want to kill a man or just get him to stop attacking you? What is your true goal? If you just want him to stop attacking you, then why keep shooting him after he's "down and twitching" ?
You have the right to use deadly force only as long as a "reasonable person" would believe you were threatened. Do you think a reasonable judge or juror will think you were still threatened by a man who is "down and twitching".
For your own good, and for the good of other gun owners' rights, and for society, don't think like Rambo. Rambo went to prison, even in the movie. Remember that.
Besides, not even Rambo was that ruthless as to kill an enemy who was already incapacitated. Rambo wasn't actually ruthless at all to those who were no longer a threat. That's just a movie, but I think you see my point.
My goal and the proper goal is to shoot only as long as I perceive I am threatened. An attacker who has collapsed is no longer a threat, but don't turn you back on them just the same. I would continue shooting as long as they are coming toward me or still have a weapon in their hand. If they drop their weapon AND stop moving forward or back away, or if they collapse, I'd stop shooting, but still keep my gun aimed at ready. Once I was sure they were no longer a threat I'd lower my gun and call 911. If you don't call 911, you can be prosecuted for murder if the man dies for lack of medical care, even if the shooting was self defense.
Think about these things in advance. Maybe consult your attorney. See what he says.
In any case, this is only a discussion. Thanks to everyone for participating. I just wanted to stimulate people to think about these issues, and in turn for you to stimulate my thoughts. Thanks again to everyone.
Thanks from wbond, the recoil sensitive guy (hand held together by 4 screws).
Last edited: