Mas Ayoob on SHOOT TO KILL

For information, at least one police department has tried to adopt a different standard of shooting to incapacitate:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/...lice-dept-trains-to-shoot-to-incapacitate.cnn

Michael Smerconish discussed this:

I've run across this idea myself. I recall once mentioning when I took the TX CHL test (child's play) a guy said I shot too well and should miss some as I would be asked in a self-defense incident why I didn't shoot the opponent in a less lethal spot. He said he knew this because he was a 'sniper'. I thought this was ridiculous until some police officers I know said they heard the same thing and it was even mentioned in their training.

Mas' points are excellent. Another reason for the gun carrier to look training and/or read up if you can't take a class.

GEM said:

For information, at least one police department has tried to adopt a different standard of shooting to incapacitate:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/...lice-dept-trains-to-shoot-to-incapacitate.cnn

Michael Smerconish discussed this:

I've run across this idea myself. I recall once mentioning when I took the TX CHL test (child's play) a guy said I shot too well and should miss some as I would be asked in a self-defense incident why I didn't shoot the opponent in a less lethal spot. He said he knew this because he was a 'sniper'. I thought this was ridiculous until some police officers I know said they heard the same thing and it was even mentioned in their training.

Mas' points are excellent. Another reason for the gun carrier to look training and/or read up if you can't take a class.

Click to expand...

Here's a few links to that information for those who prefer not to support a propaganda outlet that would like to see 2A go away.

https://www.police1.com/police-trai...oot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/

https://www.policemag.com/621709/ga-agency-training-officers-to-shoot-to-incapacitate

Let me start by making it clear that I understand the legal implications of the way one phrases things like goals, intent, etc. yet, I think of the difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop is just semantics when used outside the legal context. If someone draws a gun on me or charges me with a knife, blunt instrument or other deadly weapon, my first goal is to survive. If the only way I can do that is to use my firearm to stop the assault on me, I am going to do it. Will I be thinking about the difference between “to kill” and “to stop?” No, won’t be. Fact is that I will not likely be thinking at all. I will be reacting with muscle memory under the influence of a rush of adrenaline. From experience I can say that is true and you have only one thing driving you — staying alive. Taking non lethal aim is off the ‘to-do’ list for me. I have to assume the presentation of deadly force against me means I could die. Accordingly I am going to save my life, if I can.

We all know that people who get shot are often not incapacitated by a torso hit. If I shot an attacker and he did not stop the attack should I give him more time to try achieving his intent? Of course not. So, I am going to shoot for center mass. And if I get arrested and asked why did I shoot, my answers is going to be what my lawyer told me to say. I shot to save my life.

The first words that should come out of a good shoot by a civilian is....

"I feared for my life, and I shot to end the threat."

Followed by

"I will cooperate completely with the investigation after I gather myself and can have my legal counsel present."

I would never say that I "shot to kill," what a terrible comment to volunteer. Good on Mas Ayoob to continue to educate.

If you watched the Rittenhouse trial, the ADA was clearly trying to get Rittenhouse to say he was 'shooting to kill' when he shot Rosenbaum, Gruber, and Grosskreutz for just this reason. Rittenhouse avoided being pinned down on this even though the ADA was trying to goad him into saying it, spinning the question into a circle of Binger repeating "You intended to kill them" and Rittenhouse repeating "I defended myself," but there was a missed opportunity to score a knockout blow on the question as a whole by stating that "I shot to stop the threat to my person, and as soon as I perceived the threat stop, I stopped shooting, as in when I stopped shooting at Jump Kick Man when he ran away and did not shoot Grosskreutz until he pointed his gun at me and stopped shooting him after I perceived he was no longer threatening me."

I suggest you go over what you say with your lawyer and what they test in a jury simulation. What we think here needs empirical testing. Talking too much is a risk on the stand according to most. Starting to mention other shots on other folks, not relevant and you never know where that will go.

"I feared for my life."

"I shot in self - defense."

I wonder if these words have any true meaning in court, given how they've been thrown around left and right, like spent rubber prophylactics...

...kinda like a canned laugh track.

You hear it, but know it isn't real.

What would justify one pulling their concealed weapon and shooting someone? It should only be when ones life or the life of another is in jeopardy and one shoots to stop the threat where no other choice of action was perceived in that instance. It’s going to come out that I’m a “gun guy” so naturally I would have a “gun guy” response that would be truthful. I train to carry my weapon to stop threats to myself, loved ones or innocent bystanders (the last one in this list everyone should be sure they know who is innocent before interjecting oneself into the situation).

My words may come off as a “laugh track” up until the point the jury finds out that I train with my carry weapon and the reasons why, then they will understand why those words came out of my mouth as those words describe the only reasons why one should shoot another person (the threat).

I would be completely comfortable answering a prosecutors questioning on my “canned” response. It would be simply be answered with:

“I’ve trained with my legally concealed firearm for XX number of years, in the time that I’ve been lawfully carrying my weapon before this incident I had yet to pull it in self-defense so when I say I shot to end the threat that is my training on how to approach a situation of using my weapon to protect myself speaking.”

“To say that I was acting with malice, ill-intent or without concern for my actions, would be contrary to my extensive history of carrying a firearm without incident.”

Period, end of discussion.

I have to say, unfortunately, some of the “shoot to kill” advise comes directly from law enforcement. I personally saw our sheriff tell a women to “shoot him and make sure he’s dead, then call me… not the department, call me.” That sheriff eventually went to prison, and has since died.

I have also heard a different cop from somewhere else say, to a room full of CCW’s, “well if you’re involved in a shooting, it’s best to have only one story, if you know what I mean”

After that try to convince someone who’s heard that, from people of authority no less, that they shouldn’t “shoot to kill”

Retracted

Kleanbore said:

I'm not at ll sure that I would want to use those words.

Click to expand...

In my case, I'll use language that reflects the language of my state self defense law. "I believed I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."

It's kinda hard to go wrong with that.

@Jeff White you're right, it does rear its head.
This reply was posted in a thread not that long ago:
"22 shorts are NOT a first choice defensive caliber, but in terms of effect, a face full of them could well convince the attacker they should die"

Spats McGee said:

My favorite explanation went as follows:

When the police arrive, tell them you shot to stop the threat.
When your wife asks you what happened, tell her you shot to stop the threat.
When it’s just you and your dog, tell him you shot to stop the threat.
When Saint Peter asks you at the Pearly Gates what happened, tell him you shot to stop the threat.

Anyone who thinks they have the pat answer to their hypothetical prosecutor has never been the subject of cross examination.

Click to expand...

And you don't get to go off on a tangent and regurgitate your wonderful, well thought out, mic-dropping paragraph on the subject. You get to answer the question(s) as they're put to you by the prosecution.

And prior to court, where you CAN go off on a tangent and regurgitate your wonderful, well thought out, mic-dropping paragraph on the subject, you may very well indeed find out later that saying more cost you more.

Another side note from me, a person with boundless experience in NOT being an attorney or LEO:

Do NOT attempt to expound on ANYTHING beyond the bare bones statement that "you shot to stop the threat".

It is human nature to do so. Law enforcement officers know and understand this and will ask questions geared to take advantage of that aspect of human nature. Anybody you talk to or witnessed the event may be called forth on what you said or did at any time.

An affirmative self-defense is, essentially, an admission that you did, in fact, shoot someone and that you were justified in doing so. However, your actual legal defense takes place in court, should it go there. THE MORE YOU SAY BEFORE YOU GET TO COURT, THE MORE THE PROSECUTION HAS TO WORK WITH IN BUILDING A CASE AGAINST YOU.

And it does not matter how well you may think you've worded everything you said. In fact, if you think you can build a water-tight case in 100% support of yourself by opening your mouth more, your naivete on the subject is abysmally pitiful.

Do not lie when the police come. Make your simple statement that "you shot to stop the threat". Then EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, ASK TO CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, AND DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD UNTIL YOUR ATTORNEY IS WITH YOU.

Opening your mouth to say "I'm not talking to you until my attorney arrives" is not keeping your mouth shut. Continuing to tell LEO you're not talking to them after you've claimed your right to remain silent is not keeping your mouth shut. Talking to someone else in the area is not keeping your mouth shut.

GEM said:

For information, at least one police department has tried to adopt a different standard of shooting to incapacitate: |Smerconish video|

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the LaGrange PD training described is not, in reality, a change to a "different standard" from shoot to stop, just an expansion of options when circumstances allow (specifically, an attacker without a firearm, but with a deadly melee weapon at some distance) to stop the assailant from acting. If, in fact, the PD's previous policy had been shoot to kill, then yes, this is a different standard from that ill-advised policy.

More importantly, both the professor and the radio host (Smerconish) really need to watch the Ayoob video and move away form their old-school shoot to kill language. Further, Smeconish should know better than to cite the controversial Rizzo as an authority in this discussion.

Thank you for posting the video, OP.

For me, the video forced me internalize and change my thinking. Stop the threat. That’s all it will ever be now, for me.

BreechFace said:

I would be completely comfortable answering a prosecutors questioning on my “canned” response. It would be simply be answered with:

“I’ve trained with my legally concealed firearm for XX number of years, in the time that I’ve been lawfully carrying my weapon before this incident I had yet to pull it in self-defense so when I say I shot to end the threat that is my training on how to approach a situation of using my weapon to protect myself speaking.”

“To say that I was acting with malice, ill-intent or without concern for my actions, would be contrary to my extensive history of carrying a firearm without incident.”

Period, end of discussion.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Follow the advice to say you defended yourself, point out witnesses and evidence and then want your lawyer. Do you know that training has been brought up in some trials to demonstrate that you trained to 'kill' and might encourage blood lust. Oh, you have an extensive history of practicing potentially lethal shots? How interesting.

I've also read that these canned responses are seen by some in the gun world as a get out of jail card and you won't be arrested. Not so. Sometimes the canned responses are argued to be evidence of a plan to actually kill someone as you have set up your alibi. The arriving law might see it that way. There are cases where the shooter announces such and has told his or her speech to others and that was seen as an intent to use force or even premeditation.

Yep, keep your loved ones off social media. "Daddy had to kill him! Peepaw taught him how to do that!"