Always shoot to kill?

[Deanimator]

The whole notion of saying "shooting to stop" is for court.

I honestly don't care if my attacker is killed or not, so long as he stops whatever it is he's doing that made it necessary for me to shoot him in the first place.

I don't care if drops dead.
I don't care if he falls down and giggles.
I don't care if he's disintegrated as if he'd been at ground zero in Hiroshima.
I don't care if he's transported to another dimension.

As long as he's no longer a threat to my life and limb, I'm happy, and with no regrets.

 

[woodybrighton]

a pelvis shot might well stop someone.
good luck trying it in a real gunfight COM hit is probably the best you can pull
off in a real fight.

 

[Kleanbore]

I once had a cop actually say to me:

"If you ever have to shoot someone in self defense, shoot to kill. If they're dead they can't testify that it wasn't self defense."

Right up there with "a policeman once told me to drag the body..."'

I think the person's live testimony would be the least of your worries. Forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, security camera images--and the consistency of same with your story, the consistency of your statements, and possibly, the presence or lack of a weapon are what you need to be concerned with.

Don't forget that many states have laws that prohibit civil claims against the defender if his actions were lawful self-defense.

I very much agree with your second statement, that if you admit you only shot to wound you probably shouldn't have been shooting at all

.

And so do I.


There's a little catch-22 there. In my state, and probably in some others, if a person uses force in lawful self defense, he "is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability". Moreover, while "The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense...", such is not the case unless there has been a trial and aquittal in criminal court.

So, as I understand it, there could be a civil trial even if no criminal charges are filed. Your defense is the same, but the burden of proof for the plaintiff becomes one of the preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt, and where I live you need more than one juror to prevent the finding.

 

[wyocarp]

I don't think anyone on here has gotten it right. I won't shoot to kill, stop, or wound.

I shoot because I was afraid for my life.

I am sure the guys I spoke with after an incident got tired of hearing it.

Now, the fact that I might be afraid until the breath is gone from whatever I was afraid of is a different matter and might be personal.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

1. Shoot to stop the attack.

2. Shoot only to stop the attack.

3. No stop shot is certain.

4. Accordingly, quickly put as many rounds as possible into center body mass until the threat stops.

5. You may find that your entire fifteen or thirty round magazine empties before the assailant completely stops his attack.

6. When the attack stops, stop shooting.

7. "It all happened so fast."

 

[eye5600]

What MORE are you going to do, call in an airstrike?

Interesting possibility.... Do you have a phone number for that?

 

[runrabbitrun]

The statements I've see in over they years advises one to say:

I was in fear of my life.

NEVER say I wanted to KILL that SOB.
Or anything remotely, that may be construed as you
applying more force then needed to neutralize a threat.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Round go to center mass. Specially inside home in my state castle doctrine. There no further retreat necessary and lethal force is supported.

In public places for CCW (CHL) retreat first. If not possible, shoot until threat is stopped.

Even if you pull the gun and the bad guy turns to flee without you shooting< DONT SHOOT BG IN THE BACK. That is very important. Let him go.

I will only draw when murder/death/kill is a real possibility right this second and usually my gun and ammuntion choices are very close to what LEO's carry. Center mass please.

That is why most if not all my firing range targets support center mass.

In my home?

Well... there will be a fire team of two vs whatever is breaching our door and you all can read all about it in the media next day before our bodies make it to the creamatory.

It will take about a week before my puking and shakes stop long enough to assemble sentences to respond to LEO and Court questions. That is how much of a wuss I am at my old age. Now 20 years ago I could kick my own bum all day long and didnt care who knew it back then.

Regarding some who think life and death decisions made with training, cool heads etc ... Ive already made dozens of those over the years and... for the most part either saved my own life, another's life or that of my wife and who knows how many others. That was part of work. The same mindset for manual at arms drill while under fire wont be that difficult to use. Nice and calm, ho-hum as quickly as you can.

The problem is the body makes chemicals that turn large slides into tiny things and big buttons into very small ones while twisting the time sense beyond slow. I hate that part of the problem most. It's almost like you have to load me up with a 50 caliber handgun with a foot long ported brake equipped muzzle with shells the size of soda cans so I can work it easily in a fight.

Think of it as a fisher price toy for young kids not yet learned fine motor control.

I do worry about the spouse though. She is a fighter and will empty that shotgun into the BG until the blood stops spurting. I will get that addressed in the near future on the next shoot when she sees the nice big hole one slug can make.

 

[Steve in PA]

"For the multiple agencies I worked for, all taught "Shoot to kill"."

Well those "agencies" have no idea what they are talking about. I've been a LEO for over 10 years and a Firearms Instructor for about 8 and I have never, ever heard, read or seen any agency teach, instruct or hint at "shooting to kill".

You shoot to stop the threat, period. If the person dies, the person dies. But if the person drops to the ground and is no longer a threat you do not continue to shoot because you "shoot to kill".

 

[bang_bang]

You shoot to stop the threat, period. If the person dies, the person dies. But if the person drops to the ground and is no longer a threat you do not continue to shoot because you "shoot to kill".

That's my understanding about self defense. You shoot to stop, but if the person dies that's just a variable of the equation. Once they are no longer a threat, such as they run around the corner, jump back in their car, or hit the ground, the threat is stopped.

Never let your guard down, though. Even if you think the threat is eliminated, still be on high alert and call the police immediately. Don't disarm until the police are on the scene.

 

[iiranger]

Silly question, really...

Try to find someone with certified "combat experience." Known two. Both said the same thing. Anyone who claims to enjoy combat is #1) LYING!!! or #2). on the loose from a "nut house."

What "gets lost" in the discussion is the effects of chemicals. In combat the consumption of liquor is legendary, as available. Other chemicals are less discussed. Opiates in Viet Nam. Then there is adrenalin. In civie situation, who knows what the BG has consumed? One would hope you are not near "drunk" and armed...

POINT: You shoot the BG with a shotgun or ??? and it may just "make him mad." Seldom will he be alone. Make his friends mad too. YES, he will die within 30 days, maybe 30 minutes BUT what will he and his friends be doing in those 30 minutes... ???

And you try to convey this to a jury. (ha, ha).

You are much, MUCH better off to not fire and avoid the "paperwork." Hit 911 on a couple of cell phones and let them find you HIDING! and deal with the BG(s)... If you shoot, you shoot until the "threat" is "over" or you run out of ammo.

Bodys that have been shot do not fall down and lay still like in the movies. [SURPRISE!] They may become very "spastic." You cannot be sure if there is still "intent" so you shoot again, and again... Parts may come off. Blood may be everywhere. The good outcome is where the blood is not yours. Vomit, maybe, but no blood.

Doubt me? Find a copy of Audie Murphy's biography(s). He probably killed more white men in the 20th century, legally, than any other. Where? European Theater of Combat, WW II. Picked up every combat decoration available including the Congressional Medal. You can catch the movie, "To Hell and Back" in which he starred. Part that gets left out is in the books. Spent the rest of his short life sleeping with a pistol under his pillow. 1911? Lost 3 wives who got tired of being pistol whipped in his nightmares...

You MIGHT want to save that last bullet for yourself. luck.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Repeat this in this order:

I was afraid for my life...,

I will not answer any further questions nor make any further statements without legal counsel

Then shut up.


Whatever you did, shot to stop or otherwise, isn't relevant unless you run your mouth, and a poor choice of words due to the aftermath of a recent lethal threat has gotten lots of good people into trouble when they were right all the time. A self righteous prosecutor trying to make their name often has no bearing on reality.

Did you forget about the Duke University LaCross Team?

LD

 

[10-Ring]

I shoot to end the threat PERIOD and have never put much thought than that into it. I don't want anyone to misinterpret my actions to be anything other than defending me & my family.

 

[Jacka L Ope]

read the laws in your state. most state laws allow the use of deadly force when it is absolutely necessary to save a life of yourself or another.

That's the best advice I could give as well. In Washington State, upon receipt of your CCW permit, you're also given a pamphlet outlining the laws of the state with regard to justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding or when homicide is justifiable by other persons.

The specific statutes, if interested:

RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

For your particular jurisdiction, know the rules of deadly force.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

10 Ring, suppose I brought down BG and while he was down he grabbed my ankle. Wife shoots him through and through. Now there is going to be a hole in the floor along with part of the BG as evidence that we shot him after he was down.

That's jail where we are.

I suppose in 20 years we will be learning to us egigantic nerf balls fired to sticky the bad guy to a wall long enough for leos to scrape him off and cart to jail.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Hungry Seagull: "I suppose in 20 years we will be learning to us egigantic nerf balls fired to sticky the bad guy to a wall long enough for leos to scrape him off and cart to jail."

Or you could just pin him to the wall by his coat collar with a cleaver, then when he grasps its handle to free himself from the wall, empty the gun into him. After all, he had attacked you in your home, he was coming back at you, and he had a cleaver in his hand. One piece of drywall is a lot easier to patch or replace than the entire interior, ceiling and floors of a rec room and its contents.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Duke of Doubt, I hear ya.

There are going to be people who will shoot to kill, others not so shoot and some will try to shoot legs or something.

What is it at some point in the future going to take before the bad guys understand that breaking into a home or bothering granny on the sidewalk is going to get them killed?

Does it matter to the BG anymore? Is Prision or death that much attractive to survival and freedom?

Are we that bad off on our way down the moral slope to self destruction having lost respect for life of our fellow man?

A year ago we were not in a position to do anything if someone wanted to hurt us. Classic sheep.

Now we feel as if we actually do something LEGALLY to stop this threat we must walk across a court room full of very sharp people willing to tear apart with words and get the desired results leading to either Jail, gas chamber (Back in my time it was Maryland's death penalty) or freedom with so many restrictions Life free is not possible.

Just because BG sees something to break into a house.

What does the BG get for his trouble huh? Death? Ok. Jail? Ok Torn apart and win a lawsuit to pay all the medical billing and live large? Ok.

Nothing I tell ya, nothing.

If I had to choose, I will stop when that BG is down. Hopefully the weapon and caliber is uber enough to make sure he's gone. As in 6 feet down. Not necessarily with intent to kill.

A marine told me a long time ago something.... you hit a sob over the head or in the jewels and if he gets back up... you are in trouble boy.

There is just too much focus on the after math and the stories told than the root cause of the entire circus... the actual attempt to break in or shooting at someone in a mall or something.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"For the multiple agencies I worked for, all taught "Shoot to kill"."

Well those "agencies" have no idea what they are talking about. I've been a LEO for over 10 years and a Firearms Instructor for about 8 and I have never, ever heard, read or seen any agency teach, instruct or hint at "shooting to kill".

You shoot to stop the threat, period. If the person dies, the person dies. But if the person drops to the ground and is no longer a threat you do

If those agencies have that "shoot to kill" policy on paper, they are begging to lose lawsuits.

 

[GRIZ22]

The entire basis for allowing the use of lethal force to defend yourself or someone else is that the offender is doing something so bad they need to be stopped immediately. It doesn't matter whether the offender lives or dies because they were doing something so bad.

You are always shooting to stop.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You are always shooting to stop.

Absolutely. (Emphasis added.)

 

[Steve in PA]

"If those agencies have that "shoot to kill" policy on paper, they are begging to lose lawsuits."

Exactly. And if these "agencies" tell you to shoot to kill.....but to testify that you shot to stop the threat......you will fall flat on your face.

Saying one thing but doing another is a giant disaster waiting to happen.

No law allows you to kill. The laws allow you to use deadly force to protect yourself.

No one says shoot to wound. Shooting to wound is just as bad as shooting to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. The threat either stops, goes away.....or dies.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Dead right. Couldn't have said it better, myself.

 

[divemedic]

Any time you fire your weapon, you have just employed lethal force. It matters little whether you fired to wound, to stop, or to kill. It can hurt you more from a legal standpoint to testify that you shot him in the leg to stop him, because by your own admission, you just said that lethal force was not necessary.

 

[Speedo66]

I think you should just shoot the gun or knife out of his or(PC answer) her hand, with out actually damaging any flesh. Hopefully you will not be charged with destruction of property if their gun or knife is damaged.

My agency would not say "1 shot in the chest, 1 shot in the head" during training, too PC. It was "he's got a vest on". That was the clue to shoot for the head.

You shoot to end the threat, no matter how many shots it takes. If he or she is still holding a weapon, you keep on shooting. If the person dies as a result, you only shot to end the threat, not to kill.

 

[Big Daddy Grim]

Shoot center mass