Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I was surprised at this...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by cz75bdneos22, Nov 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cz75bdneos22

    cz75bdneos22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    brownsville texas
    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:
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2005
  2. TarpleyG

    TarpleyG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,981
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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
     
  3. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    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...
     
  4. JMusic

    JMusic member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    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
     
  5. Sinsaba

    Sinsaba Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    Northern VA
    I think tha what some find wrong with the comment is the fact that the individual made it in front of witnesses.
     
  6. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    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...
     
  7. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,101
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    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
     
  8. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,291
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Threats and deadly force

    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.
     
  9. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    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.
     
  10. GRB

    GRB member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,774
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2005
  11. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    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...
     
  12. GRB

    GRB member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,774
    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.
     
  13. boofus

    boofus Guest

    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.
     
  14. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    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?"
     
  15. HonorsDaddy

    HonorsDaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
  16. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    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
     
  17. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    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
     
  18. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Bobby ~

    Can you give me a cite for that?

    Glenn ~

    Good post.

    pax
     
  19. Strings

    Strings Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    30 miles from Everywhere, right in the middle of N
    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...
     
  20. JamisJockey

    JamisJockey member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    Northern VA
    +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.).
     
  21. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    standby Pax, gotta find it in the RCW's.

    Bobby
     
  22. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    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.
     
  23. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Sorry Glenn. I was typing while you were editing, and yours hit first. (I type about as fast as one finger will let me!)
     
  24. vynx

    vynx Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    719
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    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.
     
  25. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    for Pax...

    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page