Lethal force means killing

[Cosmoline]

Pax--

In your hypos, what Bob THINKS does not matter. It's his actions that count, and whether those actions were justified. I think we're arguing about different issues.

 

[pax]

As I said in the initial post, of COURSE you must stop shooting when there is no longer justification to use deadly force. What I object to is the MISUSE of this concept to claim that it's dangerous to intend to kill when you pull the trigger. Indeed, the law will presume you intended to kill if you shoot and kill somebody. The only question is whether or not the killing was justified.

Cosmo, we aren't actually on different pages, you know.

My complaint was that you were arguing against a straw man. EG, I was saying that you were arguing against the MISUSE of the concept, not against the proper use of it.

Carry on.

pax

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

 

[brownie0486]

Okay boys and girls, here we go:

I shot to stop him from killing/maming me. Mindset

I shot to kill him before he killed me. Mindset

Here's the difference to the jury as instructed by the DA on what to consider.

The defendant was angry that the perp would try to harm him, and in his own words he wanted to kill him for doing so. It is against the law to kill another except in self defense, but in this case, we have Mr. defendants own admission he was upset at being attacked and wanted to kill this man, which he did and for which he should pay.

Other side of the coin: The defendant was in fear for his life and he shot the perp in order to stop the perps actions which resulted in his death.

Either instances involve mindset of the defendant at the time the shot/s were fired. If you don;t think mindset has a determining factor in a self defense scenario when you are on trial, go watch a capital murder case in superior court sometime.

The courts ALWAYS look at the mindset of people charged with a crime. Was it inadvertent? Perhaps we reduce the charge to negligent homicide. Was it vengence and anger on the part of the defendant? perhaps second degree murder.

Was it premeditated? Lets see, I see here where Cosmo has been on the boards stating his mindset is shoot to kill if he ever has to defend himself, so we can make now make a case relative his mindset before any incident [ whether justified or not ]and that folks is premediated which will be murder in the first degree.

What you say and your subsequent established mindset by your own words is taken into consideration when you are possibly facing charges. Anyone who doesn;t think so had better wake up.

Wrong? , say it again folks, it's a mantra you all need to remember.

[ Mindset, mindset, mindset ] which dictated your actions when you actually were confronted with a scenario which you had previously thought out relative self defense.

Lets see, how about this: The cops arrive, one shooter says, he came at me with a knife and I was so upset that he would attempt this I killed him.

Another shooter says, he came at me with a knife and I shot him so he would stop his aggression towards me.

One connotates intent to kill, the other connotates a justified self defense scenario.

One gets charged by his words[ whether he gets convicted or not later after spending 30-50K on defense ], the other shows remourse that his defense of his person which caused a death, as that was not his intent [ to kill ].

Intent ladies and gentlemen WILL be taken into consideration by the cops, the DA and the courts.

Repeat the mantra until you understand that it isn't JUST whether your actions were justified but also your mindset at the time.

Everybody got it now?

Brownie

 

[David Park]

Park--You're a much better shot than I am!

Really? You've been talking about head and heart shots. The pelvis is a bigger target, basically the same as COM but lower. It also allows you to aim low, so the BG doesn't suddenly duck and "disappear" below your sights. That's what Mas Ayoob taught me, FWIW.

If all you want to do is break a bone, use one of those heavy Irish fighting sticks.

But if I'm close enough to hit him with my shillelagh (I'm part-Irish ), he's also close enough to stab me. I'd rather step back and shoot him.

Indeed, shooting someone where deadly force isn't quite justified because you subjectively thought that it would only break a bone is probably going to land you in prison.

I never said that. Of course I would never shoot unless faced with an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent (I've got that memorized ). The point is, I'm not shooting him in the pelvis because I don't want to kill him. I don't buy into that "shoot to wound" nonsense. I'm shooting to stop him, and if he dies in the process, tough. My intent was not to kill, but my intent was not to avoid killing either.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes the "kill" shot and the "stop" shot are different. Often they are the same, head shots for example, and the distinction doesn't matter. But a heart shot is not a reliable stopper, even though it's usually lethal. One of the BGs in the FBI Miami shootout was hit in the heart and went on to kill several good guys before he was finally stopped.

Consider a woman attacked by a rapist:

Hypo 1: She shoots to stop and aims for his groin area to prevent him from reaching her with his knife. He goes down, she runs away and calls the cops. Good for her.

Hypo 2: She shoots him in the groin so he'll never be able to rape someone again. He goes down, but this rapist had a gun instead of a knife, and he shoots her. Bad tactics because she was thinking about punishing the rapist, not stopping him.

Do you see the difference in mindset?

 

[Sean Smith]

The point of the COM shot is that the odds of scoring any hit in something vital is supposedly higher. Because gunfights aren't characterized by precise marksmanship, though that is of course the goal. If you pull a shot down with a hip shot, you either hit an extremity or miss completely. Pull a COM shot down, and you could hit the pelvis OR (if you are real lucky) the spine. Pull up, and you hit the neck or head, which gives a good chance of major blood vessel, airway OR spinal damage. Pull left or right, and you score a not-great-but-better-than-nothing arm hit. Hit somewhere COM and you could take out the heart, lungs, spine, and/or major blood vessels.

It isn't that any one thing you could hit with a COM shot is that "great", so much as that your odds of hitting ANYTHING that will do some good are higher. A hip shot strikes me, anatomically speaking, as pretty worthless unless you luck out and actually break the entire pelvis in two, which is highly unlikely...

The only rapid, reliable stop is a central nervous system hit... brain or spine. Everything else can be too slow, but unfortunately CNS hits are really, really hard in real life.

 

[David Park]

Sean, I've been using the pelvis shot as an example, since it's a case where "stop" and "kill" are not necessarily the same. I still train on COM/center-chest shots.

I agree that incapacitating shots are hard, and arguably "kill" shots are even harder (within the parameters of self defense). If I shoot and miss, but the attacker turns and runs, I'm happy even though there's no dead BG at my feet.

We're all on the same page here, just looking at the subject from different angles.

 

[Cosmoline]

No, shooting to kill in defense of life is not first degree murder. That's the whole point of a defense of self provision in the penal code.

Here's an example of a defense of self provision:

AS 11.81.335. Justification: Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Self.

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent

(1) the use of nondeadly force is justified under AS 11.81.330 ; and

(2) the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, or robbery in any degree.

(b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except there is no duty to retreat if the person is

(1) on premises which the person owns or leases and the person is not the initial aggressor; or

(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380.

----

That's it. Nothing about the "mindset." You could have a mindset not to kill, but if you do kill you'd better be ready to defend your actions under a provision like this. The question is whether or not deadly force is justified. If it is, then you'd better know how to use it and you'd better not claim to be surprised if you actually kill the guy.

ALSO: Look to your own state's provisions. Most states are quite as trigger happy as mine, and wouldn't let you burn down folks to prevent robbery!

 

[David Park]

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

 

[Hkmp5sd]

We are arguing semantics...

When a person is doing something that requires your immediate intervention to prevent the death or serious injury of yourself or others, you are (in most states), authorized to use deadly force to prevent that person from accomplishing that act.

While he may die in the process, what you are actually trying to do is, by your actions, is whatever is necessary to stop him from successfully completing that action. When the BG no longer has the ability to complete that action, deadly force is no longer justified. There are cases, especially in LE situations where they have the situation contained and time to consider alternatives, where they are justified in using deadly force and they are "shooting to stop", but they do not want to use a killing shot. An incapacitating shot (like hitting the elbow or knee) may be the best way to halt the BG's actions instead of a COM shot.

Regardless of what you call it, in a self defense situation, you are "shooting to stop" the badguy's actions. A byproduct of the use of deadly force is that the guy may die in the process, and in that instance, your "shoot to stop" also included "shoot to kill."

 

[brownie0486]

If you were heard saying that you were going to kill anyone who pulled a gun on you, that would be premeditation to your subsequent action [ the killing of another ].

A case could be made, it may not stick, but it may have to be defended.

Joe the drug dealer is overheard by several saying that if another gang member threatens him again he's going to kill him. The gang member pulls a gun on him a day later and Joe kills him. Based on witness statements, what degree of murder is he charged with?

Brownnie

 

[Cosmoline]

If you were heard saying that you were going to kill anyone who pulled a gun on you, that would be premeditation to your subsequent action [ the killing of another ]."

Mmm. Not quite. If you were heard saying that you wanted to kill Joe Schmo and that you were going to wait until he took his Glock out to show it to you, THAT would certainly interest the DA. But simply saying that you would kill a generic someone if that someone is about to kill you or your family member is not "premeditation" at all. It's pretty reasonable, as the defense of self statutes make clear.

"Joe the drug dealer is overheard by several saying that if another gang member threatens him again he's going to kill him. The gang member pulls a gun on him a day later and Joe kills him. Based on witness statements, what degree of murder is he charged with?"

If the gang member placed Joe in imminent deadly peril, and Joe could not retreat, he would have a justification of self defense. The problem is, being a druggie the cops might not believe him. Saying you expect to kill particular people is never a very good idea. In duty-to-retreat states, the argument could be made that if you knew so-and-so was after you, you should have simply avoided the confrontation.

This has nothing to do with preparing to kill to defend your life in general terms.

 

[brownie0486]

"preparing to kill to defend"

I think one should not be preparing to kill for any reason.

"preparing"- isn't that some physical action brought forth by a thought process?

Hope you never have to tell the tale that for x number of years you have been preparing to kill to defend. The aftermath stance of another attacking and you killing him as you had prepared to do x number of years if you ever had to defend yourself will not set well.

A DA would have a field day with that attitude. I won't be ever heard speaking that I always practiced to kill someone if I had to defend my life.

Once again, don't ever think the DA's and juries are not going to look at your mindset at the time of the event. It doesn't have to be written into the law, it goes to a possible motive for the death, even if the action was valid.

YMMV of course.

Brownie

 

[DrPsycho]

I much prefer the term incapacitate. I forgot where I picked it up, but it sure carries alot less stigma/emotions than "lethal" or "kill".

 

[MeekandMild]

Just curious. How many of you boys and girls would finish your gunfight and immediately start CPR on the BG?

 

[brownie0486]

State mandated first responder,

Yup, go over and help the man out and see if he can live to sue me.

Even if not mandated, I'd be prone to try to keep him from succumbing to his injuries, course that may just mean checking for a pulse and rehosltering.

Brownie

 

[pax]

Meek --

If I have to call 911 after shooting someone, my first words will be, "Please send an ambulance, someone has been shot."

If and only if it is safe to do so, I will render aid as necessary to everyone who is injured -- beginning with the innocents but including the BG(s) if caring for them is not contra-safety.

Of course, if my primary goal in shooting were simply to kill the perpetrator, I would not render aid and might even delay calling 911 to give the BG time to expire. But I'm not that kind of person. If I need to shoot, my purpose would be to stop an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent -- not to kill.

pax

If I won't protect myself, what right do I have to expect another person to risk his or her life for mine? -- Sunni Maravillosa