Davionmaximus
Member
Go hog hunting and test the theory.. I have had to track em after hitting with a .308 which is much more powerful than a 9mm...
Shoot 'Em Til They Drop Theory...
- Thread starter Brian@ITC
- Start date
- Status
Lee Lapin said:
Really? When I say "Dead men tell no lies" I am saying that when you even pull your gun to shoot somebody, you had better be justified in using deadly force. If you are using deadly force as a civilian then you are better served by making the force deadly. Not shooting to meme or "stop the threat".
Anyone you justifiably shoot that you don't kill will lie as much as they possibly can about the circumstances of the shooting. One, to save their hide, and two to retaliate civilly or criminally against you. In most shooting situations where it's just you (non leo) and the perp, it is words against words. I know my side of the story is the truth. The jury doesn't.
Regardless, I'll step out of this thread.
model of 1905
member
To make it clearer, if you use a deadly weapon (gun and pistol) you are justified in using it most times only if you have determined that you need to kill the other guy. You have lost control of the situation so much that you think your life is in danger and the only option open to you is to kill the other guy and that is why you are using a deadly weapon.
If you try to shoot someone in the leg, then the law seems to think that you were still in control enough that your life was not on the line. Thus your use of a deadly weapon is overkill. People have gotten into trouble for trying to do the right thing by not shooting to kill.
Masaad Ayoob describes this better than I can. But summed up, if you need to shoot, shoot center mass until he stops being a threat. If you don't think shooting him dead is needed, don't shoot at all. If he survives being shot while you were shooting center mass, all the better.
mljdeckard
Member
You should shoot and train with the assumption that the threat will continue towards you, and you may well be fighting them off and shooting them at the same time. You must assume that all aspects of your plan will go wrong.
It is a summation of what Ayoob says.
If you are using a deadly weapon on someone, you have to be using it to kill them. If you use a deadly weapon with the intent to wound, that is not justified IIRC.
The possibility of killing someone must be on the table to be justified to use a deadly weapon. If you stab someone and tell the police you were just trying to wound the guy, then you are in deep trouble. Ask any qualified lawyer.
The state law you quoted seems to fit this. Killing the person is on the table from what I see in the quote. The "substantial risk of causing death" seem to be the key words. If you say you were aiming for the leg to avoid risking killing the other guy, that could set you up for trouble.
Agree.
But this does not follow:
My understanding is that you have to be using it to prevent the other person from killing or severely injuring you or yours.
Obviously, shooting with the intent to wound (only) would entail unnecessary significant risks, but that does not mean that your intent is to kill someone. Rather, your intent is to come out of the engagement in one piece. If you do so without killing your justification to use deadly force goes away.
model of 1905
member
If I need to protect myself (or someone else) from the fear of death or great bodily harm and I respond with my handgun in self defense, I am going to shoot "to stop the threat". I am not going to shoot to wound, I am going to shoot COM and whereever else I need to to "stop the threat". If the attacker is killed, so be it. If he is still alive but no longer a threat I am NOT going to give him a head shot to finish him off. You better not either.
I think we are more on the same line of thought than we differ.
From all I know, if you try to use a deadly weapon with the intent of not trying to kill (i.e. shooting to wound) then you are in trouble. You have to be willing to kill the other guy. That does not mean that you have to kill him. If he goes down after you shoot him and is no longer a threat, you have defended yourself in the eyes of the law.
It is when you tell an officer that you shot low to avoid killing the other guy that your lawyer gets a lot more work. You take any shot you can and make it as effective as possible.
Does that make sense and is it in line with your understanding?
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
I don't know where Ayoob got his law degree.
Use of deadly force in self-defense is justified and/or privileged, if at all, to stop the attack. The fact that the force applied is deadly entails, necessarily, the possibility that the assailant being defended against may die. Assuming the shoot is justified, the law is indifferent as to whether he does, in fact, die.
I don't know which state the horror stories found in gun magazines come from where the hypothetical district attorney or plaintiff's counsel castigates the defender's particular choice of cartridge or gun. I've never heard of a real case where that happened. What HAS happened is that a defender keeps shooting after the attack has stopped. That can turn a privileged shoot into an unauthorized execution.
Use of deadly force in self-defense is justified and/or privileged, if at all, to stop the attack. The fact that the force applied is deadly entails, necessarily, the possibility that the assailant being defended against may die. Assuming the shoot is justified, the law is indifferent as to whether he does, in fact, die.
I don't know which state the horror stories found in gun magazines come from where the hypothetical district attorney or plaintiff's counsel castigates the defender's particular choice of cartridge or gun. I've never heard of a real case where that happened. What HAS happened is that a defender keeps shooting after the attack has stopped. That can turn a privileged shoot into an unauthorized execution.
YammyMonkey
Member
I think the debate over the original issue "Shoot them until they drop" is getting a little out of hand. A dose of common sense would say that of course, just because he's down doesn't mean he's out of the fight & vice versa. The point is, don't just stand there, slap leather, fire two rounds & speed reholster. Believe it or not, this is exactly what a lot of people practice. Look around at guys practicing "tactical" shooting at a range some time. How many will Move FASTTTT? (Move, Fight, Assess, Scan, Take cover, Top off, Treat, Talk, aka the Wyatt Protocol) How many will just draw, double tap, hammer, whateverthenewtermis, holster, repeat?
The concept of shoot until they drop is that they might not give up right away & you might need to burn more than 2 rounds. It is a catchy phrase & like all catchy phrases it needs to be taken with a healthy dose of common sense.
I don't buy into the boarding house rules drill either. Gunfights are not stationary events & moving from one target to another to another is, in my opinion, a waste of precious time with a high likelihood of getting yourself killed. You have a "lock" on one target. Deal with that, then move on. You won't have a chance to pre-run your gunfight like you can an IPSC stage.
On a side note, I don't care if an attacker feels pain, I just want him to stop. In most cases the best way to accomplish that is multiple rounds high center chest. Trying to hit in different areas for greater mental effect is foolish, slower & potentially very likely to get you kicked out of the gene pool.
Duke, Utah for one. Don't remember the name, but one guy shot another in the back country, claimed self defense, was convicted of some sort of murder & in interviews after some of the jury members said that his choice of a 10mm, loaded with hollow points was a deciding factor. His defense attorney certainly didn't bring that up. Only one example, but if it can happen in UT, it can happen anywhere.
The concept of shoot until they drop is that they might not give up right away & you might need to burn more than 2 rounds. It is a catchy phrase & like all catchy phrases it needs to be taken with a healthy dose of common sense.
I don't buy into the boarding house rules drill either. Gunfights are not stationary events & moving from one target to another to another is, in my opinion, a waste of precious time with a high likelihood of getting yourself killed. You have a "lock" on one target. Deal with that, then move on. You won't have a chance to pre-run your gunfight like you can an IPSC stage.
On a side note, I don't care if an attacker feels pain, I just want him to stop. In most cases the best way to accomplish that is multiple rounds high center chest. Trying to hit in different areas for greater mental effect is foolish, slower & potentially very likely to get you kicked out of the gene pool.
Duke, Utah for one. Don't remember the name, but one guy shot another in the back country, claimed self defense, was convicted of some sort of murder & in interviews after some of the jury members said that his choice of a 10mm, loaded with hollow points was a deciding factor. His defense attorney certainly didn't bring that up. Only one example, but if it can happen in UT, it can happen anywhere.
Last edited:
model of 1905
member
Actually I believe the instance you refer to was in Arizona and there was more to it than just the caliber of the gun used but it was a factor.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Yammymonkey: "Duke, Utah for one. Don't remember the name, but one guy shot another in the back country, claimed self defense, was convicted of some sort of murder & in interviews after some of the jury members said that his choice of a 10mm, loaded with hollow points was a deciding factor. His defense attorney certainly didn't bring that up. Only one example, but if it can happen in UT, it can happen anywhere."
Wow. If a DA tried to raise that argument I'd move the entire argument be stricken from the record with clear and firm instructions to the jury to disregard, and if interviews disclosed that, I'd move for a new trial. If the DA tried to get that stuff into evidence I'd object as forcefully as I could, as a basis for appeal. Jury instructions are critical, but I've never had a case where it seemed necessary to discuss particular caliber and loads in jury instructions. Maybe because I've never had a DA try to get them into evidence or raise them in argument.
Wow. If a DA tried to raise that argument I'd move the entire argument be stricken from the record with clear and firm instructions to the jury to disregard, and if interviews disclosed that, I'd move for a new trial. If the DA tried to get that stuff into evidence I'd object as forcefully as I could, as a basis for appeal. Jury instructions are critical, but I've never had a case where it seemed necessary to discuss particular caliber and loads in jury instructions. Maybe because I've never had a DA try to get them into evidence or raise them in argument.
Eeep...!
Uh, oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I was on the lake boating a month or so ago and we got swamped by a hot rodder in a really big powerboat.
We all went in the water and my finger was lost at the bottom of the lake.
Yeah, that's it.
Harold Fish.
Google it.
He shot to stop. Three shots from his 10mm Glock and now he's in the clink for seven years or so while various legal challenges try to get him a new trial.
He's a school teacher/family man with no record. The man he killed was a certified nutjob with many priors. They wouldn't let the jury hear about that, however.
Justice. You get the finest you can afford.
All the chest-thumping gunslingers would do well to keep that little detail firmly in mind.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
The Fish case had nothing to do with his choice of cartridge.
Actually, it did.
I saw interviews afterward where at least one of the jurors was dismayed that he had used hollowpoints. Claiming that such a cartridge was overkill, so to speak.
That was admittedly a minor detail in the railroading that Fish received, but the details add up. Especially when you've got a crappy defense attorney.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I still don't know a single school that teaches this, but here is a perfect example of it happening...just one shot.
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Retired-Officer-Kills-Florida-Drugstore-Robber/1$45334
Raw video. The security guard's head is seen at the bottom near the start of the video. He is in plain clothes.
http://www.wftv.com/video/18676543/index.html
Let's see, the guard is able to draw, get a good two-handed grip, shoots on the move (apparently while advancing on the threat), and drops the threat with one shot.
Boom. There you have it.
possum
Member
i have been to several training courses, by some of the best instructors/ schools and that is not the case, and there are plenty that i haven't trained at that i know that they don't teach such.
mljdeckard
Member
The Fish case was in AZ, not UT.
Even if the fact he used 10mm hollowpoints in THAT case affected the outcome, it wouldn't change my plan one bit. It is the exception, not the rule
Even if the fact he used 10mm hollowpoints in THAT case affected the outcome, it wouldn't change my plan one bit. It is the exception, not the rule
- Status