"Shoot to kill" misconception

[NineseveN]

So why shouldn't you put, say, arsenic or some other substance of toxic quantities into your carry-rounds? If your intent is to kill, surely it wouldn't be a problem to justify poisoned bullets to a jury?

I'm not being sarcastic - I really want to find out the difference, if there's one.

In the case of arsenic or other such methods, the poisoning agent in and of itself acts as deadly force, which is different than injuries or bleeding from the gun shot ultimately causing their death, because bleeding and wounding are secondary agents inherent to the shooting itself (i.e. bleeding and injuries is the natural result of a gunshot, poisoning is not). Not only are you applying one facet of deadly force in discharging a firearm and causing a bullet to strike and ultimately wound or kill another person, you are also simultaneously employing a secondary application of deadly force by introducing a deadly toxin into the body of the target that will ultimately cause harm or most likely, death.

You are raising the level of force without being legally justified because in the eyes of the law, discharging a firearm and striking an attacker with one or more bullets is s sufficient level of force for self-defense purposes, using 2 separate applications of deadly force (i.e. 2 primary methods, terminal ballistics and poisons) doubles the amount of deadly force that you are using and that would likely be considered excessive.

Similarly, you are pretty clear if you use mace to stop an attacker (where legal of course), but if you then proceeded to introduce a secondary method without justification, such as setting the mace on fire and burning the assailant's face and body, you would probably be found to have used excessive force if it could not be proven that your level of force (mace plus burning) met the level of force absolutely necessary to provide for your own safety (i.e. the chemical mace was defective or ineffective), and even then burning someone looks rather cruel and excessive if any other more reasonable option was readily available.


Again, IANAL, so take this with a grain of lead.

 

[Cosmoline]

So why shouldn't you put, say, arsenic or some other substance of toxic quantities into your carry-rounds? If your intent is to kill, surely it wouldn't be a problem to justify poisoned bullets to a jury?

The problem would only come into play in a narrow set of circumstances. Let's say you shot the man with a poison bullet and it did not kill him, but it did convince him to throw up his hands. At that instant you are no longer allowed to use lethal force in defense, since he no longer poses an imminent threat of lethal force. Yet your bullet may release its poison at a later point in time due to your construction, arguably constituting a second and distinct use of lethal force on your part. Since the time has now passed for lethal force to be justified, the release of the poison would not be self defense. I know of no case where this has been discussed, and indeed the whole notion of a poison bullet is pretty absurd.

This is very different from the typical situation where the fellow dies on the way to the hospital due to secondary effects of the bullet wound, or dies of an infection later on. In neither case was there a second and distinct act on your part which triggered the secondary problems. Putting poison in the bullet would be similar to trying to infect his wounds at the hospital.

If, OTOH, you had a siringe filled with poison you could in theory use that as lethal force to defend yourself against an imminent threat.

 

[NineseveN]

Cosmoline, you'd know this better than I would, but in the case of poison, a substance that would not presumably render the attacker incapacitated at or in close proximity to the time of the offending action which justified self-defense would not be covered under the self-defense laws, correct?

In other words, you can't just poison a guy that is trying to mug you if you know it won't have an effect on him until 24-48 hours from now if you're claiming self defense. An exception to this might be if you are being held captive against your will and can reasonably assume that the poison will allow you to escape at a later time and obviously have no other more immediate means of accomplishing the escape or defending yourself. I would bet that in a clear cut case of kidnapping or captivity the margin for what will pass for reasonable would be wide open, there aren’t so many gray areas there as there are in self defense. I'd bet that one could do all sort of things to permit their own escape that would normally not be covered under self-defense.

Does this jive with your experience and understanding?

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline, you'd know this better than I would, but in the case of poison, a substance that would not presumably render the attacker incapacitated at or in close proximity to the time of the offending action which justified self-defense would not be covered under the self-defense laws, correct?

We're getting pretty hypothetical here, but let's take it a step further and say that the substance is a lethal virus which will likely kill, but which has NO chance of killing in the short term while the threat is imminent. Most definitions of deadly force I know of have no time limit on them, so the syringe would be considered deadly force. There may be not be any legal barrier to using something like that in self defense, though as a factual matter it will raise many eyebrows. I'll have to think about it.

 

[yy]

Mr. Penguin already has it right.

I thank the previous posters that gave such a great discussion on the intent, the morality, and the strategy of drawing a weapon. The intent should be to stop a threat without malice, forethought, anger. The morality is that one must not draw a weapon only to bluff and fail to follow up. The responsibility is to draw only when we have to so we do not abuse. The strategy is to draw in defense of life. The tactic is to draw once we recognize the need and accept the responsibility. This may mean a pro-active draw or a pre-emptive strike.

I also thank Mr. Penguin for pointing out the misconception. He's right. In that drawing a weapon carries with it a moral responsibility. The weapon is likely to kill in its application to stop a deadly force. It's a deadly force response to a deadly force threat. The worry about civil suits (after getting cleared of a criminal suit) should be so that we do not abuse the deadly force response. That worry should never cause us to freeze with indecision when life is at stake.

May I suggest a rhetorical question? Ask the person who is unhappy with shooting to kill, "would you shoot to wound to avoid a civil suit?" Then follow up with this, "if you do, you are going to jail and still face that civil suit." You would not survive the criminal suit because the prosecution will negate your self-defense claim using your words. Shooting to wound in a "mildly" violent situation is arguably an escalation to deadly force on your part making you guilty. And by extension, still liable or at least vulnerable for whatever goes wrong.

In fact, the person who is uncomfortable with drawing in a "mildly" violent situation should not draw. Not until that person is sure the situation is deadly violent.

Oh, and I realize that Mr. Penguin uses the "mildly" violent phrase to recognize that the other person hasn't a clue when to draw because that person is so fixated on when not to draw.

 

[NineseveN]

Cosmoline, feel free to PM me if you come up with anything if you like, it was more intellectual curiosity than anything and not particularly relevant to the discussion anyway.

 

[yy]

To Cosmoline

what if the poison is a fast-acting nerve agent, say like a poison-dart frog's toxin? or like a poison conch shell? Or like a sea snake?

Such a poison could possibly be applicable in a "shoot to stop" self defense. Would it somehow add to the lethal force if the poison is in the bullet instead of a dart?

 

[Cosmoline]

I was thinking of a poison bullet being more along the lines of some bubba job sealing a toxin inside the hollow point. If it really does "inject" the poison then it doesn't create the same "mine laying" issue.

 

[ctdonath]

Cosmo, some people don't die despite a valiant attempt to inflict death upon them. The thing with a defensive shooting is that despite the use of deadly force and a "shoot to kill" action, the guy may very well still be alive (as is the case with the majority of shootings). Now, having pointed a deadly weapon at the attacker, having pulled the trigger to unleash deadly force, having imparted over 1000 ft/lbs of force into the center of his chest, having created a hole that begins nearly a half-inch wide and terminates in a devestating mass of fragments going every which way, what do you make of the guy lying unconcious on the ground - ALIVE? "Shoot to stop" means you've achieved the goal, scan for further threats, holster the weapon, and cease lethal activity. "Shoot to kill" means you're not done yet, [insert suitable followup scenario here].

What's the goal? was it achieved, regardless of side effects? Holster, or one more round?

 

[akodo]

i took your advice and didn't listen to just some guys teaching the local CCW class, but tossed it up at the guys who had a direct hand in writing both of minnesota's recent CCW laws.

The long and the short of it is, in MN, cosmolite is wrong. Using lethal force is different than 'shooting to kill'. If you are shooting to kill, it is about vengance or murder. If you use lethal force to stop, that is a-okay.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I also thank Mr. Penguin for pointing out the misconception. He's right. In that drawing a weapon carries with it a moral responsibility. The weapon is likely to kill in its application to stop a deadly force. It's a deadly force response to a deadly force threat.

Moral responsibility? Puhlease! People have enough trouble debating whether or not various tactics or uses are legal within the law and now you want the good guys to add to their overtaxed brains the considerations of whether or not what they are doing is moral?

Part of why we have laws in place is that as a society, we don't agree on what is or is not moral. Otherwise we would be swamped with default cries of immoral behavior from the 'victims' of proper or justified shoots. Take this web site that is called Stolen Lives. It is all about anybody killed by the cops, regardless of whether they were trying to kill others or not.
http://stolenlives.org/

A classic example from close to me (not on the web site noted) occurred in Garland, Texas a few years back. The sister of a teenager with a knife called 911 because the boy had threatened her. The boy was shot and killed by the officer who arrived on scene. The whole incident after the officer's arrival was caught on audio and part was caught on the video. The boy approached the officer with a knife (maybe it was knives) and the officer drew his gun. The boy continued to approach and the officer repeated was yelling at the kid to drop the knife as the kid advanced on him. After several commands, the officer could be seen backing across the field of view of his dash cam, still giving orders. As I recall, the boy had backed the officer some 50 feet or more according to witnesses, apparently crossing the street and then further. As the officer is about to pass out of the field of view, the boy with the knives enters the frame. It is clear that he isn't more than six feet away from the officer who kept backing and giving commands to drop the knife. Finally, the officer shot the kid, killing him. This happened off camera, but was on audio. With the exception of the sister who called 911, the entire family went on TV to tell of the great injustice to the boy and that the officer could have used other means to stop the boy. Based on the video, I thought the officer showed amazing restraint, if not almost to such an extent to have not been prudent to wait that long.

The shooting was deemed legally justified, but the family (not including the sister) was outraged because what the officer did was wrong - he killed a baby according to his mother. They even had the family minister appear with them to say what the officer did was wrong. At this point, it is an issue of morals, not laws. What a bunch of crap.

According to some folks, all killings are immoral. It depends on your perspective. Operate within the law as best as possible. It is best you resolve the morality of your actions with your minister or shrink as a free person instead of from prison or speaking directly to God because of your lack of action.

 

[rbernie]

I find it vaguely unsettling that some people appear willing to seek and accept what's dangerously close to legal advice over the Internet from someone that they've never met, who has established no actual bona fides in regard to the subject matter, and who clearly resides in a different jurisidiction.

But y'all feel free to carry on as needed.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think we all agree with Playboy Penguin's comment which I think is summarized in the following paragraph.

Shooting someone is lethal force and carries with it the possibility of killing the person being shot. Therefore a person who can not come to terms with the possibility of killing someone should NOT ever consider using lethal force.​

The second question is still under debate. I think this is the key that's missing.

The only legal justification for using deadly force against someone is to stop certain types of extreme criminal behavior when no other option is available. Implicit in that justification (inherent to the idea of deadly force) is the idea that the criminal may die, however the law (at least in my state) NEVER gives the defender explicit permission to kill the criminal. It only gives permission to apply deadly force until the extreme criminal behavior ceases--which may OR may not kill the criminal.​