M2 Carbine
member
I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to stop.
If it happens that they stop breathing I could care less.
If it happens that they stop breathing I could care less.
"Shoot to kill" misconception
- Thread starter PlayboyPenguin
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
I am. And you're continuing to get confused about intent. Think about it rationally for a second. If you blow a hole through a man's chest, you can't really claim you intended for anything other than his death. "Shoot to stop" is a euphemism to get around this basic reality. It was cooked up by firearm instructors and gun writers with minimal legal training based on a basic misunderstanding of the law. I suspect the phrase was initially used to try to convey the notion that force must match force, and that the justification for using lethal force in self defense ends the moment there is no longer an imminent threat. So you can't keep shooting a person after he's been stopped.
But you will never find a self defense justification in any state's penal code that speaks in terms of "intending to stop." The critical issue is whether you had a reasonable belief that you or another faced imminent and unjustified lethal force. If so, then and only then are you allowed to use lethal force in response. If you don't believe me go take a look at your own state's justification for the use of lethal force in self defense. You should do so anyway if you're packing.
As far as how and whether you should speak to the LEO's, the general rule is to say nothing and get an attorney, though this will absolutely lead to your arrest. But given the really extreme level of ignorance among so many CCW permit holders and even shooting instructors on these topics, it's probably not a bad idea to keep quiet. If you go yapping about how you really didn't mean to kill him but only "stop" him, you're going to be digging a very deep hole indeed. It gives me the chills just thinking about it. Now maybe the responding LEO's will understand what you're trying to say and cut you a break, but claiming you really didn't mean to use lethal force is NOT the best way to spin your story. In fact the best approach is no spin at all.
Cosmoline, you've got about 6,748 more posts around here than me, but this thread has been really driving me crazy and I'm going to jump in here anyway and say this...
I don't know if you guys are not quite communicating and talking past each other or what, but here's my take on the matter, and btw I'm also an attorney and CHL holder, so not talking totally out of my rear.
The reason for the stress on "shoot to stop" is this. As you correctly noted, the only reason one is authorized to employ deadly force is when one's life is in danger. AND, one is authorized to use deadly force for only one reason, to STOP the threat to one's life, not to execute the one threatening. Does that make sense to you?
"I shot to stop the threat to my life" is in keeping with the legal grounds for self defense, whereas "I shot to kill the guy" is in keeping with the grounds for manslaughter or murder.
Training one's brain to say the right thing is important, just like training the body to do the right thing. Whether you agree with the legal reasoning or not, I think you would admit that when asked why you shot someone it's a heck of a lot better to say "I was in fear of my life and I shot to stop the threat" rather than "I shot to kill the guy".
I don't know if you guys are not quite communicating and talking past each other or what, but here's my take on the matter, and btw I'm also an attorney and CHL holder, so not talking totally out of my rear.
The reason for the stress on "shoot to stop" is this. As you correctly noted, the only reason one is authorized to employ deadly force is when one's life is in danger. AND, one is authorized to use deadly force for only one reason, to STOP the threat to one's life, not to execute the one threatening. Does that make sense to you?
"I shot to stop the threat to my life" is in keeping with the legal grounds for self defense, whereas "I shot to kill the guy" is in keeping with the grounds for manslaughter or murder.
Training one's brain to say the right thing is important, just like training the body to do the right thing. Whether you agree with the legal reasoning or not, I think you would admit that when asked why you shot someone it's a heck of a lot better to say "I was in fear of my life and I shot to stop the threat" rather than "I shot to kill the guy".
Cosmoline
Member
Yes, I suspect the "shoot to stop" mantra was cooked up to try to convey the notion that you can't keep shooting after the threat is gone. But it's taken on a life of its own and a lot of folks have decided it means you must not "intend to kill" when you use lethal force. This is of course nonsense. If you shoot a half inch hole in a man's chest, you damn sure weren't intending to give him a spanking. That's LETHAL FORCE and unless you shot the fellow by accident (not good!) then you intended to kill him when you used it. In the eyes of the law you intend the natural consequences of the shooting, the most obvious being death. Indeed, one of the prerequsites for using lethal force is that you used it INTENTIONALLY in response to a reasonable belief that you or another were facing imminent and unjustified lethal force. There is supposed to be a rational, intentional choice at the core of the justification.
Maybe, maybe not. You have to be very careful about this, which is why it's a good idea to get an attorney if you find yourself in that situation. Whatever you do, don't try to spin your way out of trouble with the cops.
Maybe, maybe not. You have to be very careful about this, which is why it's a good idea to get an attorney if you find yourself in that situation. Whatever you do, don't try to spin your way out of trouble with the cops.
Topgun
member
What about shooting for Jodie Foster?
Cosmoline
Member
That's not legal, but shooting to stop the Baldwin brothers is legal in Texas.
DragonFire
Member
If I ever have to defend myself with my gun, I will be shooting to stop the threat.
I will be willing to kill, if that's what it takes, or if that's the eventual result, BUT if the threat stops without that result, I will be okay with that too (and probably a little relieved that a death didn't occur). From my training, my experience and all I have read and heard, I do not think that death is the only outcome of being shot, nor is it the most likely.
To reliably stop a threat quickly (quickly enough so that I'm not harmed) it takes causing great bodily harm. The faster I can do that, the less likely I am to be injured or killed. In most instances it will take multiple wounds to accomplish.
The target that gives me the best chance of stopping the threat most reliably, and the quickest is center or mass. Unfortunately, that's also the target that has the highest chance of causing death.
So, it's not legalese, or symantics, or brain-washing or anything else. My one and only goal will be to stop the threat with the least harm done to myself (or those I'm protecting).
If I ever do have to defend myself, I will freely admit (after consulting my lawyer of couse) that:
1)yes, I intentionally fired my pistol
2)yes, I intended to shoot whomever I perceived as the threat
3)yes, I intended to hit that threat with every single bullet I fired
4)yes, I shot to the best of what abilities I had at that moment
5)no, at no time did I shoot after I thought the threat was stopped
6)no, I do not regret my actions since I felt I had no other choice at that time
I will be willing to kill, if that's what it takes, or if that's the eventual result, BUT if the threat stops without that result, I will be okay with that too (and probably a little relieved that a death didn't occur). From my training, my experience and all I have read and heard, I do not think that death is the only outcome of being shot, nor is it the most likely.
To reliably stop a threat quickly (quickly enough so that I'm not harmed) it takes causing great bodily harm. The faster I can do that, the less likely I am to be injured or killed. In most instances it will take multiple wounds to accomplish.
The target that gives me the best chance of stopping the threat most reliably, and the quickest is center or mass. Unfortunately, that's also the target that has the highest chance of causing death.
So, it's not legalese, or symantics, or brain-washing or anything else. My one and only goal will be to stop the threat with the least harm done to myself (or those I'm protecting).
If I ever do have to defend myself, I will freely admit (after consulting my lawyer of couse) that:
1)yes, I intentionally fired my pistol
2)yes, I intended to shoot whomever I perceived as the threat
3)yes, I intended to hit that threat with every single bullet I fired
4)yes, I shot to the best of what abilities I had at that moment
5)no, at no time did I shoot after I thought the threat was stopped
6)no, I do not regret my actions since I felt I had no other choice at that time
waterhouse
Member
PP,
It appears in your original post that you intend to use your gun for intimidation, is that correct? You will take it out, and then wait to see what happens, and if the bad guy gets intimidated and runs away that's great, and if not then you will shoot him. Is that what you are saying, or am I reading it wrong?
BTW, congrats on passing 1,000 posts. I think you set a record for shortest time.
It appears in your original post that you intend to use your gun for intimidation, is that correct? You will take it out, and then wait to see what happens, and if the bad guy gets intimidated and runs away that's great, and if not then you will shoot him. Is that what you are saying, or am I reading it wrong?
BTW, congrats on passing 1,000 posts. I think you set a record for shortest time.
PlayboyPenguin
member
That was sort of the point of my post that everyone seemed to miss. It wasn't about the semantics or the legal issue of shooting someone. It was that alot of anti-gunnies have been given this impression that gun owners have this mantra that "if threatened draw your weapon and if you draw your weapon shoot the bad guy".
My point was just because a person brandishes their firearm does not mean someone is getting shot. In fact I am betting that in MOST cases it means a situation is cut short and a bad guy runs away.
I did not even notice the passing 1000 posts. I do not really ever look at that kind of thing. I always found it odd that this board keeps track of that information.
My point was just because a person brandishes their firearm does not mean someone is getting shot. In fact I am betting that in MOST cases it means a situation is cut short and a bad guy runs away.
I did not even notice the passing 1000 posts. I do not really ever look at that kind of thing. I always found it odd that this board keeps track of that information.
What are the legal implications/differences with:
"That's LETHAL FORCE and unless you shot the fellow by accident (not good!) then you intended to kill him when you used it."
AND
"That's LETHAL FORCE and unless you shot the fellow by accident (not good!) then you intended to use lethal force understanding that it might and in all likelihoodkill him when you used it."
One is intending to kill to stop and the other is intending to use force (lethal force) to stop which might and in all likelihood kill, blah, blah, blah...
Subtle difference and does it make a difference to "the law." I suspect that that is what the lawyering up is about.
Randall
"That's LETHAL FORCE and unless you shot the fellow by accident (not good!) then you intended to kill him when you used it."
AND
"That's LETHAL FORCE and unless you shot the fellow by accident (not good!) then you intended to use lethal force understanding that it might and in all likelihoodkill him when you used it."
One is intending to kill to stop and the other is intending to use force (lethal force) to stop which might and in all likelihood kill, blah, blah, blah...
Subtle difference and does it make a difference to "the law." I suspect that that is what the lawyering up is about.
Randall
Cosmoline,
Thanks for stating your background as an attorney and the reason for your belief. I appreciate it. I hate to disagree with an attorney on matters of the law, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just want to make sure I've made my argument as clearly as possible so there is no misunderstanding of my position. (Btw, I don't want to hang my argument on this fact, but you are the only attorney I know who argues against the "shoot to stop" phrase.)
I agree that putting a "half inch hole in a man's chest" is lethal force. I am aware that if I do so one very likely result is that he will die. Anyone who is prepared to use lethal force should have no misconceptions on this issue.
I disagree though that my intent was to kill him. My intent was to stop him from killing me or causing me grevious bodily harm. If I did kill him, it was incidental to stopping him from killing me. I did know going in that my decision to use deadly force to stop his attack would likely kill him. I didn't think of the bullet as a "long distance baton" or non-lethal weapon.
To just baldly state that I intended to kill him implies that I desired his death and that his death was my ultimate goal. No. My own safety was my ultimate goal. I am willing to cause his death if that becomes necessary to achieve my goal, but his death, in and of itself, is not my ultimate goal.
If my intent was truly to kill him, why would I stop shooting when he was no longer a threat? Why wouldn't I put a "coup de grace" round into his head? Why wouldn't I shoot him if he dropped his gun and surrendered? Why not? Because to do any of those things would be murder.
I don't know where or when the idea of "shoot to stop" entered the training lexion. I would say though that I believe it is the current prevelant training standard in both the civilian and law enforcement communities. The NRA says "Shoot to stop" and not "Shoot to kill." The discussion in the police training circles, with the possible exception of police sniper training, talks about "Shooting to stop" and not "Shooting to kill."
Whether or not it was "cooked up by instructors and gun writers who misunderstood the law," as you assert, it is the commonly accepted training standard.
(Btw, I'm not a cop. My understanding of police training and the current standards in police training is based on my training with police trainers, conversations with police trainers and officers, and reading police training journals.)
If there is something so dangerous about this phrase "shoot to stop" that it should be discarded in favor of "shoot to kill?" I'm not seeing it in your posts. I understand your statement that it is an euphemism. I believe it is more than that because it shows that you did not desire the death of the other person. Even if I were to grant the point that its is just an euphemism, you have not convinced me that it is harmful.
I agree that there is no such thing as "accidental self defense." If you use lethal force, you have to do so deliberately and with an understanding of the consequences. You INTENDED to shoot him. You realize that shooting him is using "deadly force" against him.
I think this might be the crux of our disagreement. Death is one of the "natural consequences" of shooting someone. However, death is not the ONLY "natural consequence" of shooting someone. Not everyone who is shot dies. Plenty of attackers are "stopped" through the application of deadly force (by being shot) who do not die. I submit that the "stopping" of the attack is just as much a "natural consequence" of using deadly force as is the attackers death.
We don't know exactly what will happen when we use deadly force. We just know that one likely outcome is that the attacker will die and that a MORE LIKELY outcome is that, whether or not the attacker dies, the attack will be stopped.
Conversely, there are attackers who are shoot and wounded or who later die who are not "stopped" in time to end the attack. While a handgun is not a "phaser set on stun" it is also not a "phaser set on disintegrate."
How's this to make it simple? Do you accept these suppositions? If not, why specifically?
1. "Deadly force" is the amount of force that is reasonably expected of being capable of causing death or grave bodily harm.
2. The only legally justified reason to use deadly force against another human being is to protect yourself from his attack that could be reasonably expected to cause you "death or grave bodily harm." (You are using deadly force to protect yourself from deadly force.)
3. By using deadly force against another human being, you are intending to cause him "death" OR "grave bodily harm" to stop the threat against you.
4. The "or" statement in #3 shows that the attacker's death was not the only outcome you can foresee.
5. Since we've established that deadly force is capable of causing either "death" or "grave bodily harm," and that the defender knows those are the two possibilities, using to term "shoot to kill" is not an accurate representation of the possibilities inherent in the use of deadly force. Death is only one of the two possible outcomes. Saying "Shoot to kill" only expresses one of the possible outcomes.
6. Since the term "shoot to kill" is not an accurate representation of the two possible outcomes of the use of deadly force, another term should be used.
7. I submit the term "shoot to stop" should instead be used. This term more accurately represents the desire of the defender whose only desire in using deadly force is to stop the attack against him. The term "shoot to stop" also more accurately reflects the possible outcomes of the use of deadly force against the attacker. The attacker might still be stopped even if they are not killed.
Sorry for the length of this post. If I had more time, I'd make it more concise. I just wanted to explicitly state my argument.
Rob
Thanks for stating your background as an attorney and the reason for your belief. I appreciate it. I hate to disagree with an attorney on matters of the law, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just want to make sure I've made my argument as clearly as possible so there is no misunderstanding of my position. (Btw, I don't want to hang my argument on this fact, but you are the only attorney I know who argues against the "shoot to stop" phrase.)
I agree that putting a "half inch hole in a man's chest" is lethal force. I am aware that if I do so one very likely result is that he will die. Anyone who is prepared to use lethal force should have no misconceptions on this issue.
I disagree though that my intent was to kill him. My intent was to stop him from killing me or causing me grevious bodily harm. If I did kill him, it was incidental to stopping him from killing me. I did know going in that my decision to use deadly force to stop his attack would likely kill him. I didn't think of the bullet as a "long distance baton" or non-lethal weapon.
To just baldly state that I intended to kill him implies that I desired his death and that his death was my ultimate goal. No. My own safety was my ultimate goal. I am willing to cause his death if that becomes necessary to achieve my goal, but his death, in and of itself, is not my ultimate goal.
If my intent was truly to kill him, why would I stop shooting when he was no longer a threat? Why wouldn't I put a "coup de grace" round into his head? Why wouldn't I shoot him if he dropped his gun and surrendered? Why not? Because to do any of those things would be murder.
I don't know where or when the idea of "shoot to stop" entered the training lexion. I would say though that I believe it is the current prevelant training standard in both the civilian and law enforcement communities. The NRA says "Shoot to stop" and not "Shoot to kill." The discussion in the police training circles, with the possible exception of police sniper training, talks about "Shooting to stop" and not "Shooting to kill."
Whether or not it was "cooked up by instructors and gun writers who misunderstood the law," as you assert, it is the commonly accepted training standard.
(Btw, I'm not a cop. My understanding of police training and the current standards in police training is based on my training with police trainers, conversations with police trainers and officers, and reading police training journals.)
If there is something so dangerous about this phrase "shoot to stop" that it should be discarded in favor of "shoot to kill?" I'm not seeing it in your posts. I understand your statement that it is an euphemism. I believe it is more than that because it shows that you did not desire the death of the other person. Even if I were to grant the point that its is just an euphemism, you have not convinced me that it is harmful.
I agree that there is no such thing as "accidental self defense." If you use lethal force, you have to do so deliberately and with an understanding of the consequences. You INTENDED to shoot him. You realize that shooting him is using "deadly force" against him.
I think this might be the crux of our disagreement. Death is one of the "natural consequences" of shooting someone. However, death is not the ONLY "natural consequence" of shooting someone. Not everyone who is shot dies. Plenty of attackers are "stopped" through the application of deadly force (by being shot) who do not die. I submit that the "stopping" of the attack is just as much a "natural consequence" of using deadly force as is the attackers death.
We don't know exactly what will happen when we use deadly force. We just know that one likely outcome is that the attacker will die and that a MORE LIKELY outcome is that, whether or not the attacker dies, the attack will be stopped.
Conversely, there are attackers who are shoot and wounded or who later die who are not "stopped" in time to end the attack. While a handgun is not a "phaser set on stun" it is also not a "phaser set on disintegrate."
How's this to make it simple? Do you accept these suppositions? If not, why specifically?
1. "Deadly force" is the amount of force that is reasonably expected of being capable of causing death or grave bodily harm.
2. The only legally justified reason to use deadly force against another human being is to protect yourself from his attack that could be reasonably expected to cause you "death or grave bodily harm." (You are using deadly force to protect yourself from deadly force.)
3. By using deadly force against another human being, you are intending to cause him "death" OR "grave bodily harm" to stop the threat against you.
4. The "or" statement in #3 shows that the attacker's death was not the only outcome you can foresee.
5. Since we've established that deadly force is capable of causing either "death" or "grave bodily harm," and that the defender knows those are the two possibilities, using to term "shoot to kill" is not an accurate representation of the possibilities inherent in the use of deadly force. Death is only one of the two possible outcomes. Saying "Shoot to kill" only expresses one of the possible outcomes.
6. Since the term "shoot to kill" is not an accurate representation of the two possible outcomes of the use of deadly force, another term should be used.
7. I submit the term "shoot to stop" should instead be used. This term more accurately represents the desire of the defender whose only desire in using deadly force is to stop the attack against him. The term "shoot to stop" also more accurately reflects the possible outcomes of the use of deadly force against the attacker. The attacker might still be stopped even if they are not killed.
Sorry for the length of this post. If I had more time, I'd make it more concise. I just wanted to explicitly state my argument.
Rob
Cosmoline
Member
No, it's a distinction without a difference. If you draw your firearm and shoot someone in self defense, you are intending to use lethal force against them. Death is not merely a side-effect of your actions, it is the natural consquence of them. That's why they call it lethal force, and why its use in self defense is reserved for a narrow set of circumstances. A lack of intent does nothing to establish the justification of self defense. Indeed as I pointed out the defense presupposes that you were acting with conscious deliberation in the matter, and not merely having an ND.
Yet somehow people have gotten the idea that they have to pretend to have no general intent when they aim and pull the trigger. I suspect part of the reason may be that folks don't want to contemplate actually killing another person, so they jump at the eumphemism of "stopping" them. The use of lethal force should not be sanitized in this fashion.
"Stopping" is not a legal term in this context, but you are determined to imbue it with legal significance. It has none. You can try to dress up the use of lethal force anyway you want, but the bottom line is if you use it you had better be justified in intending to kill. "Shooting to stop" could easily include shooting the handgun out of their arm or shooting their leg. That's a dangerous road to go down. If you could defend yourself by using less-than-lethal force, they you probably weren't justified in using lethal force.
Certainly, but as countless discussion on this forum show, the goal is in fact to "stop" the attacker by blasting a hole through the CNS or vital organs and cause death as quickly as possible. The goal is not to merely cause grave bodily harm, though if the bullet fails or you hit a non-essential area that will be the result. Your intent is clearly not to simply fire some bullets at the general area of the attacker and roll the cosmic dice regarding where they actually hit. If you can bullseye the heart, YOU DO IT.
On a related note, this same mess of confusion has led many instructors to scold students for targetting vital areas of the foe. They are urged instead to aim at some theoretical triangle or zone in the COM. The bizarre notion is that if you actually take aim at the heart or cranium, you're going to be charged with first degree murder. This is complete hogwash. Like I said, go read the justification of self defense in your state. It does not speak in terms of lacking lethal intent.
Yet somehow people have gotten the idea that they have to pretend to have no general intent when they aim and pull the trigger. I suspect part of the reason may be that folks don't want to contemplate actually killing another person, so they jump at the eumphemism of "stopping" them. The use of lethal force should not be sanitized in this fashion.
"Stopping" is not a legal term in this context, but you are determined to imbue it with legal significance. It has none. You can try to dress up the use of lethal force anyway you want, but the bottom line is if you use it you had better be justified in intending to kill. "Shooting to stop" could easily include shooting the handgun out of their arm or shooting their leg. That's a dangerous road to go down. If you could defend yourself by using less-than-lethal force, they you probably weren't justified in using lethal force.
Certainly, but as countless discussion on this forum show, the goal is in fact to "stop" the attacker by blasting a hole through the CNS or vital organs and cause death as quickly as possible. The goal is not to merely cause grave bodily harm, though if the bullet fails or you hit a non-essential area that will be the result. Your intent is clearly not to simply fire some bullets at the general area of the attacker and roll the cosmic dice regarding where they actually hit. If you can bullseye the heart, YOU DO IT.
On a related note, this same mess of confusion has led many instructors to scold students for targetting vital areas of the foe. They are urged instead to aim at some theoretical triangle or zone in the COM. The bizarre notion is that if you actually take aim at the heart or cranium, you're going to be charged with first degree murder. This is complete hogwash. Like I said, go read the justification of self defense in your state. It does not speak in terms of lacking lethal intent.
I am aware that when I shot the badguy in the chest he will probably die. However, that is not my goal. My goal is to preserve the life of myself and my loved ones.
Even using your own example. "reasonable belief that you or another faced imminent and unjustified lethal force. If so, then and only then are you allowed to use lethal force in response" I use that lethal force in attempt to make the man stop, his life or death is irrelevant to me, only my life; you use it in attempt to kill him. We both shoot the man 3 times in the chest, he drops to the ground bleeding. I have succeeded in getting the attack to stop, but you have failed to kill him. Now what? Do you finish him off? Did you fail because he lived? Apparently you weren't really in danger because the guy is still alive, you must only have been trying to wound him..hence you weren't really in a situation where lethal force is warranted. Sorry, that is just wrong.
You use firearms when faced with imminent danger to stop that danger, not to be judge and jury on the origniator of said danger.
The whole ball of wax with saying "I was trying to kill him" gets into the argument of 'you weren't really in fear for your life, you were out for vengance." or "two guys, both out to kill eachother, one shot first and missed, one shot second and connected, throw em both in jail"
Even using your own example. "reasonable belief that you or another faced imminent and unjustified lethal force. If so, then and only then are you allowed to use lethal force in response" I use that lethal force in attempt to make the man stop, his life or death is irrelevant to me, only my life; you use it in attempt to kill him. We both shoot the man 3 times in the chest, he drops to the ground bleeding. I have succeeded in getting the attack to stop, but you have failed to kill him. Now what? Do you finish him off? Did you fail because he lived? Apparently you weren't really in danger because the guy is still alive, you must only have been trying to wound him..hence you weren't really in a situation where lethal force is warranted. Sorry, that is just wrong.
You use firearms when faced with imminent danger to stop that danger, not to be judge and jury on the origniator of said danger.
The whole ball of wax with saying "I was trying to kill him" gets into the argument of 'you weren't really in fear for your life, you were out for vengance." or "two guys, both out to kill eachother, one shot first and missed, one shot second and connected, throw em both in jail"
Cosmoline
Member
No, but as I already tried to explain several times now, this comes from the doctrine that FORCE MUST MATCH FORCE. The justification to use lethal force ends the MOMENT the foe no longer poses the imminent threat of lethal force. So you can't give a coup de grace not because it would change your personal intent, but beause there is no longer an imminent threat of lethal force from the target.
If you shoot a man in the chest, YOU ARE TRYING TO KILL HIM. Wake up, people and GO READ YOUR CODES! Seriously, you need to. Find your penal code lethal force justifications and study them. YOU are responsible for knowing this law and its limits. Don't listen to the half-baked mythology from a CCW instructor.
Cosmoline,
Thanks. I understand your argument. I still disagree, but you presented your case well and I understand your thinking. I won't say that I am "right" and you are "wrong." We'll just have to disagree. Others can decide for themselves.
You mentioned something new.
I don't agree that "shoot to stop" leads to instructors generally teaching students to avoid vital areas when shooting in self defense. You may have seen instructors "scold" students for aiming at a vital zone, but that has not been my experience.
I've never heard of any instructor saying to avoid targeting the heart or head in fear of being charged with first degree murder.
I teach students to shoot COM for two reasons.
The first is that aiming at the center of mass gives the highest probability of a hit in that a less than precise shot still has some room to deviate and stay on the body. (You'd agree that a complete miss is worse, for several reasons, than a peripheral hit, right?)
The second is that the chest and torso contains many vital organs and a shot there is more likely to stop the attack than a shot to an extremity. This, combined with the fact that a torso shot is easier to make, make it a logical aim point.
Now, where exactly to aim at the torso/chest can be debated. The whole idea of "aiming for the heart" is problematical at best. The heart is on the inside, under the sternum, and how do you know exactly where it is on a moving target? The aorta is probably the "best" place to hit, in terms of rapid incapicitation due to blood loss, but how do you know exactly where it is and do you have the ability to hit that small target under stress?
The "standard" COM aim point has been in the middle of the torso. This is probably because that is about the "center" of the torso and gives the most chance of a hit when a shot deviates off target.
There has been a trend towards a higher aim point though. This is in the belief that a higher aim point is now more likely to strike a vital organ, while still giving adequate room for deviation, than the more "traditional" COM shot.
I believe one example of this is the "triangle" aim point you mentioned where the triangle is drawn from the nipples to the throat. The student doesn't need to know exactly what anatomical structures are in that area as long as they know that those structures are vulnerable and hitting them can result in quicker incapacitation.
The reason that cranial or "head shots" are not commonly taught has less to do with wanting the students to "avoid vital areas" than it does with the difficulty of making such a shot. The head is a smaller target than the chest. A miss is more likely to miss entirely. Even a hit to the head has to be in a certain specific spot to have the best chance of incapacitation. Most shooters can't make that shot consistently under stress. Still, it is commonly taught as an option when other shots fail to stop.
Thanks. I understand your argument. I still disagree, but you presented your case well and I understand your thinking. I won't say that I am "right" and you are "wrong." We'll just have to disagree. Others can decide for themselves.
You mentioned something new.
I don't agree that "shoot to stop" leads to instructors generally teaching students to avoid vital areas when shooting in self defense. You may have seen instructors "scold" students for aiming at a vital zone, but that has not been my experience.
I've never heard of any instructor saying to avoid targeting the heart or head in fear of being charged with first degree murder.
I teach students to shoot COM for two reasons.
The first is that aiming at the center of mass gives the highest probability of a hit in that a less than precise shot still has some room to deviate and stay on the body. (You'd agree that a complete miss is worse, for several reasons, than a peripheral hit, right?)
The second is that the chest and torso contains many vital organs and a shot there is more likely to stop the attack than a shot to an extremity. This, combined with the fact that a torso shot is easier to make, make it a logical aim point.
Now, where exactly to aim at the torso/chest can be debated. The whole idea of "aiming for the heart" is problematical at best. The heart is on the inside, under the sternum, and how do you know exactly where it is on a moving target? The aorta is probably the "best" place to hit, in terms of rapid incapicitation due to blood loss, but how do you know exactly where it is and do you have the ability to hit that small target under stress?
The "standard" COM aim point has been in the middle of the torso. This is probably because that is about the "center" of the torso and gives the most chance of a hit when a shot deviates off target.
There has been a trend towards a higher aim point though. This is in the belief that a higher aim point is now more likely to strike a vital organ, while still giving adequate room for deviation, than the more "traditional" COM shot.
I believe one example of this is the "triangle" aim point you mentioned where the triangle is drawn from the nipples to the throat. The student doesn't need to know exactly what anatomical structures are in that area as long as they know that those structures are vulnerable and hitting them can result in quicker incapacitation.
The reason that cranial or "head shots" are not commonly taught has less to do with wanting the students to "avoid vital areas" than it does with the difficulty of making such a shot. The head is a smaller target than the chest. A miss is more likely to miss entirely. Even a hit to the head has to be in a certain specific spot to have the best chance of incapacitation. Most shooters can't make that shot consistently under stress. Still, it is commonly taught as an option when other shots fail to stop.
asiparks
Member
As part of our states CCW application process I just completed the mandated safety/law seminar. The NRA instructor and Sheriff was very clear that semantics are, sadly, a very important part of how your actions will be viewed by the police, and should it come to it, a jury, be it criminal or civil. He was very clear that you are shooting to stop the threat, not the person or persons, and once the threat is neutralised, as in Trebors example, then you cease fire.
Are you shooting to kill, yes because you want the incident to be over quickly and decisively, and if you were shooting to wound it could be argued that lesser force than lethal could have been deployed against the threat.
As far as Mr Penguin's original post, I would most sincerely hope that the BG's would turn tail at the sight of my weapon and my clear willingness and ability to use it, because i really would rather not have to "stop" someone either. Your friend has a popular misconception, doubtless fuelled by the combination of evening news reports involving some idiot pulling out a gun and shooting because he losing an argument and the anti's vivid descriptions of wild west style carnage that will surely ensue as people shoot each other for talking too long to order their coffees should a "shall issue" law come to pass...
So did your friend get you point after you explained ? You didn't state whether he was anti, or ambivilant, but did you ask him if there were any situations where he could see himself using a weapon to defend himself or is loved ones ?
sorry the above is a bit rambling-quick lunchbreak typing.....
Are you shooting to kill, yes because you want the incident to be over quickly and decisively, and if you were shooting to wound it could be argued that lesser force than lethal could have been deployed against the threat.
As far as Mr Penguin's original post, I would most sincerely hope that the BG's would turn tail at the sight of my weapon and my clear willingness and ability to use it, because i really would rather not have to "stop" someone either. Your friend has a popular misconception, doubtless fuelled by the combination of evening news reports involving some idiot pulling out a gun and shooting because he losing an argument and the anti's vivid descriptions of wild west style carnage that will surely ensue as people shoot each other for talking too long to order their coffees should a "shall issue" law come to pass...
So did your friend get you point after you explained ? You didn't state whether he was anti, or ambivilant, but did you ask him if there were any situations where he could see himself using a weapon to defend himself or is loved ones ?
sorry the above is a bit rambling-quick lunchbreak typing.....
Cosmoline
Member
Don't take my word for it. Go look at your state's code, like I said. What does it say regarding the justification of self defense and the use of lethal force?
rbernie
Contributing Member
OK.
Texas:
My reading of this implies that 'deadly force' does NOT mean kill - it means 'to cause injury with the possibility of killing 'em'...
Texas:
My reading of this implies that 'deadly force' does NOT mean kill - it means 'to cause injury with the possibility of killing 'em'...
Cosmoline
Member
What in the statute leads you to believe the defense would be UNavailable if you expected or intended your force to kill?
Do you think it's a good idea to shoot without trying to hit a vital organ?
Do you think it's a good idea to shoot without trying to hit a vital organ?
rbernie
Contributing Member
I made no distinction or opinion relative to optimum POA in a deadly force encounter, and I offered no legal advice. You suggested that we all review our relevant state code, and I did so. What part of that exercise indicated to you that I felt is reasonable to "shoot without trying to hit a vital organ"? Hint - none. You're fabricating positions for me so that you can stand on your stump, and (as gentlemen) I would request that you please refrain from placing arguments in my mouth that I did not voice.
My sole comment in all of this is that the Texas statute defines deadly force as something likely to cause death, but not something solely causing death. That being the case, I can see how it might be more prudent to suggest the intent 'to use deadly force' as a response to stop unlawful deadly force as opposed to stating an simplistic intent 'to kill'.
I've got little to no dog in this fight. Besides, Cosmo, you're not known for ever actually finding an acceptable shade of gray within the issues. <shrug> You seem to be intent upon twisting things into overly simplistic shades of black and white when life seems to be a continuous spectrum of hues.
You enjoy all that.
My sole comment in all of this is that the Texas statute defines deadly force as something likely to cause death, but not something solely causing death. That being the case, I can see how it might be more prudent to suggest the intent 'to use deadly force' as a response to stop unlawful deadly force as opposed to stating an simplistic intent 'to kill'.
I've got little to no dog in this fight. Besides, Cosmo, you're not known for ever actually finding an acceptable shade of gray within the issues. <shrug> You seem to be intent upon twisting things into overly simplistic shades of black and white when life seems to be a continuous spectrum of hues.
You enjoy all that.
cz75bdneos22
Member
you shoot a gun in self-defense to deter such a threat to life. if that is not a deterrant, then shoot to stop the threat. YMMV.
asiparks
Member
cosmoline, I'm not seeing anywhere where anyone is seriously suggesting not aiming for a vital organ, why do you keep repeating this as though it were. Is this some attorneyesque diversionary nonesense ?
"Yes, I suspect the "shoot to stop" mantra was cooked up to try to convey the notion that you can't keep shooting after the threat is gone. But it's taken on a life of its own and a lot of folks have decided it means you must not "intend to kill" when you use lethal force. This is of course nonsense."
which you repeat again
"Think about it rationally for a second. If you blow a hole through a man's chest, you can't really claim you intended for anything other than his death. "Shoot to stop" is a euphemism to get around this basic reality. It was cooked up by firearm instructors and gun writers with minimal legal training based on a basic misunderstanding of the law. I suspect the phrase was initially used to try to convey the notion that force must match force, and that the justification for using lethal force in self defense ends the moment there is no longer an imminent threat. So you can't keep shooting a person after he's been stopped."
this alone is so fundementally wrong- you cannot, no way, keep shooting after the threat has gone, you are no longer being defensive and to do so will get you a snuggly 6X6 with Big Jake. Maybe your expertise is more in the vein of divorce or lost dogs or something, I seriously hope you stay away from defending any cases involving firearms.
"Yes, I suspect the "shoot to stop" mantra was cooked up to try to convey the notion that you can't keep shooting after the threat is gone. But it's taken on a life of its own and a lot of folks have decided it means you must not "intend to kill" when you use lethal force. This is of course nonsense."
which you repeat again
"Think about it rationally for a second. If you blow a hole through a man's chest, you can't really claim you intended for anything other than his death. "Shoot to stop" is a euphemism to get around this basic reality. It was cooked up by firearm instructors and gun writers with minimal legal training based on a basic misunderstanding of the law. I suspect the phrase was initially used to try to convey the notion that force must match force, and that the justification for using lethal force in self defense ends the moment there is no longer an imminent threat. So you can't keep shooting a person after he's been stopped."
this alone is so fundementally wrong- you cannot, no way, keep shooting after the threat has gone, you are no longer being defensive and to do so will get you a snuggly 6X6 with Big Jake. Maybe your expertise is more in the vein of divorce or lost dogs or something, I seriously hope you stay away from defending any cases involving firearms.
Cosmoline
Member
:banghead:
As I've pointed out over and over and over and now OVER again, THREAT MUST MATCH THREAT. So once the target is no longer presenting an imminent threat of deadly force, you are no longer justified in using deadly force. Your personal intent is not the issue.
Your efforts at an insult are noted, and laughable.
No. WRONG. You do not understand how to read the code. It defines deadly force TO INCLUDE BOTH AND EITHER. Meaning it DOES NOT MATTER whether your force was more likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Meaning it DOES NOT MATTER if you shoot to kill. And since you are more likely to stop the threat if you do shoot to kill, you're better off shooting to kill. If you do not NEED to shoot to kill then YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE LETHAL FORCE!!
This isn't really open to debate. My position is the correct one. Laird Kirkpatrick taught it to me. The guy with his name on the evidence hornbook. I'm sorry if that upsets folks who have grown up with the belief that subjective intent determines whether or not a self defense shooting is justified.
No, I'm not--that is absolutely incorrect. I'm trying to get him to stop doing what he's doing by the only means left to me. I don't care whether he lives or dies as long as he STOPS.Cosmoline said:
YOU may be trying to kill him, but that doesn't mean I am.
I ACCEPT the fact that shooting him in the chest is likely to kill him, but that's not why I'm doing it.
I'm doing it because the experts say that it's the most effective way to use a gun to stop an attacker.
It just happens that the most effective way to use a gun to stop an attacker is also likely to be lethal.
And this isn't double-talk or merely trying to say things the nice way. Because I KNOW the difference between trying to kill something and trying to stop something.
It's the difference between hunting and pest control. When I hunt, my object is to kill the animal so I can harvest it. When I'm doing pest control, my object is to get rid of the varmint. If it dies, it dies, but frankly I don't care one way or the other as long as it never bothers me again.
Molon Labe
Member
I shoot to stop. Any death is incidental.
- Status
