"Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to stop"

[SapperMapper]

We drove up to Waco tonight to meet a friend we have not seen for quite some time. She and my wife went to school together before we were married, and we met at their former supervisor's house (Sue and and her husband Ronnie). We had a very nice visit and meal, but at one point the conversation turned to self-defense.
It started when my wife's friend, Julie, was describing her new apartment, and how she felt safe because it was in a "good neighborhood."

Of course, I jumped in and pointed out that didn't necessarily rule out the possibility of something happening, and she shouldn't fall into a false sense of security. She did agree, but I got the impression that she really doesn't think anything could happen to her. That's a different conversation for another day.

The topic then drifted to Joe Horn. Julie stated that she was pretty sure that she could never kill anyone if she had to, but maybe "maiming, or just injuring them" she could live with.

Then, to my surprise, my wife jumped in. I have been teaching her to shoot, and of course I teach her to shoot center of mass. She told Julie how it's hard to aim so precisely as to only wound, and you're not necessarily trying to kill them. You're trying to make them stop whatever it is they're doing, the most likely way to do that is to shoot at the biggest area.

Julie digested that. You could tell it was making some sense to her. She is a college graduate, and admits to being a Democrat, but she didn't come off as anti-gun, merely "never thought that much about guns". She seemed to be thinking about them now. Especially when Ronnie described the number of break-ins, thefts, and vandalism that had happened in their "nice" neighborhood in the last few months.

I am very glad that my wife "gets it" as well, and explained it so clearly to Julie.

When discussing this same subject with someone who has an emotional bias, do you think the "center of mass - shoot to stop" argument would really hold any weight? Or would they only hear "blah blah blah I wanna shoot people blah yadda yadda guns and bibles blah blah blah"?

BTW, I was CCing the entire time, and found it very ironic that we were debating this issue while I had my XD40 on my right hip. When I mentioned this to my wife just now, she said, "Oh, yeah, I forgot you had your gun with you!"

 

[memphisjim]

in tennessee you can only legally shoot to kill

 

[JohnKSa]

My guess is that most people haven't really thought about it and therefore assume that the goal of using a gun in self-defense is to kill the criminal. That people who have a gun for self-defense are hoping to be able to kill someone.

I think that once it's explained that the goal is to stop the attack, to prevent the death or serious injury of the defender/defended, then they're going to view gun owners in a different light.

Yes, I think that people can understand the difference and I think it's important to explain the difference when the opportunity comes up.

 

[Armueller2001]

I love the "just shoot them in the leg" argument.

Shoot to stop sometimes means rounds center mass until the threat is stopped... but if he's on the ground, breathing, I'm not going to take a headshot. That would be shooting to kill.

 

[deadasslast2004]

well the best way to put it is......

Last I heard a dead man cannot take the stand to testify against you..

Now on the other hand be prepared for his scumbag family to suit the crap out of you for the loss of their even sorrier dead realtive and the loss of income (or is that social income from Uncle Sam's governmenatl sponsored programs or from selling drugs or breaking into houses) they would have had from the now deceased person's life.


Bottom line............. do what it takes to stay alive and deal with the other issues later. Just make sure it is a "life and death" situation....... and that means their death for your life!

 

[SapperMapper]

I think Julie was simply echoing 'acceptable' sentiments, but had never really thought about it much. I'm just thinking of other ways to approach the idea of "self-defense is a right" gradually without being too preachy or getting up on my soapbox.

I'd had to alienate her into becoming anti-gun when I could help her to see our viewpoint.

 

[halfbreed808]

That is so great your wife jumped in on the conversation. It's a totally valid point that most people don't think the way we do. You will probably not have the time to choose where to aim in a situation, but center mass is the way to go.
Shooting to stop is the only way to train someone new to firearms. Unless that state says otherwise, the legal ramifications of teaching shoot to kill could be hellish to say the least. Just the way it's phrased could mean the difference between being liable or not.

 

[BruceRDucer]

Well I dunno. Maybe someone should ask the person they're shootin at?

 

[memphisjim]

in tennessee if you shoot someone in the leg you better say you missed or you will be in jail

 

[Prince Yamato]

There is no "shoot to wound" in Texas either. Every shot is treated as if you were shooting to stop with lethal force. There are no warning shots either. Those are illegal discharges of firearms.

 

[esmith]

If I sense a threat to my life i will shoot to stop the threat. If it means the attacker will die because of it, so be it, i won't be sympathetic, as i'd rather it be him than me.

If the threat is stopped and the attacker is still alive, very well, i will not 'finish' him off.

 

[NavajoNPaleFace]

In Arizona you have the right (if you feel your llife, or that of someone else' life is in danger) to eliminate the threat.

That can range from a leg shot that takes the person out of a threatening situation against you or ...well...............a more lethal shot that stops the heart....so be it.

But, it has to be a good shoot.

 

[SapperMapper]

That's what I (apparently successfully) tried to teach my wife. Shoot to stop, using lethal force. The likelihood is that the suspect may die. If you can't accept this, I guess you shouldn't pick up a gun.

Ronnie brought up a good point, too: If the crook wasn't willing to accept the risk of getting shot at, he would have went to work someplace safer.

I added that if enough citizens stand up to protect life, liberty and property, crime will decrease.

Unfortunately, deadasslast2004 is right - killing the criminal will result in civil suits filed by the suspect's family. Hmmph.

 

[JoeSlomo]

IMO there IS no such thing as "shoot to stop" simply because all gunshot wounds are potentially lethal.

Aim center mass.

Squeeze the trigger till the threat is neutralized.

Be more concerned about YOUR life than the threats.

 

[elkhuntingfool]

shoot to kill. Why worry about a wounded person still having access to a weapon and shooting back at you. Last I checked - dead people can't shoot back.

 

[oneshooter]

In Texas CHL you are told to "shoot to stop", once the aggressor is no longer a threat you are not allowed to continue shooting. To do so changes it from self defence to murder.

deadasslast2004, In Texas you can not be sued by the relatives of the bad guy if one of three items happens.

#1 No charges are filed by the police/DA This is known as a "good shoot".

#2 No charges are filed by a Grand Jury. This is also a "good shoot". I reference the recient Joe Horn case.

#3 A jury of your peers finds you "not guilty" or "innocent". This is called a good (read expensive) lawyer.

All of this is possable because the Texas legislature realized that the level of evidence is far greater for a criminal charge, than for a civil case.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

 

[SapperMapper]

shoot to kill. Why worry about a wounded person still having access to a weapon and shooting back at you. Last I checked - dead people can't shoot back.

Sure, but is this how to approach a person who has never really been exposed to firearms before? It seems like a good way to alienate someone who expressed her unwillingness to kill another human being.

I don't want to alienate her, which could result in her voting a gun-grabbing politico into office.

 

[Darthbauer]

I always thought that I would shoot for the knee or something if I ever pulled on someone but when I finally did I was aiming right at his head. So shoot to kill.

 

[halfbreed808]

Shooting to stop does not mean you will not kill the perp. It is just a technical play on words. You are shooting to stop him from commiting a felonous act on you. If the perp comes in and you shoot to stop, yet he keeps coming, you shoot to completely stop. The wording alone could save you any court. Plus it's alot milder phrasing it this way for someone new to firearms or someone your trying to convince on the advantages of being armed.

 

[JohnKSa]

shoot to kill. Why worry about a wounded person still having access to a weapon and shooting back at you. Last I checked - dead people can't shoot back.

Killing someone because you're "worried" they might have a weapon is called murder. If they don't pose an immediate threat** then you can't shoot them.

**An immediate threat has the means to kill or seriously injure you, is close enough to kill or seriously injure you and is currently attempting to kill or seriously injure you. You can't kill someone because they were trying to kill you a minute ago unless they're still trying.

You shoot because the person poses an immediate threat to your life, not because you're worried.

Last I heard a dead man cannot take the stand to testify against you..

I feel pretty safe saying that if you find that you're thinking about lawsuits then you probably don't need to shoot in self-defense. Self-defense is for when you believe you are going to die if you don't respond--in a situation like that it's highly unlikely that you'll be worried about future litigation. In any event, you can't kill someone to prevent lawsuits. That's called murder.

and that means their death for your life!

No, it means that you do what is necessary to stop the attack. If the attacker dies as a result the law says that's ok. The point is that when the threat stops then your justification for shooting stops too.

You don't get to keep shooting to avoid a lawsuit. You don't get to keep shooting because the attacker is still alive.

Once the attack stops then you must stop shooting to remain within the law.

Experts state that the best way to use a handgun to stop an attacker is to shoot center of mass so that's probably a good approach to begin with.

Shooting to stop does not mean you will not kill the perp. It is just a technical play on words.

You are correct in that it doesn't mean you won't kill him. Odds are he will survive being shot with a handgun, around 80% of people shot with a handgun live through it. But it is not a technical play on words. The key is INTENT.

Your goal is not to kill someone, your goal is to prevent someone from killing you. The attacker may not survive, but that's not why you're shooting him, you're shooting him to stop him from killing or seriously injuring you. When he stops being a threat then your legal justification for shooting ends.

 

[rondog]

Whether you shoot to kill or shoot to stop is irrelevant, IMO. It's what you SAY that's important, and you ALWAYS want to say that you "shot to stop the threat".

Always project the image that you were defending yourself from harm, not "trying to kill that dirtbag before he got me". Protecting yourself legally is just as important as physically. JMHO.

 

[RP88]

I don't personally see how shooting someone in the leg to repel them, or in the chest to drop them and potentially kill them are any different. Shot in the leg and he limps off? Threat has been stopped. In the face and he dies? Threat still stopped. If it is a 'good shoot', then I do not see how shooting someone in the leg will change that.

 

[rondog]

I don't personally see how shooting someone in the leg to repel them, or in the chest to drop them and potentially kill them are any different. Shot in the leg and he limps off? Threat has been stopped. In the face and he dies? Threat still stopped. If it is a 'good shoot', then I do not see how shooting someone in the leg will change that.

Lawsuits, and the "victim" testifying against you. Like I said, "shoot to stop the threat". If he dies, well, that's an unfortunate side effect. But he won't be able to sue you, or testify how you savagely gunned him down and crippled him for life.

 

[JShirley]

Everyone should forget they ever knew the phrase "shoot to kill". You are using (potentially) lethal force, but the goal is always to stop the attack. Whether the attacker lives or dies is really irrelevant to your goal of making the attack stop.

Some states do not allow the families of those killed while in the commission of a felony to sue.

 

[RP88]

Lawsuits, and the "victim" testifying against you. Like I said, "shoot to stop the threat". If he dies, well, that's an unfortunate side effect. But he won't be able to sue you, or testify how you savagely gunned him down and crippled him for life.

what compelling argument could a scum-bag make against someone after he got shot for committing a felony of some sort?

"Yea, he invited me in, but he said to just kick his door down because it had a sticky lock on it, then he shot me for no reason."

If anything, you should be open to a good countersuit for damaged property and for him paying bio-cleaners for removing any blood stains.