glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
I too was taught in my CCW courses that, "once the aggressor is no longer a threat you stop shooting."
I was also taught to aim for center mass.
"Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to stop"
- Thread starter SapperMapper
- Start date
- Status
I too was taught in my CCW courses that, "once the aggressor is no longer a threat you stop shooting."
I was also taught to aim for center mass.
Nolo
Member
Let me take this from a design standpoint:
You have a problem: Someone is acting or threatening to act in a way that would harm or destroy you and/or your family?
What is your goal?
Your goal is not to kill this person. Revenge is not factored in here, so your only goal is to save you and/or your family.
Your goal is to protect you and/or your family. His goal is to harm you and/or your family.
By transitive property, your goal is to stop him from accomplishing his goal.
Now, there are many ways to stop an attacker, ranging from trying to bore him to sleep (highly ineffectual, and quite frankly, stupid as Hell
) to trying to stop his major body functions (highly effective).
The logical person (and the person that values his and his family's lives) will choose the most effective method: stopping the attacker's body altogether.
Now, this may change in the future, but the most effective way to stop a person's body entirely is to kill them.
Thus, also by transitive property, your goal is to kill them.
I think the most effective way to accomplish that goal has been hashed out again and again on this forum.
Now, I broke this down to its most basic parts not to be insulting to any boardmember's intelligence, but to illustrate something you all already know:
It's not about the perpetrator deserving to die or any such emotional dilemma, thinking like that leads down the road of the conscience, which really has no place in such an absolutely do-or-die scenario.
It's about what you are trying to accomplish. I've already demonstrated that your goal, through some assumptions is to stop the perpetrator.
Now, aiming to merely harm someone, as opposed to aiming to kill them, is more difficult, has a lower incidence of successfully completing the goal (stopping the attacker), and may actually be less humane.
I will not tell you whether to attempt to harm or to kill, I accept that you may have mitigating or complicating circumstances or preferences that may change things a bit, but for me the choice is relatively clear.
I would shoot to kill. For the same reason I would choose caliber X over caliber Y: it accomplishes my goal.
DISCLAIMER: This post is written in a very authoritative fashion. It breaks the situation down into an overly simple equation to illustrate a point. I do not assume anything about the intelligence or experience of anyone on this board. I merely wanted to illustrate how I see the issue: as a problem, plain and simple.
May you all have long and uneventful lives (unless, of course, eventful is what you wish for),
-Nolo
You have a problem: Someone is acting or threatening to act in a way that would harm or destroy you and/or your family?
What is your goal?
Your goal is not to kill this person. Revenge is not factored in here, so your only goal is to save you and/or your family.
Your goal is to protect you and/or your family. His goal is to harm you and/or your family.
By transitive property, your goal is to stop him from accomplishing his goal.
Now, there are many ways to stop an attacker, ranging from trying to bore him to sleep (highly ineffectual, and quite frankly, stupid as Hell
) to trying to stop his major body functions (highly effective).The logical person (and the person that values his and his family's lives) will choose the most effective method: stopping the attacker's body altogether.
Now, this may change in the future, but the most effective way to stop a person's body entirely is to kill them.
Thus, also by transitive property, your goal is to kill them.
I think the most effective way to accomplish that goal has been hashed out again and again on this forum.
Now, I broke this down to its most basic parts not to be insulting to any boardmember's intelligence, but to illustrate something you all already know:
It's not about the perpetrator deserving to die or any such emotional dilemma, thinking like that leads down the road of the conscience, which really has no place in such an absolutely do-or-die scenario.
It's about what you are trying to accomplish. I've already demonstrated that your goal, through some assumptions is to stop the perpetrator.
Now, aiming to merely harm someone, as opposed to aiming to kill them, is more difficult, has a lower incidence of successfully completing the goal (stopping the attacker), and may actually be less humane.
I will not tell you whether to attempt to harm or to kill, I accept that you may have mitigating or complicating circumstances or preferences that may change things a bit, but for me the choice is relatively clear.
I would shoot to kill. For the same reason I would choose caliber X over caliber Y: it accomplishes my goal.
DISCLAIMER: This post is written in a very authoritative fashion. It breaks the situation down into an overly simple equation to illustrate a point. I do not assume anything about the intelligence or experience of anyone on this board. I merely wanted to illustrate how I see the issue: as a problem, plain and simple.
May you all have long and uneventful lives (unless, of course, eventful is what you wish for),
-Nolo
Aguila Blanca
Member
Got a statutory citation to support that? It makes no sense whatsoever. What you are saying is that in Tennessee you can only use lethal force to defend yourself if your intention is to kill the assailant, not to "stop the attack."memphisjim said:
Sorry. I don't buy it.
You can only use lethal force to defend against any assault likely to cause you death or grievous bodily harm. So once that threat is removed, i. e., the aggressor has stopped, you no longer have the right to continue to use lethal force. Thus you shoot to stop. The reality is that an application of force on your part sufficient to effectively stop the threat may result in the death of the attacker.
I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:
[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
[3] breaking major skeletal support structures
[4] damaging the central nervous system.
Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts, is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.
Since adrenalin or drugs can blunt the effects of pain, and people have continued to fight when severely wounded, effectively stopping the fight usually requires causing sufficient damage to render the attacker physiologically incapable of continuing the fight, such as from massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen, major damage to important skeletal support structures or damage to the central nervous system.
We are generally taught, and practice, shooting for the center of mass of our attacker, i. e., his chest. It presents a bigger, and generally less mobile, target than the head. And the idea is that within that area of the body there are a lot of major organs that will bleed a lot when damaged. So the center of mass is the usual target of choice because it’s the one we’re most likely to be able to hit. And we thus rely on blood loss depriving the attacker’s muscles of oxygen to stop the fight. The rub is that the effects of blood loss and oxygen deprivation can take some time – during which our attacker will most likely continue to try to hurt us.
The more damage that is caused, the quicker the blood supply to the muscles and brain will be impaired and the more quickly the attacker will lose the physiological ability to press the fight. Of course, the more damage we do, the more likely it is that the damage will be fatal. That is a consequence of effectively stopping the attack.
Of course, if the BG decides to stop because he doesn’t like getting shot, that’s okay too. I’m just reluctant to count on it.
I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:
[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
[3] breaking major skeletal support structures
[4] damaging the central nervous system.
Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts, is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.
Since adrenalin or drugs can blunt the effects of pain, and people have continued to fight when severely wounded, effectively stopping the fight usually requires causing sufficient damage to render the attacker physiologically incapable of continuing the fight, such as from massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen, major damage to important skeletal support structures or damage to the central nervous system.
We are generally taught, and practice, shooting for the center of mass of our attacker, i. e., his chest. It presents a bigger, and generally less mobile, target than the head. And the idea is that within that area of the body there are a lot of major organs that will bleed a lot when damaged. So the center of mass is the usual target of choice because it’s the one we’re most likely to be able to hit. And we thus rely on blood loss depriving the attacker’s muscles of oxygen to stop the fight. The rub is that the effects of blood loss and oxygen deprivation can take some time – during which our attacker will most likely continue to try to hurt us.
The more damage that is caused, the quicker the blood supply to the muscles and brain will be impaired and the more quickly the attacker will lose the physiological ability to press the fight. Of course, the more damage we do, the more likely it is that the damage will be fatal. That is a consequence of effectively stopping the attack.
Of course, if the BG decides to stop because he doesn’t like getting shot, that’s okay too. I’m just reluctant to count on it.
Nolo,
Your argument hinges on the idea that the most effective way to stop an attack is by causing the death of the attacker but you don't establish that fact.
First you need to define "most effective". Quickest? Easiest? Most likely to succeed? Most often effective based on recorded encounters?
Once you define "most effective" then you need to prove that causing death is the most effective way to stop an attack. To do that you would have to explain why although most attacks successfully stopped by defenders with firearms do not cause the death of, or even serious injury to the attacker, the attacker must die for the defense to be "most effective". You would also have to explain how it is possible to maintain that killing the attacker is the "most effective" solution even though some attackers who ultimately died still were able to kill a defender/defended person before expiring.
The bottom line is that self-defense has nothing to do with the prognosis of the attacker. It is EXCLUSIVELY concerned with stopping the attack.
A person using self-defense in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law should have absolutely no concern with whether the attacker lives or dies but only with whether or not the attack stops. If you stop trying to stop the attack and start trying to cause your attacker's death you are no longer DEFENDING. You are now trying to kill and that is not what self-defense is about.
Experts would tell you to aim for center-of-mass to stop an attack because that is the most effective method for using a firearm to stop an attacker. Then you shoot until the attack ends. When the attacker breaks off or is unable to continue you're done REGARDLESS of whether he is uninjured, slightly hurt, seriously injured or dead. The effectiveness of your defense is evidenced by the prognosis of the DEFENDED, not the prognosis of the ATTACKER.
Your argument hinges on the idea that the most effective way to stop an attack is by causing the death of the attacker but you don't establish that fact.
First you need to define "most effective". Quickest? Easiest? Most likely to succeed? Most often effective based on recorded encounters?
Once you define "most effective" then you need to prove that causing death is the most effective way to stop an attack. To do that you would have to explain why although most attacks successfully stopped by defenders with firearms do not cause the death of, or even serious injury to the attacker, the attacker must die for the defense to be "most effective". You would also have to explain how it is possible to maintain that killing the attacker is the "most effective" solution even though some attackers who ultimately died still were able to kill a defender/defended person before expiring.
The bottom line is that self-defense has nothing to do with the prognosis of the attacker. It is EXCLUSIVELY concerned with stopping the attack.
A person using self-defense in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law should have absolutely no concern with whether the attacker lives or dies but only with whether or not the attack stops. If you stop trying to stop the attack and start trying to cause your attacker's death you are no longer DEFENDING. You are now trying to kill and that is not what self-defense is about.
Experts would tell you to aim for center-of-mass to stop an attack because that is the most effective method for using a firearm to stop an attacker. Then you shoot until the attack ends. When the attacker breaks off or is unable to continue you're done REGARDLESS of whether he is uninjured, slightly hurt, seriously injured or dead. The effectiveness of your defense is evidenced by the prognosis of the DEFENDED, not the prognosis of the ATTACKER.
Correct, you shouldn't assume the attacker will give up. This isn't about tactics (the military is trained to kill and they also shoot center of mass), it's about not losing sight of your TRUE goal and about knowing when to stop.
Nolo
Member
I'm sorry, I meant effective as in "highest incidence of success".JohnKSa said:
I assumed something that I don't think you are (which is okay, I just want to clarify): You are going to shoot the person. The matter is where.
If you have already had the situation escalate (and many have, though many also didn't) to the point where the perpetrator will not stop even after a show of force, then you have to shoot them. The question is: what do I want to accomplish by shooting them?
Well, you want to stop them from doing what it is they are doing/trying to do.
So you effectively play the immobilize card. You strive to immobilize them. The most sure (and also quickest and easiest, physically, anyhow) way to do that is to kill them.
If things have not escalated to this level, then obviously other actions are in order.
Pretty much exactly my point. And the best way to stop an attacker is shutting down their body. That is, killing them. If someone is threatening you or you know means you harm but has not made an active move yet, then you can brandish your weapon and hope to scare them off. Likewise, earlier in a threatening situation, other things can be done, like running or avoiding.
But I am assuming, because of how I read the OP (i.e., we are already resorting to shooting) that all of these options have been exhausted.
We're really on different wavelengths. But I do think that is my fault.
I am breaking down a single instant. Shoot for limb or shoot for center mass? One instant. Like I said, the entire thing is very broken down, as if you had time to think about it, even though you do not. I believe you are talking about an entire incident, such as: "There are creepy guys with knives and wire-cutters outside, what do I do?"
There are four steps to self-defense (as I see it):
-Avoid
-Run
-Threaten
-Fight
I am only rationalizing the "fight" step, none of the others.
Exactly. If the threat has disengaged, he is no longer a threat. Thus, the solution I gave does not apply.
Much of my post is based on this assumption. I'm a worse-case scenario kind of guy. I assume that if your self-defense situation escalates to the "fight" level, that the only thing you can count on to get yourself out the situation is death of the attacker. However, that does not mean that de-escalation cannot happen.
I do apologize if I confused or misrepresented myself. I was only doing that problem within the "fight" step of a self-defense situation. I didn't mean for people to think that I wanted you to use that remedy for all of the other steps (for instance, that would mean that as an avoidance measure, you should kill anyone that you come into contact with--totally not what I meant).
Again, my apologies if anyone misunderstood what I was saying.
halfbreed808
Member
This is basically a play on words. SHOOT to STOP. If the perp contiues to be threatening, SHOOT to COMPLETELY STOP. Getting locked on the wording shoot to kill will be nothing but trouble if you're ever in this type of situation. A good lawyer would pick this one phrase and tear you apart with it. The way we phrase our thoughts and ideas must make us sound resonable and intelligent. No matter what the intention or outcome may be.
Gentleman Ranker
Member
JShirley (Today, 01:54 AM) #24 says:
That is an excellent digest of everything I read about the law of self-defense when I was in Georgia. I suspect that the finer points will differ in other states, but not by much.
Using a firearm is always deadly force. Even pointing a firearm that the pointer knows is unloaded can convict you of aggravated assault in some places.
If you shoot anyone for any reason, however good a one it may be, someone is going to inquire closely into your reason(s) for doing so. The best course is to know what constitutes justification for deadly force where you live, and think about shoot/no-shoot decisions in terms of that law. Please note that I am not saying you should let yourself be killed over some legal technicality; I am not aware of any jurisdictions that require you to be dead before you can use deadly force yourself.
Your position, both pre- and post-shooting, should be: "I am a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. I don't want to kill anybody, ever. The deceased's actions forced me to take action to stop his felonious behavior." Or something similar. It's the best legal position, and doesn't actually restrict your actions in any way that I can imagine.
It's also a good idea to call an ambulance for the person you shot even if you are unharmed. Revenge is illegal everywhere, and you didn't want to kill anybody, remember?
The simple fact is that, in law, a bad person has as much right to their life as a good person does. Someone may have "needed killing", but YOU do not have the right to make that decision. You DO have the right to defend yourself, using deadly force if need be. Be very clear about the distinction.
regards,
GR
That is an excellent digest of everything I read about the law of self-defense when I was in Georgia. I suspect that the finer points will differ in other states, but not by much.
Using a firearm is always deadly force. Even pointing a firearm that the pointer knows is unloaded can convict you of aggravated assault in some places.
If you shoot anyone for any reason, however good a one it may be, someone is going to inquire closely into your reason(s) for doing so. The best course is to know what constitutes justification for deadly force where you live, and think about shoot/no-shoot decisions in terms of that law. Please note that I am not saying you should let yourself be killed over some legal technicality; I am not aware of any jurisdictions that require you to be dead before you can use deadly force yourself.
Your position, both pre- and post-shooting, should be: "I am a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. I don't want to kill anybody, ever. The deceased's actions forced me to take action to stop his felonious behavior." Or something similar. It's the best legal position, and doesn't actually restrict your actions in any way that I can imagine.
It's also a good idea to call an ambulance for the person you shot even if you are unharmed. Revenge is illegal everywhere, and you didn't want to kill anybody, remember?
The simple fact is that, in law, a bad person has as much right to their life as a good person does. Someone may have "needed killing", but YOU do not have the right to make that decision. You DO have the right to defend yourself, using deadly force if need be. Be very clear about the distinction.
regards,
GR
Ivy Mike
Member
my grandfather (WWII vet and retired LAPD officer) explained it to me quite simply.
When your life or someone elses life is in danger, you do what you can to protect yourself and others. If this means shooting someone, so be it. You do what you must but understand that when you pull your gun, you are automatically accepting the fact that you could kill someone.
and you never pull your gun unless you have to and are ready to kill someone.
When your life or someone elses life is in danger, you do what you can to protect yourself and others. If this means shooting someone, so be it. You do what you must but understand that when you pull your gun, you are automatically accepting the fact that you could kill someone.
and you never pull your gun unless you have to and are ready to kill someone.
I thought that shoot to kill and shoot to stop meant the same thing.
After all, you would know absolutely nothing about your attacker, robber, rapist, murderer, drugged out, mental escapee, etc,etc,etc.
I can't remember the name of the stuff, some kind of heavy animal tranq, it was popuplar and new maybe 20-25 years ago. I remember several shootings that took several rounds to stop. The stop ended up being a kill because of so many rounds.
Safety of self, family, and innocents would pretty much dictate a quick and definative end to the situation.
After all, you would know absolutely nothing about your attacker, robber, rapist, murderer, drugged out, mental escapee, etc,etc,etc.
I can't remember the name of the stuff, some kind of heavy animal tranq, it was popuplar and new maybe 20-25 years ago. I remember several shootings that took several rounds to stop. The stop ended up being a kill because of so many rounds.
Safety of self, family, and innocents would pretty much dictate a quick and definative end to the situation.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Read the book "on killing"
You will be surprized on just how unwilling some soldiers were even to the point of death to kill the enemy.
You will begin to understand "posturing"
This isn't TV nor movies.
You might find yourself reluctant to kill even though you say you will.
You might want to reach into the human mind to include your own.
Very few people kill.
How many CCWers un the United States Stopped a Threat? by killing.
Many, many soldiers did their duty and killed. Many did not, would not.
In the civil war there were many cases where they would shoot over the enemies heads.
In WWI and WWII alot of nonkilling went on.
Killing isn't easy.
You will be surprized on just how unwilling some soldiers were even to the point of death to kill the enemy.
You will begin to understand "posturing"
This isn't TV nor movies.
You might find yourself reluctant to kill even though you say you will.
You might want to reach into the human mind to include your own.
Very few people kill.
How many CCWers un the United States Stopped a Threat? by killing.
Many, many soldiers did their duty and killed. Many did not, would not.
In the civil war there were many cases where they would shoot over the enemies heads.
In WWI and WWII alot of nonkilling went on.
Killing isn't easy.
I was taught to shoot to "stop the threat" not to kill. You are protecting you and/or your families lives and once you are not threatened by harm anymore you are done. If the perp dies, he dies, but the main purpose is YOUR safety not his death.
That being said I was also taught to shoot center mass with tripple taps.
That being said I was also taught to shoot center mass with tripple taps.
Deanimator
Member
A lot of the silly sounding stuff that well meaning people say comes straight out of TV. They know nothing about guns that didn't come from watching "Hawaii Five-O" and "Law & Order: Screw Thread Standardization Bureau".
1. Shooting somebody, ANYWHERE is deadly force, PERIOD.
2. You can die quite easily from being shot in the leg, and just as easily NOT die from being shot in the chest.
3. Since 1 above is a truism, police, prosecutors and juries are apt to say to you, "Since shooting somebody is deadly force, and you should only use deadly force against deadly force, but you say you only meant to wound your 'assailant', you obviously DIDN'T feel that you were in immediate, credible fear of life and limb."
You shoot to stop whatever behavior you felt you were legally entitled to stop via the use of deadly force. The most reliable ways to "stop" behavior under such circumstances, when used properly, entail substantial likelihood of death to the recipient. Death's not the goal, but it's certainly an acceptable by-product.
1. Shooting somebody, ANYWHERE is deadly force, PERIOD.
2. You can die quite easily from being shot in the leg, and just as easily NOT die from being shot in the chest.
3. Since 1 above is a truism, police, prosecutors and juries are apt to say to you, "Since shooting somebody is deadly force, and you should only use deadly force against deadly force, but you say you only meant to wound your 'assailant', you obviously DIDN'T feel that you were in immediate, credible fear of life and limb."
You shoot to stop whatever behavior you felt you were legally entitled to stop via the use of deadly force. The most reliable ways to "stop" behavior under such circumstances, when used properly, entail substantial likelihood of death to the recipient. Death's not the goal, but it's certainly an acceptable by-product.
Drgong
Member
If I was forced to defend myself, (and i hope I don't have to) I would shoot center of mass till the BG fell over. I actually training myself to at least put three shots off in double time to get as much lead down range quickly. after the BG fell over it depends if he/she has a weapon and if they get up.
I read that book, it was a good read but had some flawed studies (I don't think he took into account confounding factors) I did like the part where society influences whether or not the killer feels guilty.
I would also like to suggest(as someone who's almost killed-not involving guns at all) That killing is easy esp. when enraged(attacked). A third party stepped in and stopped me both times and I'm glad they did. I think a more accurate statement might be that living with it is hard JMO
SapperMapper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 96
I have. LTC Grossman is a one smart dude.
Fortunately, I have never had to pull that trigger. I came close, and the thought process in my head could be distilled to this idea:
"You better stop. Don't make me shoot you!"
Fortunately, he stopped. And I went and smoked two or three cigarettes in short order.
It's an action that, once you commit yourself, you cannot turn back from. I think a lot of folks lack a certain level of commitment, and that's where the emotional resistances to guns comes into play.
Last edited:
shadowalker
Member
I shoot to stop, and stop shooting when the threat is over, they may die as a result of that. The BG is in total control over the amount of force being used.
Just because the BG goes to the ground does not mean the threat is over or that the shooting should stop and a head shot on the ground may be entirely appropriate if they are still a deadly threat, it is a failure to stop.
If the person dies it is still homicide, it just happens to be justifiable homicide. Idaho also has civil immunity for valid uses of force.
Just because the BG goes to the ground does not mean the threat is over or that the shooting should stop and a head shot on the ground may be entirely appropriate if they are still a deadly threat, it is a failure to stop.
If the person dies it is still homicide, it just happens to be justifiable homicide. Idaho also has civil immunity for valid uses of force.
Here in the Republik of NJ ...
... you must assume you will be arrested for discharging a firearm in self defense. So sayeth Mas Ayoob, and I believe that.
So if it's worth being arrested here in NJ, I will likely shoot for center mass and keep shooting until the threat is stopped. But, I would only be doing that if there was an intruder in my house and my family and I were at risk. Not having been in the situation, which always seems to be very dynamic when reading about other's experiences, it's only speculation on my part.
... you must assume you will be arrested for discharging a firearm in self defense. So sayeth Mas Ayoob, and I believe that.
So if it's worth being arrested here in NJ, I will likely shoot for center mass and keep shooting until the threat is stopped. But, I would only be doing that if there was an intruder in my house and my family and I were at risk. Not having been in the situation, which always seems to be very dynamic when reading about other's experiences, it's only speculation on my part.
Lady with a Gun
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 61
I do know that a center of mass hold is the most reliable tactic for getting a solid body hit.
I believe the point that you Shoot to Stop, has been well made in this thread, although I have to admit, I found it surprising that this fact is even up for debate.
A point I don't see made for self defense situations and I believe important is this;
If you have to pull your gun, you will discharge it 8 out of a 100 incidents.
If you have to pull your gun and you do get to discharge it, you will only hit the Bad Guy in 6 out of 10 incidents.
If you have to pull your gun and you do get to discharge it and you hit the Bad Guy, he will survive in 3 out of 4 incidents.
PS, don't quote me, as the numbers I'm typing are approximate and from memory. I do hope this gives some perspective to the 'If I pull my gun, someones is going to die' approach to self defense. No illusions, it IS deadly force, but one should also know the numbers.
A point I don't see made for self defense situations and I believe important is this;
If you have to pull your gun, you will discharge it 8 out of a 100 incidents.
If you have to pull your gun and you do get to discharge it, you will only hit the Bad Guy in 6 out of 10 incidents.
If you have to pull your gun and you do get to discharge it and you hit the Bad Guy, he will survive in 3 out of 4 incidents.
PS, don't quote me, as the numbers I'm typing are approximate and from memory. I do hope this gives some perspective to the 'If I pull my gun, someones is going to die' approach to self defense. No illusions, it IS deadly force, but one should also know the numbers.
SCKimberFan
Member
Could someone explain the difference between shoot to stop and shoot to completely stop? If the threat is stopped, is it not completely stopped? If the threat continues, obviously it is not stopped. The "completely stopped" line is redundant and obviously unnecessary.
csmkersh
Member
glockman19 said:
Texas' DPS CHL training teaches the same thing but with a different twist:
Keep shooting until the threat is ended/stopped.
They also teach center mass and that, while death is the most probable result, it is not the intent, ending the threat is.
SapperMapper
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 96
I understand what you're getting at, and it seems like splitting hairs over words. But, there is a difference.
Example - BG enters your house. You shoot, he continues to advance, you shoot again, BG falls to the floor. Threat stopped right? Okay, now he rolls over and tries to pull his pistol. You shoot until the threat is completely stopped.
There was another thread here where a LEO shot a guy in the hand. Assumed he was finished, holstered her pistol, and moved in to cuff him. That's when he jumped her, nearly gaining control of her firearm, at one point in the struggle the pistol was pointing at her throat. Was he stopped when she moved to cuff him? Yep. Was he completely stopped? NO.
Again, like shadowalker stated, the BG is in total control of how much force you use.
SCKimberFan
Member
"Threat stopped right? Okay, now he rolls over and tries to pull his pistol. You shoot until the threat is completely stopped."
"Was he stopped when she moved to cuff him?"
NO. When he rolls over, the threat has not been stopped. He jumped her - not stopped here either. You stay with it until the threat is stopped.
"Was he stopped when she moved to cuff him?"
NO. When he rolls over, the threat has not been stopped. He jumped her - not stopped here either. You stay with it until the threat is stopped.
Last edited:
- Status