"Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to stop"

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's the point I'm trying to make. That there's a difference between 'stopped', as in not moving or actively presenting a threat, and 'completely stopped' which to me means 'unable to cause any further harm'.

'Completely stopped' doesn't necessarily mean the BG is dead, but it is a very probable outcome.
 
Back to the begining...

So when talking to someone who thinks that shooting a BG in the leg is somehow preferable to shooting COM...

1. Unlike playing playground games of tag, being hit doesn't mean you have to stop and give up. Somehow most people that haven't really thought about guns (or planned or trained for self defense) tend to assume that any hit (even with pepper spray) counts and stops the threat. It isn't that they're stupid, only ignorant. Most people who get exposure to violence through movies and TV don't believe how much trauma a human can take before stopping - unless its Rambo or John Wayne.:D Seriously, remind them that real people who choose violent crime as an occupation can be very determined.

2. Shooting to wound a human is cruel. This causes unnecessary pain and suffering. The goal here isn't to cause pain. (I think the other posts have covered the stop/kill goals very thoroughly). :rolleyes: Again, using gross generalization based upon my experiences, most people who haven't thought about, planned for or encountered the use of firearms (or other forms of deadly force) assume that it is kinder to wound than kill. Many associate "kill" with "murder" and don't see themselves as murderers. This is where you have to push the distinction between killing with a valid purpose (self defense, etc. ) and murder. You can shoot COM without being a bad person, but don't expect someone who doesn't spend time at the range or on THR to believe that without some serious effort.

Self defense requires a commitment to the concept of valid and justuse of violence. You must reconcile yourself with the idea that your safety and your existence is more important to you than the aggressor's. If you can't accept this, then it doesn't matter if you CCW an M249 with 1000 rounds because you won't be able to use it effectively.
 
A Gun is Deadly Force

The moment you pull the trigger with the barrel pointed at a human you are using deadly force.

You must be ready to justify the use of deadly force under the laws of where it happened. In most jurisdictions, it appears that you must be responding to an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to yourself or another.

It matters little what you CLAIM you were aiming at (knee, head, hand, heart).

It matters little what body part you actually hit with the bullet.

For your own peace of mind, you may tell yourself you were only trying to injure, or maim, or intimidate, but not to kill. That is a good discussion to have with your spouse, therapist, and minister/rabbi/priest/mullah.

However, you best be prepared to talk with your lawyer about the immediate threat to life and limb that you saw when you shot.


craig

p.s. Lots of good reading out there on this topic. My most recent study has been "The Concealed Handgun Manual" by Chris Bird.
 
A few points I would like to add:

1. Regardless of your opinion, words mean things and the words you use are important not only in discussions with friends, but to authorities. When you are stressed and at your wits end calling 911, you will use the words you are used to using. You won't be using any clever lawyer speak. If you are accustomed to using the term 'shoot to stop', you will likely use that term under stress. IMO, that is important.

2. Stopping the threat is a much better way to sell self defense as a concept to fence sitters. Once they accept that, then you can get into the intent and consequences of "stopping the threat". Fence sitters are hit with stereotypes all the time. Don't act like some stereotypical gun toting red neck and justify their PC attitudes.

3. About the only other thing I would add is you could counsel a shoot to aim slightly lower. I think a lot of people tend to aim up at the heart and people often shoot high. It might be better explained to aim at the gut in some cases.
 
The whole "Shoot to Stop, Shoot to Kill" thing kind of evades me. I have to wonder, how many people in here, think they are good enough shots to make a 20-30 Ft Shot, In Low Light/No Light conditions, on a Moving Target, in the arm or the leg. Now add in fear/adrenaline/anger...and you start shaking. It's a physiological response. Can you still make that shot? Shooting Center Mass gives you the greatest likelihood of striking. And then you shoot to stop...his heart.
 
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.
Click to expand...
A very poor assumption. I can't vouch for the exact accuracy of OrangeJoe's post (#46 on this thread) but his numbers are in the ballpark.

REGARDLESS, the tactics of shooting to stop are no different than the tactics of shooting to kill. As I pointed out, the military trains to kill and they shoot center of mass. Defensive trainers tell their students to shoot to stop and to do so by shooting center of mass.

The issue isn't WHAT you're doing, it's WHY you're doing it. MOST importantly it is what you're going to say if you are asked about it, and what the record will show you said about it in the past.
'Completely stopped' doesn't necessarily mean the BG is dead, but it is a very probable outcome.
Click to expand...
No, it is not, in fact it is the LEAST probable outcome. Probably somewhere around 1 or 2 percent of cases.
 
Semantics

From reading these posts, it appears that many users of the phrase "shoot to kill" think "shoot to stop" and "shoot to wound" mean the same thing; they do NOT. Actually, most who use the phrases "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" are employing the same basic tactics: shoot center of mass, with the possibility of having to make a head shot until the threat ceases. "Stop" is a generic term as far as the attacker is concerned. "Stop" refers the threat of serious bodily harm or death to you having ended.

JohnKSa explains it much better than I :eek:.

As someone else said, someone who is shooting with the goal of wounding (leg shot) may severe the femoral arterey, resulting in death. And someone shooting with the express intent of killing the attacker (head shot) may fail to do so.

Most of us posting here mean the same thing: shoot COM until your life is not in danger any longer. "Shoot to live" was an interesting phrase I saw on THR some months ago. But I will say that I have seen at least one post here that strongly implies that the attacker will be killed, regardless. Even if that isn't what you meant, it is very unwise to post such words in an open forum where they can be used against you by a prosecutor, God forbid you are ever put into such a situation.

Those using the phrase "shoot to kill", asks yourselves this (and I hope none of you ever have to face such a situation to begin with): If you are on trial, up against an anti-gun and anti-self defense prosecutor, with a majority of the Jury on the fence regarding guns and self defense, which phrase would you rather use to describe what you did?
 
Oneshooter, you are wrong about that. Texas provides for immunity from civil liability in justifiable self-defense actions. That does not mean you "can't be sued" You can be sued by anybody for anything. If you legitimately used deadly force, you can't be held liable. The criminal's family can still sue you all they want, it's just that you will win.


There is an important distinction in "shoot to stop" vs. "shoot to kill." STK, I believe, involves malice on your part and morally, if not legally, is murder.
As has already been pointed out, many people have received wounds that were ultimately fatal, yet continued to fight. Conversely, many more people have received survivable wounds and gave it up.

When defending yourself, your goal is -- or at least should be-- stopping the threat. If you merely threaten deadly force and your attacker stops: your goal has been accomplished. Same if you shoot and miss, shoot and mess his hair up, or hit him in the shoulder and he bleeds a bit.

If you empty three magazines into the guy and he still keeps coming and you end up having to beat him to death with your gun, then that's what it takes.

Stopping the thread means ending it. Whether that means frightening your atacker off or killing him, the real goal is the same: ending the attack.
 
Most of us posting here mean the same thing: shoot COM until your life is not in danger any longer.
Click to expand...

I've read after the first few successful hits to COM fail to stop the threat it is better to move on to other tactics such as a head shot. If 3 to the heart / lungs don't stop the BG 8 are not significantly likely to either, the damage is done.

I read of one shooting where an officer scored ~ 8 fatal COM hits, but the BG kept coming, eventually being taken down by a head shot just before the officer ran out of ammunition. Another where a BG took 7 rounds of 45 ACP to COM, fell to the ground and attempted to re-engage, also stopped with a head shot, in this case the officer's last round before he had to reload.

Once those shots don't work you now have a failure to stop. Even once the heart is destroyed a person has 10-15 seconds of willful control left, more than enough time to kill you before he dies. In one case a female officer was hit in the heart, and was able to return fire and kill the BG before she unfortunately died.

COM hits primarily destroy vitals and let blood out. An average person can function normally until they lose about 1/4 of their blood supply, a determined person much longer.

There are several techniques for dealing with failure to stop, if you are confident you have COM hits and the BG isn't stopping sometimes a follow up electrical shot is necessary.
 
bdickens, Mayhaps my wording was a little off, but the law remains the same. YES you can be sued, they can pay a lawyer big bucks to sue you, but the law says that it WILL be thrown out.
Most lawyers I know will no longer accept these cases unless they are paid up front. And then they will tell you that you are throwing your money away!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 
The way I taught my kids...

You never shoot to take a life...
You only shoot to save a life...
 
When the officer asks me i shoot to end the threat.

I have trained myself to effectively and efficiently end any threat. I have trained myself to continue shooting center mass until the threat has ended. During times of stress we rever to our training. If the threat ends up dead it is just the result of my training.
 
one thing I was taught about the appropriateness of a 'mission statement' or 'goal' was to test it with varying results. If the result was a good result then it should meet the 'mission statement'

Mission Statement #1 "Shoot to Kill" (MS#1)
Mission Statement #2 "Shoot to stop" (MS#2)

Scenario one. Bad guy attacks, you shoot him with a 22LR, he stabs you in the eye with an ice pick. You die. He dies later from his gunshot wounds.

Outcome good? No.
Outcome match MS#1 ? YES
Conflict, denotes MS#1 is a poor MS
Outcome match MS#2 ? No
Both the same, this indicates MS#2 is acceptable.

Scenario 2.

You are attacked by a axe weilding maniac. You blast him with a 12 guage shotgun loaded with buck, but you shoot a bit low. The load takes him in the pelvis breaking it causing him to collapse unable to use his legs, but still very much alive, and unlikely to bleed to death, yet unable to reach you with his axe.

Outcome good? Yes
Outcome match MS#1? NO
Conflict, denotes MS#1 is a poor MS
Outcome match MS#2? Yes
Both the same, this indcates MS#2 is an accpetable MS

REGARDLESS, the tactics of shooting to stop are no different than the tactics of shooting to kill. As I pointed out, the military trains to kill and they shoot center of mass. Defensive trainers tell their students to shoot to stop and to do so by shooting center of mass.

The issue isn't WHAT you're doing, it's WHY you're doing it. MOST importantly it is what you're going to say if you are asked about it, and what the record will show you said about it in the past.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one tactical difference. If the threat is stopped, but has not surrendered, the threat will either be killed or taken captive under 'shoot to kill' while under 'shoot to stop' you wouldn't need to walk up and put one in the back of a defeated opponent's skull. Failure to terminate a foe, defeated or still posing a threat, means you fail at 'Shoot to Kill'
 
Excellent discussion. JohnKSa has expressed the essentials of the issue very well.

Shooting to wound is just silly or ignorant of our own capabilities (well, mine anyway). The thing is that if you fire a gun at someone, ethically (in my opinion) and legally, you had better be shooting to stop the threat not kill someone. However, if you fire a gun another human, you had better be ready to live with or figure out how to live with the distinct possibility that you may kill someone.
 
what compelling argument could a scum-bag make against someone after he got shot for committing a felony of some sort?
Click to expand...

Never underestimate a civil suit and an unethical lawyer.
 
The goal is to make a lethal assault stop. If that means shooting him, fine. If he dies in the process, fine. ...but the goal is "stop", not "kill".

The "shoot to kill" mindset risks going one step beyond what's required to save lives, into unnecessarily taking them - and that's murder.

The "shoot to injure" mindset is unwilling to accept death as a consequence of the action - rendering the act either ineffective or excessively traumatic.
 
As stated, ANY shot is potentially lethal. Leg shot, you can hit the femoral artery. There have also been cases where people have been hit in the arm, and not even severely, yet have laid down and died, cause they "thought" they were going to die.

I read of one shooting where an officer scored ~ 8 fatal COM hits, but the BG kept coming, eventually being taken down by a head shot just before the officer ran out of ammunition.
Click to expand...

This hearkens to another quote I read. "Don't shoot until YOU think the BG's dead, keep shooting until HE thinks he's dead!"

In other cases, LEO's have been killed because they made two quick hits to COM, and then reholstered, as they have done in training. BG wasn't going down so easy and returned fire, killing them.
 
I will emphasize, a handgun is only to be used, when you cannot bring a rifle or a shotgun to bear. A shotgun is far more effective at close range, than a pistol, or even a SMG. A rifle has a big advantage at longer ranges, which is exactly the distance you should be keeping a potential threat.
 
At least in florida, the family of the deceased can sue until the cows come home - if it has been determined to be a 'good shoot', not only is the suer responsible for the defendant's legal fees, so isn't the lawyer who's representing them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Good day at the range
Replies
3
Views
723
knuckles
K
F
  • Locked
Oh, what my wife said - FUNNY!!!
Replies
23
Views
2K
pax
P
K
  • Locked
I am so proud!
Replies
12
Views
766
Standing Wolf
S
T
  • Locked
I won another girl over to our side!
Replies
20
Views
2K
BerettaNut92
B
G
  • Locked
Girlfriend that is completely new to shooting
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
ny32182
N
Back
Top