"Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to stop"

[CHEVELLE427]

Along time ago when I took the class to get a carry permit. We were told you never shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat, death was just a by product of the act.

 

[romeo212000]

That is exactly how it needs to be viewed because when something happens and you get diarreah of the mouth what will come out is what is actually in your head.

 

[TylerDurden]

Shoot to kill?

As Chevelle 427 mentioned, it is only a by product of the act.

Shooting someone is a serious endeavor. Try to rationalize. I think that fate is in their deck of cards. If I shoot to center of mass, a I shoot to stop. If the person dies due to blood loss, etc. then that is the deck of cards given.

Their lack of physiology and poor response time of 911 let them down. Just like I would have been let down if I had hesitated or done nothing.

Peace.

-TD

 

[JohnMcD348]

this idea happens alot

I think the only people who really think about this are people who have really and truthfully thought to themsleves about the defense of their selves and their families.

Not just women but men also think this way, you only just hear it mostly from women. They are victims of the hollywood, video scene where the bad guy gets shot in the hand or the leg and is instantly incapacitated. They think it's easy to do since it's on TV. It's as real as everything they read online.

When I discuss it with people, I simply tell them that if your life was truly in danger and you had to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones, you are then prepared to kill that person. There is no other option. It's not a blood lust, it's a fact that you have either exhausted your options or you are in a situation that does not allow any other option but the use of deadly force. The key word is deadly. Once you have chosen to use this amount of force it has to be used to it's fullest extent. Otherwise, it should never have been used to begin with.

I've had this conversation with my ex-girlfriend and her firends years ago and have had this same conversation in varying forms with others over the years. It's with friends and friends of family that always want to learn how to shoot to defend themsleves but then say they could never shoot and kill someone if they had to. That's when we usually have the conversation and it centers on how they have to be able and willing to come to the realistic conclusion that if they had to, they would be able to take a life to defend their own or the life of their loved ones. Until that moment, a firearm intheir hands is more dangerous for them than it is for the attacker in my opinion.

 

[NotSoFast]

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"?

If I have to shoot someone, I am going to shoot to stop their aggression, whatever that takes. And if that means that person dies as the result, then so be it. California law says you have to stop shooting when you have stopped their aggression. But it also says I can shoot if I feel my life or anyone else is in danger of being killed or injured, to prevent a violent felony, or to defend my habitation, property, and person against a violent felony.

But, since you sorta mentioned juries, a couple things I keep in mind while doing that. First, my pistol is stock with only a Crimson Trace laser added so I can point and shoot in an emergency condition. And second, I am shooting factory ammo. That way there are two less points the jury can look at me negatively on if I am taken to trial, either by the DA or by the family of the person I would be forced to shoot. It has been mentioned that a jury could look on reloaded ammo or a modified gun as labeling me as a hotshot shooter looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

Aside: reloads for SD

NotSoFast (Today 02:24 AM) #80 mentions:

It has been mentioned that a jury could look on reloaded ammo or a modified gun as labeling me as a hotshot shooter looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

As an aside, some years ago I had LEXIS access and heard someone make the "reloaded ammo" argument, so I decided to look into it. Basically, I could not find one case in LEXIS, in any state, at any time, where reloaded ammunition had been any kind of legal issue at all.

Mind you, this does not mean that:

• my search was a good one (I do know how to do them, but everyone makes misteaks)
  
  
• it hasn't become an issue since I did that search
  
  
• it couldn't have been mentioned at trial but somehow didn't make it into the reported opinion, or
  
  
• it won't happen at some time in the future.

I can't go so far as to say that reloads can't be an issue, but I do say that a search of reported cases done some years ago didn't turn up any evidence of it.

No criticism of NotSoFast is intended, just reporting something that I found. Contrary evidence welcome. It is probably best to make this a separate thread if anyone is interested, but I don't know any more about it than what I've posted above.

regards,

GR

 

[CHEVELLE427]

Along time ago when I took the class to get a carry permit. We were told you never shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat, death was just a by product of the act.

Lets add a little more FYI here.
MOST OF THIS WAS TAUGHT TO US IN CLASS.

If you ever have to shoot someone it depends on what you say when the law interviews you,
if you tell the, that sucker came at me and I feared for my life and had to shoot him, you most likely will walk, but if you add,
HE WAS STILL KICKING SO I POPPED ANOTHER ROUND IN HIS AZZ,
well your going to jail.

also we were told the MINIMUM amount of time to shoot someone was TWICE
Even if you catch someone stealing things out of your car, well there not threat to you but you want to get there attention so you fire off a round in the ground, you may have just as well shot the perp as for when you fired the round you were using deadly force, if it was not justified you may/will go the jail.

i Also never leave my house gun loaded with RELOADS may not make a difference but IM not taking any chances
(we all know how lawyers can turn things around). And if you don't know. YOUR LUCKY SO FAR.
there was a case in Louisiana a few years back were a homeowner shot someone that kept coming toward him after he told them to stop. one of the big stinks were SIR WHY DID YOU USE SUCH A LARGE CAL HANDGUN FOR THIS (44MAG) i know why i would have used it but IM not telling them.

Now with all this said,
IM NOT A LAWYER AND I DON'T PLAY ONE ON TV EITHER.

 

[jad0110]

Never underestimate a civil suit and an unethical lawyer.

Remember, we live in a country where people sue over spilled, hot coffee ... and win.

 

[Thumper_6119]

Your paperwork should always read "I shot to stop."

 

[1911 guy]

Shoot center of mass to stop the threat. If that happens to kill him/her, that's just the way things go. In most states, though, you have to immediately stop shooting when the threat is gone. A coup de Grace will lead to murder charges.

Here in Ohio, there are no such things as "warning shots". If you fire a weapon during an altercation, it is legally defined as use of lethal force. Same with "shoot 'em in the kneecaps". You are using an instrument commonly used to apply lethal force, therefore you are using lethal force.

 

[jed_p]

When you shoot someone, semantics should not be an issue. Stopping the threat should be your only goal. If you have another goal than stopping the threat, you should probably use the "Nike" defense.

Semantics is what comes afterward, when you have to defend your actions.

 

[CoRoMo]

I'm still partial to THIS POST of mine on this topic.

 

[SCKimberFan]

"Remember, we live in a country where people sue over spilled, hot coffee ... and win."

Thank God some of us live in states that permit SD and protect us from civil liabilities. Every state should adopt the Castle Doctrine and protection from lawsuits in SD.

 

[Crunker1337]

I don't believe in shooting to kill or shooting to injure.
The whole purpose of using a firearm in a defensive manner is just that, to defend your life or the life of another innocent, or in some cases, property.
So, if you can defend yourself by shooting someone in the gut, do that rather than going for the head. However, if the only conceivable way to end a threat is to go for a headshot (maybe a nightmarish hostage situation) then that's what needs to be done.

 

[ZMP_CTR]

If you kill someone, won't they stop?

 

[M1911]

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

Maybe not. But the 911 tape can. And the witness you didn't see. Also the forensic evidence -- bloodspatter patterns, bullet trajectory analysis, gunshot residue pattern analysis.

One shot that is not justified can turn a defensive shooting into murder one.

 

[Water-Man]

The only logical way to 'shoot to stop' is to 'shoot to kill'.

 

[NG VI]

Shoot to win

 

[Crunker1337]

How about, shoot to live?

 

[Lashlarue]

Shoot till the magazine is empty, then pop in another one and shoot some more. A friend of mine, an undercover narc, got into a situation, hand to hand fired 26 times from his Browning HP, only hit the BG twice....

 

[SFvet]

Shoot to stop - shoot to stop the attack! COM hits then walk the dog up the alley. The subject will most likely expire - but the threat was stopped to prevent serious/lethal damage to yourself or others period

 

[cambeul41]

Shoot to survive.

And time for a new topic.

 

[dalepres]

+1, cambeul41... I just jumped to the last page of the thread so I could post "Shoot to live". You beat me to it.

 

[Lazuris]

no such thing as shoot to stop. A gun is a weapon of deadly force. If you shoot you shoot to kill.

 

[Glockman17366]

If I'm in what I consider "imminent danger", I shoot to stop. However, I shoot to center of mass untill the assailant(s) cease(s) to be a threat.

"Shooting to stop" might mean the assailant(s) are dead, or wounded.

As long as they have ceased aggressive behavoir, I really don't care.