"Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to stop"

[M1911]

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

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. And our court system does not agree with that either.

The issue at hand is your intent. Your intent in using deadly force for self defense is not to kill the perp -- your intent is to stop his attack. If his attack stops, then you stop. There are many possible ways the attack could stop. He may die or he may not, but his death is not your goal.

Suppose I am attacked by an armed perp and am in fear of my life. What are some of the possibilities that could happen when I draw my gun in response? If the perp sees my gun and suddenly decides to be elsewhere, I don't shoot. No shots fired and the attack was stopped.

Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and miss, but the perp decides to run away. Shots fired, no one injured and the attack was stopped.

Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and hit the perp, he's still on his feet but drops his gun and gives up. 1 shot fired, perp is still alive, and the attack was stopped.

Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and hit the perp multiple times, he collapses into unconsciousness. Multiple shots fired, perp in critical condition, attack was stopped.

In all these scenarios, the perp lived and I have to stop shooting. My training has been to shoot at the center of the chest or head. It is quite possible that such a shot or shots will kill the perpetrator. But that is not my intent. My intent is simply to stop the attack and shooting at those targets is most likely to stop the attack quickly.

In addition, here in the US 80% of people shot with a handgun survive.

Don't expect that just because you have shot someone once that he will immediately stop his attack and/or die. He might, or he might not. About 10 years ago an off-duty LAPD officer was shot from behind with a .357 Mag. The shot lodged in her heart. She turned, returned fire, killed the attacker, and survived. She returned to duty after a long convalescence.

 

[ronnieevans40]

The Question

My department has moved to the shoot to stop line. We are not trying to kill anyone we are trying to stop an individual who has created a danger to someone else. Now I will get beat up but the bottom line is we train center mass. I will shoot until the threat has stopped being a threat. I am not looking for that head shot and dont even pretend to think that any jury in the world would understand if I walked up and put one in the ole brain pan for good measure. Shoot center mass and keep shooting until the threat has been removed. I will not shoot for the legs because the threat may still be able to shoot back. I will not shoot for the head because I might miss. I will shoot center mass and am prepared to continue shooting if the individual fails to take the hint.

 

[ltetmhs]

In the words of the great Travis Jr. --

"some people ask whether to shoot to kill or shoot to maim, I say empty the magazines and let the good lord decide".

I read most of this and didn't see it yet. Hope I'm not too late.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

Funny how that works.

Nice.

 

[LaVere]

I shoot to stop the threat. If it happens the bag guy dies that is to bad but the threat stopped.
What I was taught is to shoot 2 COM and 1 the the head. Then evaluate. It is shoot to stop the threat.

I have never seen a shooting in person. So how do you evaluate when the threat has stopped?
On the real cop shows on tv you see persons shot that run for blocks, drive away, go to hospitals.
With them leaving your presents, true the threat to you has stopped and you should stop shooting.
If they are still in your presents and could continue to pose a threat. I would retreat to take cover if I was not protected by cover. Be in a stand by or ready position. Call 911 while observing the person and scanning the area 360 for anything else.

I never want to test this but that is what I think about and plan for mentally.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

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.

Not true. The military shoots to stop. Once you stop the threat you stop shooting. An enemy who is no longer a threat is a non-combatant. Shooting a non-combatant is a good way to spend next 10-20 in Ft. Levin worth.

An enemy stops being a combatant and becomes a non-combatant when he/she is no longer a threat. This creates some unusual situations.
Can you fire upon a paratrooper who is still in the air?
Can you fire upon a parachutist (someone who ejected from a military aircraft) who is still in the air?

1. Parachutists and paratroopers (FM 27-10, supra, para. 30). Descending paratroopers are presumed to be
on a military mission and therefore may be targeted. Parachutists are crewmen of a disabled aircraft. They are
presumed to be out of combat and may not be targeted unless it is apparent they are engaged on a hostile mission or
are taking steps to resist or evade capture while descending. Parachutists “shall be given the opportunity to
surrender before being made the object of attack” (Article 42, AP I).

You shoot to stop. If the threat doesn't stop you continue to shoot. You shoot until the threat is stopped. If threat dies as a result that is a byproduct of your action.

If soldiers were shooting to kill (instead of shooting to stop) shouldn't they kill people who surrender, or execute wounded soldiers? If the goal was to just kill shouldn't they continue until the goal is accomplished. The reason they don't shoot someone who surrenders is the goal is still to stop the threat. Technically the goal is to end the enemies ability to wage combat. Once an individual enemy is no longer a threat they are a non-combatant and can't legally be engaged.

By the same logic if you are shooting to kill and don't kill the intruder but instead stop him shouldn't you keep shooting until he is dead? If it was your intent to kill him at the beginning of the attack why would your intent change? Shouldn't you walk up to the BG, put pistol to his skull and pull trigger? If your answer is NO then you intent wasn't to kill. Your intent was to stop.

SHOOT TO STOP.
The military shoots to stop
The FBI shoots to stop.
Sky marshals shoot to stop.
LEO shoots to stop.
Armed security guards shoot to stop.
You, me, anyone in SD situation should shoot to stop.

If you use the term "shoot to kill" now you will say it when under stress also.
The whole "train like you fight, fight like you train" mentality. Saying "I wanted to kill him" is a good way of turning a good shoot into one that gets investigated.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Happiness Is A Warm Gun,

Very well said.

 

[rich_t]

The military shoots to stop.

Unless they have changed doctrine since I served, we were taught to kill not wound.

 

[M1911]

Unless they have changed doctrine since I served, we were taught to kill not wound.

I guess you did not read his post. Shooting to stop does NOT mean shooting to wound.

Please reread his post.

 

[Naro]

deleted