Shoot to kill or to stop?

[gym]

I'm sorry that you percieve it to be more complicated than it is. Since each and every individual situation is different, there can be no determination from one given incident or frame of mind that translates to another. If you feel that your life is in danger on Monday, and you dont't feel the same way given similar circumstances on Tuesday, how can you compare the state of mind of a human bieng since every situation is different. IMO this is a dangerous path that you are on, since hesitation that you are instituting by your argument, could also cause the person not to react properlly, and thus cause them injury or worse. I don't mean that their aren't consequences for one's actions, but overthinking something while uner stress or worse, might make the difference between life and death. I also believe that if you don't have to fire your weapon to preserve life, you shouldn't. As someone mentioned in here that a neighboor shot 2 burglers breaking into a neighboors house. Since it is actually on the site I bring up that particular incident, if this guy isn't in danger why did he shoot, was he in fear of his neighboors life? did he even know if the guy was home, was he at all threatned? We don't know this information so it's impossible to make a call on something like that? We only get part of the story second hand, it's all relative,hearsay,etc. thus any evidence that is obtained in the answer to a hypothetical would be mute IMO. If someone said they did something that they "knew' was wrong, or they would do something regaurdless of knowing, that may be different, but people are people and they like to talk, and you know if you have been on forums as I have for many years, the internet is also used as a shield between people, there are a lot of tough guys in forums, that live vicariously through their internet persona, so it's easy for someone to say something that they don't really mean, that's about it .

 

[siglite]

Gym,

I think you're completely misinterpreting my point. I am not advocating hesitation. I am not advocating shooting to wound. I am not advocating that anyone do anything different in a defensive situation. As I said in my earlier posts, there's no functional difference in the sight picture and number of trigger presses.

The point I'm attempting to bring up, is that people are broadcasting intent to KILL to the world in this thread. They're not broadcasting intent to DEFEND. No, it's "KILL. "

And those that think that forum postings don't and won't wind up as evidence in court, think again.

I think everyone here understands that I'm not saying anyone should DO anything differently between these two camps. I'm questioning the wisdom of some of the things you're saying before you do it. I sincerely hope that the point is moot for you, me, and everyone else here. I hope none of us are in that situation. But if, god forbid, you are, you might come to regret espousing "shoot to kill" all over the intarwebs when the prosecutor shoves it in the jury's faces.

 

[monkeykevin]

I live in Washington, and what I hear from police officer is to "Shoot to KILL."

They tell me this because if you have to pull your gun out, it means your life is in danger. Washington is a VERY liberal place, pulling your gun out or just wounding that person you might as well go dig out Johnnie Cochran as your defense team. A Seattle Police Officer has quoted me this, "A dead person has lesser say compare to you."

If I was to be attack I would end it there than let someone else become another victim; a person who convict a crime will most likely re-offend again.

 

[gym]

It's just to speculitive, Sig, I understand your point and don't disagree. But it all goes to state of mind, I think we are both saying a similar thing here. I can't see a preconeption of an event like that as it it too thoretical for the average person unless it was pre-meditated, and I can't make that leap, if it was a random act, very interesting though.

 

[jerkface11]

Shoot for whichever comes first. Just that simple.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

These are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS!!!! Shooting to stop does NOT mean we are trying to NOT kill them (as in shooting to wound or deciding to use less efficient bullet designs.) You all are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Shooting to stop means just that; we are trying to STOP him. That means putting bullets into areas of his body that will likely result in death. But the result we are looking for is not necessarilly death (although that would accomplish our goal). The result we are looking for is a termination of his action. Sheesh!

 

[gym]

You are correct Phil, and so is everyone who posted, what we were debating, is weather things said here could be used in a court room, that's where the conversation took a turn, as per the last 6 or so posts would indicate, I was just trying to clarify the point that Sig and I were discussing, and maybe we took it to the extreme. didn't mean to whip a dead horse.

 

[moooose102]

i think it is horribly sad that we could have to prove our intent in a court of law, where a prosacuting attorney can and will twist anything we say around to his advantage, when we are defending ourselves in our own homes. i seriously hope to GOD that i never HAVE to shoot anyone, anywhere, but if i do, i hope i can stay composed enought to talk to the police with the correct "terminology"!

 

[LKB3rd]

I would shoot to stop, fully aware that that would very likely mean killing them. But, my objective is to stop them.