Shoot to kill or to stop?

My response in a lethal force encounter is to...

  • shoot to kill.

    Votes: 126 28.3%

  • shoot to stop.

    Votes: 319 71.7%
  • Total voters
    445
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was trained to shoot to remove the threat, in the quickest, most effective manner possible.
In most scenarios that would include, the loss of life for those who are violently aggressive to me and my family.
I don't relish the thought of taking a life, but I will defend mine until i no longer can.
 
Last edited:
If I do it right, there will be no difference.
If I'm put into a situation where I fell like I MUST shoot to defend myself, I don't care if he dies.Just means I won't have to deal with that problem again.

Mark.
 
If ever it gets to court, you shoot to stop... If that resulted in killing then it wasn't your intent. You shot due to being offered lethal force. Perhaps you yelled STOP, which didn't happen, and so then you had no choice but to shoot to stop the threat/action ...
 
Ok, a better example.

You shoot the guy once or twice and he drops, ending the attack, but he's alive. You can now retreat. You've still got four to thirteen rounds left, depending on what you carry.

I guess once the attack stops, I'd have to stop shooting. But others might advocate popping the guy in the head, just to be sure.

It sounds harsh, but I know there are those out there who think it's acceptable to outright kill someone in such a situation.
 
In court, when it comes up, IF it comes up, you shot to defend your life. If you shot once, hit him in the head and he died, so be it. If you shot him 8 times and he lived, so be it. Which is safer? Hitting him in the head (well, that is a harder shot to make but you get the point). It's ok to Kill the bad guy. Its not ok to murder 'some' guy.

If the mailman knocks on your door and you shoot him 3 times in the face, that's obviously illegal and you're messed up. If some crackhead busts in your door with a knife and you shoot him and he dies, even if you shoot him, purposefully in the forehead, that is legal. Because if you fear for your life, you are allowed to use lethal force. And lethal force is safest for you and your family.
 
Am I shootin, Or the less experienced wife or the boys?

If I'm shootin.... Seven to the chest, one to the temple is going to look pretty bad on the evening news. I certainly shouldn't need to put 7 230gn HP's there, but you never know. Now while all you LEO's out there laugh, there are some/many civilians that get more practice than you do, and shoot a whole lot better, are not as stressed as you'all on the job, so please be open minded that this really can happen. -So, I'm looking to eliminate the immediate threat to life and limb. AT WHATEVER COST. If that means the perp's life, So Be It. But if the BG stops his action, drops his weapon, then I'll stop shooting.

For the wife though, not as much of a shooter as I, (although if she aims, BG=DG), she is to shoot until she feels comfortable. If that means that the guy has met his maker, So Be It.

The crappy part of all this, is that if you feel that your life is threatened, shoot to remove the threat, yet the punk lives, Prepair for the civil lawsuit.

I'd 'rather' kill the putz.

-Steve
 
Shoot to kill or stop? You mean there is a difference? Actually, I am all for shooting the best available target that I can hit given the circumstances at the time. That may be a foot, let, body, or whatever.

When it goes to court, I like all you folks saying how it will be that you shot to stop. Do you really think your lawyer is going to let you testify? Basically, your idea on whether you shot to stop, shot to kill, shot to wound, shot to warn, or whatever should never be known to anybody but you.

If it goes to court, chances are, you probably should not be testifying.
 
Though I voted the other way, a dead man can't sue you in court, In court it is only your word, not his against your's. A dead man can't come back to attack you again when you least expect it. Now in Nevada we have a castle doctrine, so I can't be sued, but some states don't have this.
 
Nothing stops quite like death.
Another thing, what's all this "If I pull my gun and he stops, fine." stuff? The only, and I mean only time I'll present my pistol to bear on another human is if I feel my life or the life of another is at risk. With any luck the first time the attacker notices I have a gun is when he sees the flash. You threaten me or mine and I'm going to neutralize you, hard and with great malice.
 
NEVER, EVER, on this site, or any other public arena, use the words "shoot to kill." If you ever have the misfortune to kill anyone in self-defense, your site postings and other information can be subpoened, witnesses will be called, and your use of the term "kill" can be used to show that your intent was to commit murder, not to stop an unwarranted attack.

You always fire only if absolutely necessary to preserve your life, the life of your loved ones, or in very limited circumstances, the lives of others you believe to be the innocent victims of an attack. And you fire only to stop the attack. If that results in the death of the attacker, you deeply regret the loss of life, but it was not intentional.

Jim
 
Shoot to kill.

If I'm going to shoot at a person, I'm shooting to kill them.
You don't shoot to wound, you don't shoot to get a person to stop doing somthing... a gun is a threat BEFORE you pull the triger. Once you pull the triger the objective is to kill who you are shooting at.
 
Shoot until the threat is neutralized. If the BG is trying to leave, you have an obligation to stop unless they are firing at you as they flee. It's hard to explain a dead guy with a bullet in his back even if he has bullets in the front. That being said, dead men tell no tales. ;)
 
"Shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop"
The terms are used interchangeably, like clip and magazine, but like clip and magazine they are two different animals. I would describe the difference as “implied intent.”

Shoot to stop:
I intended to stop the actions that threatened my life, by shooting the assailant.

Shoot to kill:
I intended to stop the actions that threatened my life, by killing the assailant.

If presented with a situation where I had to defend my life with lethal force, I would shoot to stop the assault as quickly as possible. That means shooting for center mass, which is likely to stop the assailant. It is also likely that the assailant would be killed, but that is not my intent. My intent is only to stop the attack, so I voted for shoot to stop.

I am interested to hear your opinions on the use of both terms. I do not support shooting to kill so I am particularly interested in the opinions of the “shoot to kill” advocates.
Click to expand...

There is ONLY shoot-to-kill.

If you draw your weapon and fire, it MUST only because of a necessity of self -defense, defense of others, or to stop a someone you know is going to hurt someone else.

Shooting to wound is not an option. If you merely wound someone, they can still kill you. (Movies where the guy with a pistol only shoots the guy in the arm or shoots the gun out of his hand is not realistic.)

Shooting your weapon is your last line of defense.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
There is ONLY shoot-to-kill.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

usmarine0352_2005 said:
Shooting to wound is not an option.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If someone says "I am shooting to kill", that implies that they will not stop until they have killed.

If someone says "I am shooting to wound", that implies that lethal force was not necessary.

If someone says "I am shooting to stop the threat", that implies that once the threat is gone they will not continue employing lethal force.

Examples of a stopped threat:
BG killed, BG wounded and gives up, BG drops weapon and retreats, etc…

I understand that it is a possibility that the aggressor will be killed if I use lethal force to stop them. I just want to be clear that killing them is not my objective. Stopping the action that justifies my use of lethal force is the objective.


BTW, ensuring the aggressor is dead for the sake of limiting civil suits against you is an unethical justification for shooting to kill. :barf:
 
If you determine a threat is sufficient to require a firearm, then eliminate said threat. Shoot until it or "they" stop moving. No one has mentioned the possibility of multiple threats. This is a condition requiring a different level of evaluating the situation. Shoot them all until they stop. If they are running away, it's probably best not to shoot. A long time ago I was taught never to fire a warning shot, if you pull the trigger you must be prepared for someones death. As the old saying goes , better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Blitz
 
Considering that the number of people that are shot that survive the idea of "shoot to kill" has a very melodramatic Hollywood fantasy aspect to it.

In self defense we shoot to stop a threat out of fear for our lives or the lives of others.
 
I am intrigued that some here believe that they understand the reality of using deadly force, but in the next breath, demonstrate that they have no grasp of the reality of the aftermath of using deadly force.

I'd have to bet those of you in the "shoot to kill" camp have never been employed in a field where you were authorized to use deadly force, nor have ever had any formal training in use of force/deadly force doctrine. And if you're a civilian, and still believe in "shoot to kill," well, good luck with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
NY State Bill: Officers should shoot to stop, not to kill
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
IdahoLT1
I
B
  • Locked
Less-Lethal Ammo *LAUGH*
Replies
13
Views
881
Boba Fett
B
D
  • Locked
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Replies
2
Views
419
mortablunt
M
C
  • Locked
Lethal force means killing
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
pax
P
M
  • Locked
Israeli gun owner stops terrorists
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bigjake
B
Back
Top