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.
shoot to stop if that means a full mag in the chest a full mag in the chest.
if they start running away or lose interest in playing cause you missed with the first round they have stopped.
Anybody who voted shoot to kill first one knocks the perp down and he's lost all interest in the fight you going to stand over him and continue to shoot?
 
Shoot only to stop the threat, and no more. Please check the laws in your state: "Shoot to kill," if I'm not mistaken, could make you a murderer.

What the keyboard writes here, stays written here to be read by: opposing counsel, in the unhappy event you use your blaster; by people wondering if they may be on your side of the political fence; and by people not on your side of the political fence, looking for arguments against us.

"Shoot to slide lock?" Are y'all thinking about what you're writing?
 
Playing with semantics is for lawyers, not for life. "Shoot to Kill" does in no way imply that you are going to shoot until the person is dead. No one here is advocating execution.

Shoot to Kill, in my mind, and I'm sure the minds of the others who have voted this way, means AIM to Kill. And don't play semantics with aim as in "My goal is to kill."

It means when the threat appears, I will make no false pretense about what is going to happen. I am going to shoot the person who is threatening my life and/or the lives of others and I am going to aim for the vitals.

If anything "Shoot to stop" implies some sort of escalation later that seems dangerous to play with. If someone assaults you and/or your family with the intent to hurt or kill you and lets say some grand deity comes down and grants you 100% shot accuracy in one of two areas. Area 1: The Hip. Area 2: The Forehead.

What shot do you take? You take the forehead, unless you're hoping to take a few rounds yourself.

You need to fully realize that pulling the trigger is a death sentence. Assume that every bullet is a life ender. Make no bones about your resolution. You're either willing to kill this guy or you're not. For your sake and your families, don't pretend there is some escalation ladder where you have to follow a long list of checkpoints before aiming at someones vitals.

You react. If you issue a command to stop, or draw your gun, and the intruder does not stop, the next stop is shooting the vitals. Period.

Or, for example, think about the recent church and mall shootings. Do you take a checklist approach to someone in the middle of the massacre or do you take an open opportunity to kill the murderer before he continues? Call me crazy or whatever you want, but I'm not risking my life or the lives of more people by taking a shot that won't result in him going down. If I hit him and he goes down and is still alive and screams I give up, fantastic. He'll go to trial. If I hit him and he dies, the threat is over and lives have been spared.

The semantics have been played with far too much in this thread with one side assuming shoot to kill means "Execute the person no matter what" and "Shoot to Stop" involving some sort of escalation ladder, which is something I pray you aren't considering.
 
Dead men don't come back to sue. No need for looking over your shoulder with a dead guy either. Not like I'm going to put one in their head at point blank when they are down, but I could see shooting the perp one extra time after they are down to make sure that they can't reach their gun. Incapacitating a threat is more of a long term deal in my opinion.
 
I don't understand your laws,and I am rather perplexed by the vast majority of respones on this thred.There seems to be so much emphasis on gun ownership and protecting your homes and loved one's on this site.Yet the majority of you say shoot to stop.
I have never been in a stuation in civilian life where my life was threatned or I perceived a threat against my family or my home,but I don't think I would have the time or the inclanation to aim a well placed stop shot.
I would just want to end the situation and protect myself from the assailant,I was always taught shoot to kill.
 
You always shoot to stop the threat, if the sumbatch dies, oh well chit happens.

The only time you shoot to kill is when it's government sanctioned military actions. But then we the people are the government so whats the difference?
 
I posted a question relating to this yesterday in Strategeries and Tacticfulness:

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=329426


Would loading the top two rounds of a mag with FMJs instead of JHPs help to stop the threat while not necessarily trying to kill? Would 2 shots of FMJ fired at center mass be less lethal or less effective at stopping a threat? Would it help with the legal issues afterward, going to show that the intent was not to kill but only to stop?
 
Shoot to stop.

1) for legal reasons. If you CCW, at least here in Texas, you have a higher legal standard to which you will be held if you shoot somebody. There WILL be an investigation, and possibly a trial. In either case, telling an investigator or the court that you shot to kill is going to fast track you into the penitentiary.

2) for (personal) moral reasons. If the attacker is killed, then so be it, and that's on him. I will have a clear conscience about it. But... it would never be my goal to set out to specifically kill another human being in other than a hostile military engagement. At least, I would hope that to be true about myself. Fortunately for me, I've never had to be tested in that area, and nobody has ever done anything to someone I love that would make me want to track them down and kill them. God willing, it will never happen.
 
In a time-critical life-threat scenario if I have to shoot, I will shoot to kill as that represents my best chance of eliminating the imminent threat to my life.

Given time, if I feel that I can eliminate the threat posed by the BG with multiple "non-fatal" shots, I will.

So I will always Shoot To Stop which, in many cases, would be Shoot To Kill ...
 
In everything I've read been taught and read, the intent is to stop the threat, but in so doing the recommended action is to shoot until the threat goes down, or the threat is gone.

I don't think that means dead, but it does mean can no longer cause you harm.

Having said that, in the case of self or home defense, it's also recommended that if you can safely remove yourself from the fight, that is preferred.
 
Shoot to stop, absolutely. With several lawyers in my family I can attest to the fact that shooting to kill outside of the military is an automatic jail sentence.

Even if you claim you were shooting to stop, a headshot does not look good both to the jury and on your living room carpet.
 
Funny you should mention the head shot.

I watch Personal Defense TV most weeks and found it interesting that in more than one episode with Gun Sight instructors describing home/self defense drills they are advocating a trained reflex action of two shots center mass followed by a head shot.

If you train that way, that's likely how you'll react when the pressure is on.
This could be legally dangerous advice in practice. True?
 
if the lives of me, my wife, my kids, or my battle buddies to the left and right of me are in danger, then i will shoot to kill. at that point it is me my family or the soliders lives i am responsible for or bg/assaliant etc and there is no question. shoot to kill.

I watch Personal Defense TV most weeks and found it interesting that in more than one episode with Gun Sight instructors describing home/self defense drills they are advocating a trained reflex action of two shots center mass followed by a head shot.
Click to expand...
for faliure to stop drills i shoot 2 to centermass, and then go to the pelvis. if you drop the trunk the tree will fall.
 
"Shooting to Stop" is a misnomer...

in my opinion. If you draw your gun, you should attempt to place any shots fired so that they will cause the assailant to break off the attack in the least time possible. To me, this means Center Mass, then the head.

If "shooting to stop" enters the language of self-defense, it won't be long before we will be asked, on the stand, questions like "Why didn't you shoot your assailant in the leg, or in the shoulder?"

People, we are not Roy Rodgers or the Lone Ranger - Heck, we ain't even Hoss Cartwright. If the gun comes out, shoot to kill, or the gun probably shouldn't have come out.

Just my $.02
 
I voted incorrectly. Pressed the button to fast.
I agree with the shoot to stop, as in you shoot until the threat stops.
If the choice is shoot to TRY to stop WITHOUT killing, then no; but if until stops means the threat ends, then yes.
The best line I heard, was from Conner who said,"You don't shoot until you think he's dead, you shoot until HE thinks he's dead."
 
Shooting to kill would be MURDE.

But if I have to shoot some one that is a thret I say shoot till he is gone or falls so if someone points a gun at me in my house im going to shoot till he drops his gun or he is out of my house and runing.
If he has a gun and is not pointing at me I will hold him at gun point till the cops get here.

So what im trying to say is that im shooting to stop but that might=kill.


Ricky
 
You should be shooting to stop. Now, if it takes a kill to stop the threat, so be it, but the end result you're looking for is a stop.
 
Shooting to Stop does not equate to Shooting to Wound.

And Shooting to Kill does not equate to Shooting to Stop.

The one BG in the Miami FBI shootout was hit with a fatal shot in the first few seconds of the fight, and did not die for several minutes. (the whole 9mm penetration "problem").

I'm sure the FBI agents who were there would have preferred a "wound" that stopped that guy rather than a "kill shot" that let him continue shooting.

If you think you won't be sued after a justifiable shoot, you are wrong. If you think you won't be sued if the BG dies, you're wrong. If you think that if you don't testify in court, that your "intentions" won't be heard, you're wrong.
 
Always shoot to stop. In UT, you can only use as much force as "reasonably necessary" to stop an attack. If you unload your entire 17 round mag from your Glock into a single suspect... effectively shredding their body like a food processor, you will severely damage your case.
 
the question is somewhat irrelevant when you think about it.

"Shooting to Stop" means basically shooting until the threat posed ceases to be a threat.

IE: Until they quit moving.

The only reason in referring to it as "Shooting to Stop" is primarily for legal reasons, Imagine if you had to and were in court over it and said something like "I was shooting to kill that lowlife" a clever anti-gun liberal prosecutor could easily twist that into an admition to Premeditated Murder.

(what I learned from a Ex: LEO CCW Instructor)
 
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