Shoot to kill or to stop?

[Nix]

let me "rephrase"

If i'm in a situation where i have to draw and then fire my weapon to protect a loved one or myself i'm going to be aiming at the center mass. You can pretend and kid yourself all you want, but if your scared and tensions are high you are not going to fire one round. I carry a .40 with aguila and fmj alternating every two aguila one fmj. I'm not going to kid myself with the hopes that someone would survive two shrapnaling aluminum rounds in the chest followed by a punch straight through. If they do great, im not going to stand over them and fire more into them... i just want them to leave me alone.

do NOT kid yourselves into belittling the choice to shoot as a choice to "stop" if you fire your gun at another human being you must be prepared to remember for the rest of your days that you took another life. It is a heavy burden not to be taken lightly with the hopes of simply stopping the threat.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

To recap:

I too, am surprised that this has been such an issue.

So far in the tread I've noticed that some have misunderstood the question entirely. Some have understood perfectly and reemphasized that their intent is to kill. Some have even said that their CCW class was told to ensure the absence of their attacker/victim in court.

Shooting to stop is not shooting to wound. It means you will use the force necessary to end the aggression toward you, no more. The term has nothing to do with your point of aim in a lethal force encounter.

Shooting to kill is just that, shooting with the intent to kill.
Some of you have said that you will shoot to kill until the attacker stops the attack, or can no longer carry on the attack. That would be shooting to stop the attack. You can’t shoot to kill and then claim success if your attacker is still alive.

 

[JKimball]

You do not want to say you had intended to kill somebody, even if as a result of the shooting the BG dies.

You also do not want to say that you had intended not to kill somebody. If you give the jury and lawyers any sense that you weren't willing to kill or were trying not to kill you won't be helping your case.

 

[el44vaquero]

I'd say shoot to stop, but whenever you draw your weapon, aren't you doing so with the idea that you are going to more than likely end a life? Not saying that you want to, but it just goes back to "don't aim at anything you aren't planning on killing".

 

[CoRoMo]

I guess it depends on the species of the threatening force.

Human threat, I guess I'd better say "shoot to stop". That is the politically correct response, right?

However, if I'm hiking in the woods and a bear or cougar decides that I'm their next meal... I shoot to kill the beast. That is the politically correct response in that situation. "Humane kill" regs and all.

 

[rr2241tx]

The way I understood it if you were justified to OFFER deadly force, ie, draw, then you are justified to kill. Therefore, if you are forced to draw, shoot COM until the slide locks or you go around twice. Either way it isn't going to be pretty later, so make sure you are around to be annoyed, not your attacker.

 

[GDDYUP]

Shoot to stop the threat. I've had brothers at my dept tell me they would shoot to kill and all manner as such and I shake my head every single time I hear it. The intention after drawing your firearm in a situation that calls for it is the intent to stop a threat of sever bodily harm or death. When the threat has been stopped, IE is no longer a threat, you'r justification to use deadly force has ended. Period. If the person who justified your use of deadly force happens to die as a result of it, that is an unfortunate result of their criminal actions.

 

[CoRoMo]

I often see the tactical advice, "Two in the chest, one in the head".

What's up with that?

Sure will stop the threat, but so would three COM. Sometimes just one will do.
The "...one in the head" seems more or less overkill. No pun intended.

 

[learn2shoot]

Actually I choose "Shoot to Live" If that requires the death of the one who would do me harm - so be it. I don't plan to shoot to wound, - center of mass until I no longer feel threatened.

 

[Geronimo45]

The "...one in the head" seems more or less overkill. No pun intended.

I think it's the 'body armor drill' - fire two COM. Still coming? May be in body armor, torso shots won't cut it. Go for the head.
Not sure if that's the purpose of it... could be that you start shooting at your BG a ways off. They keep coming, you go for the head, since it's now closer and easier to hit. Otherwise, why not put three to the head and call it a day?

 

[jmcalli]

The answer to this question varies by culture and jurisdiction. In 1994 I got a carry permit in Panama. Part of my indoctrination included a lecture on when to use my firearm, valid threats, etc. It was expected that in a defense situation against a threat less deadly than a firearm wielding attacker (knife, taser, ball bat, etc.), the defender would aim with intent to incapacitate without killing (i.e., below the waist, in the upper leg).

I never had to use my gun, but I'm sure that if it came to a courtroom, as an American in a foreign country, I would have had a lot of "splainin' to do" if my bullet had penetrated an assailant's vital organ.

 

[CoRoMo]

Oh great! Now I've got to go practice at trying to hit a moving leg?!?!?!?!

 

[crebralfix]

Apparently, people still don't understand the difference between murder and killing.

Murder is killing for personal gain.

Killing is killing because you have to.

Employing a lethal weapon means the bearer intended to kill the target.

Did the user intend to murder the target? Or did the user intend to kill the target?

If you are scared sufficiently that you draw a weapon, why wouldn't you intend to use it? Furthermore, why would you not attack with it? (Make sure to distinguish between 'attack' and 'ambush'). Firing a justified shot in self-defense is an attack and it is lethal force.

People, you are letting the courts dictate your words and forcing you to hide your true intent. This is "political correctness" at its worst. Though PC came around as a means to stay out of court, it has evolved into something far more malignant. But, that's for another thread.

Understand your intent in a fight and fight at 100%. If you hesitate, you may lose.

But, also understand the second part of the fight occurs in the courtroom. Use appropriate words and phrases.

 

[dhoomonyou]

You shoot to LIVE.

 

[jad0110]

I too, am surprised that this has been such an issue.

So far in the tread I've noticed that some have misunderstood the question entirely. Some have understood perfectly and reemphasized that their intent is to kill. Some have even said that their CCW class was told to ensure the absence of their attacker/victim in court.

Shooting to stop is not shooting to wound. It means you will use the force necessary to end the aggression toward you, no more. The term has nothing to do with your point of aim in a lethal force encounter.

Shooting to kill is just that, shooting with the intent to kill.
Some of you have said that you will shoot to kill until the attacker stops the attack, or can no longer carry on the attack. That would be shooting to stop the attack. You can’t shoot to kill and then claim success if your attacker is still alive.

That sums it up nicely. A lot of this seems to be semantics.

If you are in fear for your life, or the lives of others, in most (if not all) jurisdictions you are justified in the use of lethal force. Shoot COM (or head shots) until the threat to your life ceases. Only draw your weapon if you are justified in using lethal force. There is no shoot to wound, though that does not imply "shoot to kill" either. Just because you aim COM or make head shots does not mean that the perp will be killed. The human body can be pretty resillient. There was a guy in NC a number of years ago that attempted suicide by shooting himself in the head with a 357 Magnum ... he survived.

Now, I understand that most of you using the phrase "shoot to kill" really mean "shoot until I'm no longer in danger". As others have said, "shoot to kill" is probably not the best phrase to use in front of a prosecutor. Semantics it may be, but lawyers make a living off of splitting hairs. As a Dept of Navy Contract Specialist (think pseudo lawyer), I know that seemingly little words can make a HUGE difference in court, even if you and I don't think they should.

Also, those saying they will make sure there is no badguy around to testify against you are certainly implying some pretty serious stuff, especially to an anti-gun prosecutor. I hope you really don't mean you are going to walk up to a knife wielding thug whom you just parrelized from the waist down with your first shot and "finish what you started."

To sum it up, you shoot because you are terrified for your life. You shoot until you are no longer afraid for your own well being, or the well being of other innocents around you. If the punk dies, he dies. Just be darn sure you are justified in the use of lethal force.

I really hope I'm NEVER faced with such a situation.

 

[Jaenak]

My thoughts are if the BG wanted to wound me and leave me for an ambulance, than I'll shoot him and call the paramedics. But, if he wanted to kill me, then by George, I'm gonna return the favor. I' going to match force with force. Problem is that you can't always be sure whether a BG just wants to get you out of the way or kill you. My thoughts on that is any reasonable person that decides to commit a crime with a gun is prepared to take that crime all the way, otherwise they wouldn't have brought a gun with them. Therefore, if the BG has a gun and threatens me with it, I've got no choice but to assume he's ready, willing, and able to kill me and therefore I'm going to match force with force and kill the guy. Besides that, if the guy's dead, sure you've got to live with the weight on your concience but I'd rather live with that than have someone in court making s#!t up trying to get me jailed because he's pissed at me that his crime wasn't successful and he would rather see me get jailed than him be jailed himself. If a guy threatens me with a gun I'm going to assume he's trying to kill me and I'm going to put him down permanently. You other guys can handle your situations differently if you want and you can run your defense scenarios how you see fit but I've decided for myself that this is the most sensible solution for me and will handle my defense situations accordingly.

 

[AdamSean]

Prove to me as how to shoot to stop. I am confused on this issue. My goal in defending myself is to end the attack as quickly as possible with the understanding that that may mean that I may take the life of the attacker. I am prepared and accept this as a possible outcome.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Well maybe this thread should have been called "Execute the Person or Take Appropriate Action" based on some definitions.

I do not consider "Shooting to Kill" as "Shoot until the person is dead." "Shooting to Stop" in which you shoot at the persons vitals and if they die they die is to me, shooting to kill. Your shots are aimed to kill the person and your intent is to "stop" the attack through death, basically.

When you're in a situation that calls for deadly force (a gun is deadly force no matter what) you aim at the vitals and stop the threat, yes. You do this by doing grave bodily harm to the other person and inflicting potentially life ending wounds.

I would strongly recommend against shooting at the hips, legs, arms, et al. There should really be two primary targets. Torso (large, vital) and Head (Small, vital).

Make no mistake that you very may well kill this person as you're aiming at areas that are essential to life. No one here who voted "Shoot to Kill" thought you meant "keep firing until he is dead and then go up and shoot him again if he's not dead."

Its worth noting that while police "Shoot to Stop" there is absolutely zero training or legal advice for them to shoot at anything other than vital areas. They do not aim at legs. They do not aim at hips. When it is life or death, you choose your life and their death, period.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Well I think you need to walk a fine line in most places.
For #1 I want to be telling the only story.
#2 Make sure you only shoot them where the evidence backs you up.
For example if the person is coming at you and you pump 4 shots into them and the 5th shot hits them in the top of the shoulder, head or back while they were falling then you may do some time as that shot was not self defense but murder even if the others would have killed the person. do you want to put your trust in the DA or a jury to get it right?

 

[Anna's Dad]

I guess it depends on your interpretation.

I would shoot with the intention of killing the attacker. I'm not going to make a conscious effort to immobilize or deter them without killing them.

If, however, I'm confident that the threat has been eliminated I would certainly not continue to fire or pursue the attacker.

So I guess you could say that I would shoot with every intention of killing the attacker but be would be perfectly happy if the result of my effort was to simply put an end to the threat.

 

[Urbana John]

I think it "depends" on ALOT of different situations---

I "kinda" live alone----if a BG gets in here, and I can stop the "threat" by just presenting him with my firearm, good for me,better for him.

Here's another one----

Wife and teenage daughter are home alone----I come home, have my legal carry weapon on me, notice the front door is unlocked/open, I go to "high alert" mode. Advance upstairs---go past my daughters room---see "things" I DON'T WANT TO SEE---go to Master Bedroom, and the BG has my wife tied to the bed, knife to her throat, ready to do "really" bad things to her. Sees me with gun-in-hand, ready to fire, decides to drop the knife and give up.

NOW--WHAT WOULD YOU DO?????

I KNOW what I'd do---------replace the first mag, with the second one,and replace the second mag with the third one----so on and so fourth

UJ

 

[JimmyN]

They are one and the same, the difference is your intent.

Society, and the District Attorney, frowns on you INTENTIONALLY killing someone, even if you are being attacked. That's just the way it is.

So you train to provide lethal shot placement (shoot to kill), but if it ever comes to pass you shoot to stop the threat (shoot to stop), using the skills gained in training.

Head shots would be tough, hitting a moving 5" circle from even a short distance during a period of extreme... let's call it excitement... isn't something I would count on in time of need. Plus that could be taken as intentional, and cast some doubt on your actions.

Of course you could have been aiming for the arm, but stumbled while backpedaling and doing your best to get away from the threat, and accidentially shot them in the head. That would be unfortunate for them, but accidents do happen.

 

[mljdeckard]

I said shoot to stop, but I will acknowledge that it is just toying with semantics.

 

[Jaenak]

I think Anna's Dad put it best for all of us. I couldn't have put it better myself, believe me, I tried already.

 

[TIMC]

If I ever had to defend my life I would use the force I deemed necessary to stop the threat which may include the use of a gun. I would aim center mass since that is the way I have always been taught. I can assure you I would not try to shoot the gun/knife out of someones hand like on the old westerns. Anyone who said shoot to kill I hope you are never dragged into court after a shooting and your answer here was brought up.