Shoot to kill or to stop?

[siglite]

I can't really add anything constructive to this discussion, because all of my points have already been made by others.

Though, what DOES surprise me, are the number of folks globally broadcasting intent.

That's the difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop. Intent. Functionally, there may be zero difference between your actions. You may pull the trigger the same number of times at the same point of aim. But "shoot to kill" describes a mental state which includes intent to take life. And here folks are broadcasting to the whole world (including ALL of the overzealous gun-hating self-defense-hating prosecuting attorneys on the planet) that you intend to kill a person.

I can find no wisdom in doing such a thing.

 

[WayneConrad]

For those saying they are shooting to kill because it's called a "Deadly Weapon:" Think beyond the dictionary.

"Deadly force" is a legal definition: means it can kill. Doesn't mean that's what you're supposed to be trying to do with it.

With modern medical care, gunshot wounds, although grave, are often survivable. Your sidearm is not a death ray.

 

[Sheldon J]

With out going through all 7 pages of comments this may have already been said but...
I was taught at my CCW class that it is you always shoot to stop and neutralize the threat. If you happen to kill them during this effort then that is what it took to remain safe.
So if they are down and still kicking but you can get away and safe and if you continue shooting then you are committing murder.

 

[Yooper]

The last few comments are right on the nose. A firearm is a POTENTIALLY deadly force. None of us is going to automatically kill whatever we point our firearm at and pull the trigger. We just ain't that good! Shooting to stop does NOT imply shooting to wound.

Read this carefully: ANY intent other than remaining alive in a shooting incident is a rope around your neck!

 

[Frandy]

With out going through all 7 pages of comments this may have already been said but...
I was taught at my CCW class that it is you always shoot to stop and neutralize the threat. If you happen to kill them during this effort then that is what it took to remain safe.
So if they are down and still kicking but you can get away and safe and if you continue shooting then you are committing murder./QUOTE]

Said it for me.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's the difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop. Intent.

NO. WRONG. Your personal intent or desire to see the person dead has nothing to do with self defense. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to tell the cops you wanted the @#$#@ dead, but it's not a good idea to tell the cops you were only trying to "stop" him and didn't mean to kill him either. Just keep your traps shut as I said before and get one of my learned brothers from your local bar on the phone POST FRICKING HASTE! If you follow the advice of a CCW instructor who tells you to tell the cops you only "shot to stop" and "didn't intend to kill" you could well be digging a very deep hole for yourself. Talk to an attorney before making any but the most very basic factual statements to the police. Do not try to get clever and set up a good case with word games, you are absolutely not qualified to do it and you will screw it up.

Frankly most of you will never understand the concept of intent without going to law school first. Just put it out of your minds and worry about whether you are faced with an IMMINENT and UNLAWFUL threat of DEADLY FORCE. If so, defend yourself with whatever force you can muster. Once the threat has ceased you must also cease. Very very simple. Intent has nada to do with it.

A firearm is a POTENTIALLY deadly force.

This is nonsense. You are not prohibited from using a firearm if it's 100% certain to kill. A firearm is deadly force. And deadly force is deadly force. Just put this intent nonsense out of your minds, it's just confusing you.

 

[Cosmoline]

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?

DO YOU SEE, PEOPLE!? This is the potentially tragic error that results from listening to CCW instructors and reading gun rags for legal advice. Some poor devil is using inappropriate ammunition that may cost him his life. LEAVE WORD GAMES TO LAWYERS AND FOR THE LOVE OF THE LORD ABOVE LOAD WITH FRICKING HOLLOW POINTS!

AGAIN, for the 100th time, what YOU need to worry about is answering this question:

AM I FACED WITH IMMINENT AND UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE?

If so, DEFEND YOURSELF OR YOU WILL DIE. COMPRENDE?

Cease to use deadly force once the deadly threat is over. If the threat moves from deadly to less than deadly, use less than deadly force to defend yourself. For example if you shoot the fellow and he drops his firearm but continues to kick you, use less than deadly force to defend yourself. Force must match force, and you must not escalate. It's just that simple. Whether you personally want him dead or want him to live a long life has nothing to do with it.

As far as trying to set up the case for a jury, that is quite frankly way beyond most of you so don't worry about it. In dealing with the police what you need to make sure to do is have an attorney and to the extent you feel you must speak to them without counsel (which is always a risk), keep any admissions simple and 100% fact oriented. Don't spill your guts and never, ever, ever try to play word games with them about what you "intended" to do. Intent is a snake with many heads, and in trying to grab one another may bite you in the backside. For example if you yammer over and over again that you did not intend to kill him, you may be undercutting your self defense argument since that presupposes intentional conduct on your part. You can't claim self defense for an accidental shooting. That's just an example. But there are many others. So keep your trap SHUT!

 

[Coronach]

So we're doing this again, eh?

Let's take as a given that shooting to kill and shooting to stop involve the same target areas, because they do. COM and head shots are the most reliable stoppers, and they are also the most reliable killers. "Shoot the gun out of his hand" and "just shoot him in the knee" are pure BS, we all know that. So, whether you're shooting to kill or shooting to stop, the locations you are shooting are identical.

What is different is your intention. In instances where you shoot once or twice and the guy falls down instantly dead, the difference is moot. However, no matter what Hollywood tells you, this is not a very common outcome. What is far more common is a miss and surrender, a miss and flight, a hit and surrender, a hit and flight, or a hit and incapacitation that may later lead to death (with "later" being anything from 30 seconds to 30 days later). What you do in these instances suddenly becomes very different when comparing "shoot to stop" with "shoot to kill."

Assume for the sake of this discussion that everything about the shoot will be known in court. There was a TV camera, 100 sober witnesses, and no ambiguity. People just love to obscure facts with "well, how do you know? I mean, he's dead and I'm not, so *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*" Besides being a bad idea in general, it clouds your thinking about the issue.

If you shoot the guy and he drops his gun and falls down, obviously wounded but not dead, you have a decision to make. If you shoot him again when he's posing no threat, you're in trouble, because it means you're shooting to kill. However, if you hold him at gun point and wait for the police, you were shooting to stop, and you'll probably be OK (assuming it was a good shoot to begin with). If you take the angle of "Well, I would shoot to kill until he wasn't a threat, and then I would cover him to make sure he doesn't pose a threat again", guess what? You're shooting to stop. You've shot until the threat was gone, which is the definition of shoot to stop.

Mike

 

[Cosmoline]

What you do in these instances suddenly becomes very different when comparing "shoot to stop" with "shoot to kill."

What you DO is important to self defense. What you PERSONALLY INTEND is not. Do you see the difference?

If you shoot him again when he's posing no threat, you're in trouble, because it means you're shooting to kill.

No. You're in trouble not because you "intend to kill" but because you have exceeded the parameters of permissible self defense. It's right there in your state statute. With the exception of some presumptions not relevant here such as the castle doctrine, force must match force. If you shoot him dead after he's no longer an imminent and unlawful deadly threat, then your conduct is no longer self defense. The code does not speak in terms of personal intent, except that as I noted above you can't typically use self defense to justify an UNINTENTIONAL shooting.

Put intent out of your mind. Think in terms of force matching force and you're on much firmer ground.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Personally i will shoot someone for one reason only ( that is to defend my/others life ) and make them stop what ever they were doing to threaten it . if they live or die is really not important at the time they get shot till they stop .

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

There is a fundamental difference in definitions here. The "Shoot to Stop" people consider "Shoot to Kill" an execution. It's "Shoot him and if he falls down, shoot him again. If he runs away, chase after him and shoot him again. If he begs for his life on his knees, shoot him in the forehead."

I don't think any of the Shoot to Kill voters are saying that. What we're saying is that when faced with a situation where our lives are in danger, we're going to shoot at the person in vital areas and aim to stop the threat in the most reliable method possible, death.

This doesn't mean we're murderers or will walk up to the body and shoot it afterwards. This doesn't mean we're disappointed if he doesn't die. It's purely about survival. If I shoot someone and he dies, that threat is over forever. If I shoot someone and he slows, crumples over and I stop shooting, he could stand right back up and shoot me. Which is why the Shoot to Kill people would prefer him to go down permanently.

It's worth noting that the most commonly found definition of "Shoot to kill" that I've found in my searches is "The use of deadly force" and does not imply, in anyway, that you track down the bad guy and execute him. Police used to be told to "Shoot to Kill" before the Political Correctness Brigade got all of them. They weren't executing people.

So "Shoot to Stop" voters can take solace in the fact that the Shoot to Kills aren't executioners, we're just not politically correct.

 

[Cosmoline]

Bobbyquickdraw's point is very well taken. On the basic premise of when the shooting MUST stop 99% of us all agree.

My concern is for you folks as fellow forum members and friends. I'm deeply concerned that by getting in over your heads worrying about jury considerations and word games you could end up causing enormous problems for yourself. Esp. in a jurisdiction with unfriendly cops and DA's. Please leave all that nonsense to us lawyers.

Anyway I have to go finish objections to jury instructions.

 

[Coronach]

What you do in these instances suddenly becomes very different when comparing "shoot to stop" with "shoot to kill."

What you DO is important to self defense. What you PERSONALLY INTEND is not. Do you see the difference?

I do. However, intent can be inferred from action, and intent modifies/motivates action- perhaps not in legal terms, but in any logical examination of psychology it sure does.

If you shoot him again when he's posing no threat, you're in trouble, because it means you're shooting to kill.

No. You're in trouble not because you "intend to kill" but because you have exceeded the parameters of permissible self defense.

You're making a distinction without a difference. You're saying, essentially, that all the law will allow you to do is shoot to stop. That sounds an awful lot like an argument for shooting to stop.

Put intent out of your mind. Think in terms of force matching force and you're on much firmer ground.

Right. Shoot to stop the threat, and stop shooting when there is no threat.

The point I am trying to make is that if someone is shooting with the intent to kill, they will not stop shooting when the threat is eliminated. I understand that what you're saying is that the intent doesn't matter as long as the shooting stops when the threat does. What I am saying, and I am not using the legal definition of intent, but rather the logical/psychological one, is that if someone is trying to kill someone they will not stop when the threat is eliminated. They will not stop until the other guy is dead, or some other force stops them.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

shoot at the person in vital areas and aim to stop the threat in the most reliable method possible, death.

Actually, I'd phrase it a different way:

Shoot to stop the threat in the most reliable way possible. Death is an unfortunate, common side effect.

Mike

 

[Cosmoline]

You're making a distinction without a difference. You're saying, essentially, that all the law will allow you to do is shoot to stop.

No, I'm saying the law will allow you to match force with force. If that's what you mean by "shoot to stop," then fine. But if you mean that your heart's intent must never include a desire to kill, you are wrong.

The point I am trying to make is that if someone is shooting with the intent to kill, they will not stop shooting when the threat is eliminated.

How do you know? Maybe the fellow really would like to kill and hopes the attacker dies of his wounds. Or maybe he's upset that he had to shoot and hopes the attacker finds the lord and lives. In either case it's the man's ACTIONS that matter not the desire in the man's heart. If I'm faced with imminent and unlawful deadly force and shoot to defend myself, it doesn't matter if I really hope the SOB dies on the spot or if I hope he lives. It doesn't matter if I aimed for his head or heart, or if I used HP's instead of FMJ's. All that matters for self defense to trigger is that I was faced with imminent and unlawful deadly force and ceased my own use of deadly force when the attacker ceased.

intent can be inferred from action

That kind of "intent" can be presumed from action and WILL be presumed. So if you use deadly force and kill a man, your intent to use deadly force will be presumed. But that doesn't negate self defense. In fact it's a prerequisite to self defense. Because as I said earlier there's no such thing as accidental self defense.

The bottom line is this. Do not attempt to use some kind of mantra such as "I only shot to stop" if you're talking to the police. Do not tell them you're glad the SOB is dead either, even if you are. Anything you say can and probably will be used against you. And the more clever you try to be the thinner the ice will get beneath you.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

"Shoot to stop the threat in the most reliable way possible. Death is an unfortunate, common side effect."

I like that.

 

[siglite]

Cease to use deadly force once the deadly threat is over. If the threat moves from deadly to less than deadly, use less than deadly force to defend yourself. For example if you shoot the fellow and he drops his firearm but continues to kick you, use less than deadly force to defend yourself. Force must match force, and you must not escalate. It's just that simple. Whether you personally want him dead or want him to live a long life has nothing to do with it.

^^ How in the world does that not equate to "shoot to stop?" However, I do see what you're saying regarding thin ice and trying to be clever and play lawyer on the scene of a defensive situation. **** and let you law people do your thing. No argument there.

Though, sometimes, I think lawyers forget that it's not lawyers sitting in the jury box.

Hypothetical:

Prosecution: Your honor, I'd like to introduce into evidence the following internet posting marked exhibit B, in which the defendant spoke at length about killing people.

Defense: Objection, irrelevant.

Prosecution: Speaks to motive, your honor.

Judge: I'll allow it.

I know it isn't like that. But what about my mom sitting in the jury box reading about how the defendant (which the prosecution's portraying as a cold blooded killer with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove) prattled on about shooting to "kill."

You've described force escalation in a nutshell above. And you defininitely framed it up in terms of stopping the threat and nothing more though yes, death may result.

If we're all so uneducated on the concept of intent/mens rea, and how that applies to a self defense situation, please educate us. It'd likely be one of the most valuable posts on this forum.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Mens Rea means guilty mind. From latin, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, roughly meaning "The act does not make one guilty unless the mind also is guilty" or some such.

Basically if you shoot the other guy and kill him after you knowingly stopped him from being a threat at all (executed) then you're guilty because you had the mind to commit that murder. However, if someone pops into your house with a knife and runs at you, and you squeeze the trigger on your Magnum 6 times and hit him in the face 6 times and he dies, you don't have mens rea because you were acting appropriately in response against a threat. You didn't say "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what and shoot him six times no matter what." You acted in defense and there was nothing malicious in your defense. You didn't kill him because you could, but because you had to.

--
I also have to comment on the fact that if a guy attacks you with a knife, and you shoot him and drops the knife, but comes at you with his bare hands, there is no way on Earth do you put your gun down and fight him hand to hand. Force does not meet Force like that. And in all honesty and with respect, its probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in terms of self-defense.

Deadly Force is Legal to stop bodily harm. Period. If that guy wants to press an attack with his bare hands you can kill him to prevent bodily harm. Because bare hands have never killed anyone, right?

The force escalation is more like this:
Guy has a knife
You shoot him, he drops it.
He runs away.

You can't shoot him.

Or guy punches you.
You draw a gun.
He doesn't punch you, but starts cursing you out.

You can't shoot him.

But the idea that you have to DE-ESCALATE your force is absurd. If you're pointing a gun at someone, and they come at you with a hammer or a bag of dog food or some prickly roses, you shoot him if he means to do harm. Plain and simple and legal. You're defending yourself. If you think he can kill you with his hands or whatever is in them, or hurt you, then you shoot him.

Now if its a 10 year old girl coming at your with a hair brush, you don't have reason to fear, so no shooting.

But would you expect a 110lbs woman to drop her gun and fight hand to hand against a rapist? Because hey, maybe he was only going to rape her gently. He didn't deserve that bullet.

 

[gym]

Last night on one of the cable channels, they had a reinactment of the famous FBI shootout in South Florida, where two agents lost thier life,and 5 others were wounded. This forever changed the policies of the Agency. The 2 perps were carrying a mini-14,with 30 round clips, and a 12 gauge pump along with handguns. The agents at the time were armed with mostlly 38"s and 9 mil"s, the bad guys had 21 rounds in them, between the 2 of them. They were firing right up to the end when the agent who had his arm mangled by one of the rounds along with a hip shot, "i believe", somehow got up and took an offensive firing stance walking tword the threat and emptying his revolver into the auto that they were trying to start, with 3 fallen agents at the rear, who certainlly would have been dead, if the car started, since the perp could only go in reverse to get out. How can anyone in thier right mind, decide that they are going to shoot to stop a perp after watching something like that. I once equated it to a car, it has to run out of fluids in order for the engine to seize and cease functioning. How dare anyone decide that someone who is armed and aggresivelly trying to kill you or some other innocent, decide they are a good enough science genius to think that a specific placement or number of shots in any specific order or arrangement, "other than removing one's head, is going to stop someone who you have no idea what who, or how to do that in a one size fits all, that's just another dumb idea by someone who is cluless as to the nature of the phisiology, psycology, and determination of the human embodiement. The law says a lot of things, it also says that you can use deadlly force if you feel that you or another innocent are in mortal danger, and feel your life is threatened. It's like the Bible, certain parts contradict each other, what one person "feels" is not necessary what another one does.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Murderers shoot to kill (outside of war). Lawful citizens shoot to stop the threat. If the perp happens to die because he was being "stopped", so be it. It doesn't effect shot placement either way.

 

[siglite]

You didn't say "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what and shoot him six times no matter what." You acted in defense and there was nothing malicious in your defense. You didn't kill him because you could, but because you had to.

No disagreement there. None. But what about when the prosecuting attorney is implying that was EXACTLY your frame of mind? "I'm going to kill this guy no matter what and shoot him six times no matter what." What if that's the attorney's angle? And then he discovers your THR handle and there you are posting 12 times advocating "shoot to kill."

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, see, the defendant intended to kill someone. Not just to defend himself. He could have defended himself with pepper spray. But no, he chose a gun. And these internet postings tell you exactly why. He was going to kill someone. Said so. It's right there in front of you in black and white."

Now, please understand, I'm playing MAJOR devil's advocate here. But I find the phrase "shoot to kill" to be a potential legal problem.

I'm still waiting on Cosmoline to help us out. I hope he'll explain intent and mens rea to us, and how these things can (and maybe have) play out in defensive shooting cases.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

I understand, as I love playing Devil's Advocate as well.

Though in a worst case scenario, someone who they found "evidence" of saying "shoot to kill" defends his life by killing someone. The DA will obviously not bring into evidence all the posts where he explains "Shoot to Kill" is not execution, etc. It would come down to a grand jury and I think that in most areas (New York and LA obviously excluded) the average American understands the right to self defense.

Hopefully.

 

[gym]

I think that you can say just about anything in response to a question in a forum without worrying about the repercussions from a lawyer in a non existing court and a non existing case in a virtual enviornment, otherwise you may as well get paranoid about the video games you play and the movies you watch. Something is only real when it really happens, up until that point it's imaginary. A good attorney wouldn't worry about a question you answered in response to another question that someone you don't even know asked, and you answered. Nobody has to tell you their real, " favorite color", lol.

 

[siglite]

I think that you can say just about anything in response to a question in a forum without worrying about the repercussions from a lawyer in a non existing court and a non existing case in a virtual enviornment, otherwise you may as well get paranoid about the video games you play and the movies you watch. Something is only real when it really happens, up until that point it's imaginary. A good attorney wouldn't worry about a question you answered in response to another question that someone you don't even know asked, and you answered. Nobody has to tell you their real, " favorite color", lol.

Now you're edging into territory where I do have some expertise. You can bet your #$$ that things you say on an internet forum can be presented as evidence in civil and criminal trials. And if it can be spun in a way that impacts the case, it WILL be spun. The courts have been very slow at coming up to speed with our digital world. But that changed in '06 (at least on the civil side) with the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Attorneys are taking CLE courses on digital evidence. Judges are educating themselves. LEOs are a wide mix between "we have no idea what to do with this," county departments with full blown digital forensics labs and the expertise to run them, and everything in-between. Individual states are starting to create rules for dealing with this stuff in their courts. My state's behind the times, so all the attorneys are just playing it safe and following the federal rules. (pretty much anyway)

Hypothetically:
If I were investigating YOU, you can bet THR would come up in the investigation. You could also bet that I would present every single post you've made here to the attorney that hired me. I'd also advise him to subpoena every single post you've made in any archive the forum owners have. What he does with that data is his call, but it's going to show up. And if "ya shoots ta kill that varmit" is contained in your post, it's almost a guarantee that there'll be quite a lil tussle amongst the attorneys while yours tries to get it suppressed and the other side tries to get it admitted.

Now I realize that this is a bit of thread drift. But how I got here goes back to my opinion that it's not a bright idea to be broadcasting your intention to kill to the world.

 

[Didorian]

YOu should shoot with intent.

"Though, what DOES surprise me, are the number of folks globally broadcasting intent" < by SIGLITE

IF you are going to SHOOT at another person, then your intent should be to kill that person. Stop trying to be so blasted PC about this.
If more criminals knew that if they tried to hurt someone, that person was going to try to KILL them, instead of just try to STOP them, we'd have a much lower crime rate.:banghead: