Halo is for Kids
Member
"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.
______________________________________________
From my post #47:
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.
___________________________________________
From my post #142:
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.
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.
______________________________________________
From my post #47:
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.
___________________________________________
From my post #142:
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.
Last edited: