Shoot to maim or shoot to kill...NOT A BLOODLUST THREAD!

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, well, here's the question.

I had an argument with a buddy of mine today after a range session, and wanted to see what yall think about it. I own 3 pistols and shoot at least twice a month at the range. All of my pistols are kept for SELF DEFENSE even though I do really enjoy my range time. Three years ago I was attacked in an attempted robbery, fought back and was slashed by the attacker’s knife, and I kept fighting until my life was saved by someone with a firearm.

My buddy has 1 pistol, and goes to the range once or twice PER YEAR, and keeps his gun unloaded, locked in a box, and with the lawyer lock in place. He also only buys bullets for his gun when we go to the range and never keeps any in his apartment. He has lived his entire life in a safe, gilded environment and has NEVER been the victim of crime or violence of any kind.

I have a Texas CHL, and carry a gun everywhere that it is legal to do so. After our range trip, my buddy and I got into a heated argument about the use of firearms for self-defense. I said that if someone ever attacks me again, in my home or outside, and I make the decision to draw my firearm, I will shoot to kill. I will fire shots COM until the threat is over. Period. He accused me of being homicidal, and said that all the “hunters” he knows and NRA members would be on his side. That keeping loaded guns in the home is dangerous and negligent. (I HAVE NO CHILDREN). He then went on to usher into a series of stupid “what if” situations, such as a child breaking in and finding one of my guns and shooting himself with it.

We are very good friends, almost like brothers, but I got infuriated at his remarks. I told him that he needed to shut the f--- up until the day when he’s survived a possibly murderous robbery and assault. That he’s lived his entire life in a vacuum of safety and privilege and so I won’t take his opinion to be worth much in this situation.

We didn’t talk for over a week, and he finally called me and apologized for calling me homicidal but said that he stands by everything else said. I told him that it will just be a topic we won’t discuss any more, because I believe I’m correct and he’s living in fantasy land.

Question: WHO’S CORRECT? Input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[mete]

'safe ,gilded environment " ?? That doesn't exist. Earlier this year in NY state there was a woman murdered in a 'safe' gated community !! Does he not drive , go into stores , go into any office building ?? It sounds like he is closing his mind to reality.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Your friend is entitled to his opinion, and letting the argument drop, agreeing not to bring the topic up again unless it can be discussed with more light and less heat is the best approach IMO.

FWIW, I essentially agree with you- but even if I didn't I wouldn't lose my temper arguing over it. It is every individual's right to volunteer to be a victim if they so choose, I'm glad you have chosen differently. I hope you never have to exercise your choice in another sutuation like the first one you lived through.

lpl/nc

 

[David904]

Your friend doesn't exist in reality. I truly hope that he never has to deal with the ugly side of life because he will be unprepared to handle the situation.

I've survived an attempted carjacking and an attempted mugging - both of which were safely resolved because I had a firearm on me. Read that as I didn't have to pull the trigger.

 

[fredno]

Well in a sense I would have to say you both are. You are right in that you do have right to defend your life when threatened by lethal force (say a robber with a knife) but if your friend was stating you have to keep your impulses in check and act only according the circumstances of the situation then he is probably right. Not hearing his side of the argument I can't really judge. If your friend was making the statement that you should first attempt to exhaust other avenues to avoid the attack (such as retreating from the altercation if you are able to do so) then he was probably right. I know this is a very grey area and the debate on it will never end, but shooting someone should probably be the last possible resort. Certainly your actions are going to be scrutinized by the DA with a fine toothed comb so for that reason alone, you should keep in mind the legal consequences that could arise as a result of shooting. You'll have a much better defense if you can show in court that you made an attempt to avoid the attack before resorting to lethal force.

 

[StrikeFire83]

^ That's exactly what I thought, but he said during the argument that I'm giving into emotion due to my experience, and that I'm "living my life in fear." Which is total bs, because I go everwhere he does, and often more places, and do not sit in my room cleaning my guns all day and contemplating when "tha goobernmint" is coming to get me.

I simply think that if my life, or my girlfriend's life, or even his life, is in immediate risk of ending like it was for me a few years ago I will shoot to kill. I'm not a super cop who can take out kneecaps at 50 yards in a dangerous situation, I'm a citizen who is competently armed.

P.S. Here's a pic of my "battle scar." Lost about a pint of blood but it never really hurt that bad.

 

[BullfrogKen]

StrikeFire83 said: Question: WHO’S CORRECT? Input would be greatly appreciated.

Neither of you.


Reputable trainers teach that if you must shoot, we shoot to stop the threat. Maim or kill is not our goal. If either occurs as a result of the injuries those shots produce, that's what happens. But, its not our goal.

StrikeFire83 said: but I got infuriated at his remarks. I told him that he needed to shut the f--- up

You kind of lost it, dude. There wasn't any need to argue like that over it. Simply smile and say, "Some others might agree with you. I just don't. Hungry for Mickey D's?" Drop it. He doesn't have to agree with you, nor you him.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I had a friend or two like yours. We're not friends anymore.

Not trying to encourage you to ditch your buddy, but sometimes things like this end up showing us that those folks we thought were friends aren't what they seem to be. And if you guys can be friends despite the difference in opinion and mindset, that's even better. My 'friend' doesn't know how to be respectful about disagreeing, and that's why we're not friends.

Your friend might be in for a serious shock later on in life. At one point or another every man has to stand on his own two feet and defend himself, even if it's not a lethal force situation. It sounds like your friend is unwilling to do that, and unwilling to believe that's a possibility. Nothing you say is going to convince him otherwise.

As for your question, I agree with you 100%. Your gun is your last option - and IMO if you pull it, it had better be because you need it right now! In that case, things have gone beyond wrong and there's no question what my course of action needs to be. Shoot for COM (read: chest) until the threat is on the ground. I'm not shooting to kill, or shooting to maim... I'm shooting to stop. More than likely, the BG will die as a result. That wasn't my intention.

His intention is to kill you. Your only intention is to survive.

 

[Odd Job]

You are right and he is wrong.
It looks like you just have to make sure that topic doesn't come up anymore.

 

[kludge]

Shoot to kill v. stop the threat

Is there a difference (to you, to a DA, to a jury)? Short of death, how does one know if the threat is stopped? Does this fall under the 'reasonable belief' rule? Is the average citizen held to any standard?

 

[Fred Fuller]

SF83,

There has to be a legitimate threat of death or great bodily harm (legal terms differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, check local self defense laws for details and local court cases for 'real world' decisions) in order for you to legitimately employ deadly force in self defense or defense of another. Shooting with an intent to wound pretty much automatically defines your use of a firearm as NOT LEGITIMATE- it says you were not in sufficient fear of death or great bodily harm to use a firearm in the first place.

That said, you shoot to STOP THE THREAT- whether the results are lethal or not is not really your concern, you are only concerned with STOPPING THE THREAT. Keep in mind that you are responisble for every shot fired, and that firing just one shot too many beyond a 'stop,' even in a legitimate defensive shooting, could wind up getting you charged. You need to be prepared to JUSTIFY EVERY ROUND FIRED in a defensive shooting.

The best advice I can give you (short of going for first class personal training by a top tier school) is to go to http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm and read Skip Gochenour's lecture notes there. I saw this lecture presented with slides at Andy Stanford's Glock Summit in Titusville, FL this year, and consider it one of the more valuable training experiences I have had so far.

Actions that you are forced to take under intense pressure in split seconds are going to be evaluated under a microscope later by people who have all the time in the world and no pressure to act. You'd better get everything right if you have to pull the trigger...

lpl/nc

 

[vynx]

Your friend is definetly wrong when he states that hunter and NRA members wouldn't keep a loaded gun around.

I wonder why he is so afraid of his fireearm?

 

[StrikeFire83]

BullfrogKen Said: Reputable trainers teach that if you must shoot, we shoot to stop the threat. Maim or kill is not our goal. If either occurs as a result of the injuries those shots produce, that's what happens. But, its not our goal.

Definitely good advice. I guess I should have made my intentions more clear. I meant shooting Center of Mass until the attacker is no longer moving towards me...as opposed to attempting hollywood style "kneecap" shots or "shoulder shots," which my friend cited in the conversation as the viable options "if you have" to defend yourself with a gun.

And you're right, I did lose my cool. It was just maddening that when we can relate so logically and respectfully on EVERY other issue, things got out of hand in this instance.

 

[Correia]

What Ken and Lee said.

Drop "shoot to kill" from your vocabulary. You shoot to stop. In other words you shoot the bad guy until they cease to be a thread of serious/grevious bodily harm.

Shoot to maim is just plain stupid.

I always write the following on the board during my CCW classes: ALL HANDGUNS SUCK! Since handguns suck, but are the best thing we usually have available, you need to maximize their effectiveness.

The only way to reliably stop an attack is to punch holes in the badguys vital organs until they decide to leave you alone. This sometimes has the side effect of making them dead, but that was the bad guy's decision, not yours.

Since handguns suck, shoot to maim isn't an option. All a handgun does is poke a hole in the attacker. If you poke a hole in my arm or leg, you may make me stop, but odds are that it probably won't. And I'll not stop trying to kill you, which is the only reason you shot to begin with.

Plus where does your buddy come up with shoot to maim? If you shoot somebody in the leg, and it severs their femoral artery, they won't stop in time to save your life, but they will probably be dead in the next three or four minutes anyway. Why not just shoot the guy in something vital?

 

[Correia]

Sorry about that, we were posting at the same time. You already knew what I was talking about.

Shoulder shot? Dude watches too many movies. Have him take a look at an x-ray of a shoulder, and pick out the part that you can safely put a bullet into and not have a good chance of causing death through blood loss. There are some pretty good arteries running through there, and they are not the kind that you can just throw a tournequit around.

And knee caps? A moving knee cap? And if I have a gun, and you shoot my knee cap, I'll still shoot you.

It sounds like your buddy needs to wake up, shut off the TV, and seek out some actual professional instruction.

 

[BullfrogKen]

kludge said: Short of death, how does one know if the threat is stopped?

If you're an AOJ (P) kinda guy, when those conditions are removed.

If you're an ADEE kinda guy, same.


I guess one can walk up and deliver a shot to the back of the guy's head while he lays bleeding on the pavement, "just cause ya never know . . . could be playin' 'possum." Just convince 12 other people of it, too, and you might stay out of prison.


Anyways . . .

 

[carterbeauford]

Your friend is definetly wrong when he states that hunter and NRA members wouldn't keep a loaded gun around.

Most definitely, I'm both and I've got a loaded gun right here in front of me.

Shooting to maim is right up there with a warning shot. Shoot to terminate the threat if it is reasonably justified, or don't shoot at all.

 

[Mannlicher]

There is no "correct" answer. What works for each person is what is most likely correct for them.
To extrapolate an answer to his 'problem' based on your experience may not be valid.

 

[rkh]

lawyerly advice alert:

Shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you ever do take a shot in self defense, talk to a competent defense attorney before making ANY statements to ANYONE--including the police. His fee and the browbeating you'll receive from the officers who don't like silent citizens will be nothing compared to the nightmares you might otherwise endure if you were to run your mouth the wrong way. Don't be Bernie Goetz. He wouldn't have been in half as much hot water had he stayed put and kept his mouth shut.

And for pete's sake, couching the defensive act in language like "shooting to kill" or "shooting to maim" is only asking for trouble. I dislike this PC nonsense too, but this type of language can only work against you.

 

[bakert]

If there; anyway possible, avoid any confrontation you can even if you have to swallow your pride and retreat if possible. If you must shoot, you shoot to stop the threat and for goodness sakes never tell anyone you would shoot to kill/or maim. How to tell if the threat is stopped? Generally when the person assaulting you is not moving. He/she very well may be killed or maimed!!

 

[hankdatank1362]

Do not shoot to kill.

Shoot to stop. It might take a headshot to stop, but the point is to get the BG to stop.

Go to youtube and look up any of Tactical Response's pistol drills. They always have the student yelling "Stop! Stop!" before sending a barrage of shots at the target. That way, in court, you can say that you gave the BG a chance to stop, and any witnesses will attest to hearing you yell "Stop!"

 

[Jim March]

There's only two kinds of fights: deadly force and otherwise.

"Otherwise" can TURN deadly and if so you can and should shoot to stop the threat.

Until then, you cannot fire, cannot brandish, SHOULD NOT threaten.

A knifer up close needs as many rounds as you can pump into him until he's down. Period.

There is ONE instance where "shoot to stop" can mean "shoot to wound" at your option...in other words, where a wounding shot makes tactical sense. All of the following must apply:

1) The assailant must be armed with non-projectile deadly force - hammer, knife, crowbar, sword, what have you.

2) He has to be at 15 feet away.

3) You have a gun shooting a round with at least...well, call it 350ft/lbs energy, ballpark. That would be, for example, a 158gr load doing 1,000fps at the muzzle. Very hot 9mm and above can hit this mark. The 38Spl can do it only with the new Buffalo Bore 158gr +P-from-hell round, or a really wild handload.

4) You'd best be a good shot.

Under these circumstances, you can break his pelvic bone and drop him in his tracks.

It probably won't kill him, especially if you hit out towards the hip joint where you should.

The pelvic shot is a trick we should have in our playbooks if we're carrying guns and loads that can "make major".

 

[tepin]

Your friend is naive and hopeless until he gets the chance to experience, and survive, a violent and life threatening encounter. Until then, maybe, nothing you say or do will change his mind about firearms.
My wife’s friend was home when her house was broken into so she hid in the closet with her back to the door. The person opened the closet door, paused, closed the door and continued to steal. She could have been raped, beaten and killed. What do you think her views are today? Still so far left she is off the scale. She doesn’t even like people with NRA membership.
When the topic of CCW comes up and a leftie asks why I carry, my response is always, “because I can”. Saying any more will lead into a hopeless dialog similar to the one you and your friend had.
As for the other question, you can only shoot someone if in fear of death or great bodily harm. You shoot for center of exposed mass and if the person becomes crippled or dies, it is what it is. You intend to do neither, only protect yourself and stop the immediate threat.

 

[skidmark]

There is ONE instance where "shoot to stop" can mean "shoot to wound" at your option...in other words, where a wounding shot makes tactical sense. All of the following must apply:

1) The assailant must be armed with non-projectile deadly force - hammer, knife, crowbar, sword, what have you.

2) He has to be at 15 feet away.

3) You have a gun shooting a round with at least...well, call it 350ft/lbs energy, ballpark. That would be, for example, a 158gr load doing 1,000fps at the muzzle. Very hot 9mm and above can hit this mark. The 38Spl can do it only with the new Buffalo Bore 158gr +P-from-hell round, or a really wild handload.

4) You'd best be a good shot.

Under these circumstances, you can break his pelvic bone and drop him in his tracks.

It probably won't kill him, especially if you hit out towards the hip joint where you should.

The pelvic shot is a trick we should have in our playbooks if we're carrying guns and loads that can "make major".

Jim (and all others) --

First, the usual IANAL and neither did I sleep in a Holiday In Express or any other motel last night types of denials. I am also adamant about claiming to be nowhere close to being a ballistic, trauma, or other kind of expert.

All that said, I have read (not just on the errornet) research from various and sundry folks who are recognized by their ballistic, trauma and medical peers as "experts" that the old "break the pelvic girdle and the BG will drop like a worn-out dish rag" is just not repeatable enough to be passed on as "good advice."

Besides, being able to hit the pelvic girdle at or around the place where it joins the femur is asking someone to be good enough to hit a shoulder, kneecap, or hand on command - which are shots we generally agree we are not going to pull off under stress against a moving target.

Finally, the Teuller drill was developed with a distance of 21 feet. Reducing it to 15 makes it all the more certain that you the defender are going to get cut by him the aggressor before you can clear leather/kydex, let alone get a shot off.

To go back on topic - IF you believe at the moment the event is taking place that you are in danger of death or grievious bodily injury (the legal language in my jurisdiction) you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself/. Case law around here means that use of force was terminated when the threat of death or grievious bodily injury no longer existed. Just how I'm supposed to "reasonably" determine that instant while defending myself I'm not sure, but the law says I have to stop when it happens. So I guess the law where I am prefers I "shoot to stop."

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Cosmoline]

There's an ENORMOUS amount of misinformation and confusion about this issue, as this thread shows. Most of it is caused by gun writers and instructors who know just enough about the law to get really confused. I'm a lawyer, and this is one area that's pretty cut and dry. As a general matter, you may only use deadly force to defend yourself if you are faced with, remember this:

IMMINENT AND UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE

The same principle generally applies to defense of others. There are some exceptions that vary state to state, but the general principle is the one you should stick with as the base line test. In other words, unless you know otherwise for a fact, assume there is a duty to retreat and assume you have no castle doctrine. The lynchpin of deadly force is that you must be faced with IMMINENT and UNLAWFUL deadly force. If it's not imminent or not unlawful or not deadly, you generally cannot use deadly force in response.

Notice what I did not say. I did not say that your heart and mind must be free from malice or that you must not intend to kill. That's because these factors don't matter one bit. Those are considerations in some states for grading homicides, but they have no application in determining whether you were lawfully using deadly force to defend yourself or others. You can shoot him with love or shoot him hoping he dies and goes to hell, it DOES NOT MATTER. Subjective intent is irrelevant.

The mantra that you must only "shoot to stop" started out as a way of getting across the notion that force must match force. In other words, you can't keep shooting him after he's no longer presenting an imminent and unlawful deadly threat. You shoot only until he STOPS presenting an imminent and unlawful deadly threat.

Now, we get into trouble when some instructors and gunsels start thinking that "shot to stop not to kill" means that you can't have any malice, and that you can't do things like target the heart or CNS. This is complete and total hogwash without any legal foundation. If you're going to use deadly force, you'd better make sure it works or you're going to die yourself. If you can shoot his heart out with a rifle, by all means do so! Because if you don't, by definition you're going to die yourself in another second or two.

As far as yelling a warning, this again is an area of enormous confusion. You'll hear instructors tell students they MUST warn. This is a confusion that arises from an old line of cases involving LEO's shooting FLEEING FELONS. One of the rules arising from these cases is that police are supposed to warn before using deadly force against fleeing felons. But you're not shooting fleeing felons unless they happen to be presenting an imminent and unlawful threat of deadly force.

Should you say "stop or I'll shoot" before you shoot? Sure, why not. But chances are if you have time to say that, you're not really facing imminent deadly force.

Shooting to maim is indeed a horrible idea, but in some ways this is where getting too hung up on "shooting to stop" will take you. By divorcing the shot from the notion of deadly force, and by trying to convince ourselves that we really aren't shooting to kill when we blow the guy's chest open, we head down a dangerous road. It's easy to see someone conclude that if they just yell stop a few times at some nut who's running at them, and as long as they tell they cops they just wanted to "stop" him, they're A-OK opening fire and blowing his face through the back of his head. THAT IS EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS AND MAY LAND YOU IN PRISON! If the nut was running at you, unarmed, and said he wanted to hug you, then you don't get to shoot him "to stop him" even if you did yell a warning. You must reasonably believe that he presented you with a threat of imminent and unlawful deadly force. And if so, then you'd sure as heck better be prepared to kill him. Mincing words about how you only "intended to stop" is a fool's game. There are clearly many ways to stop someone besides shooting them in the COM.

So let's come on back down to Planet Earth. If you blow a man's chest apart, you either intended to kill him or you're a complete idiot. And if you plead to the police that you really didn't intend to kill him, you're an even bigger idiot. If you're not prepared to kill someone to keep them from killing you, don't carry a firearm in self defense.