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

[hso]

We shoot in fear, not anger. As such we shoot to defend ourselves and not to exact revenge or to exact "justice". Our goal is only to shoot to stop the attack. If one shot does it or 8 we shoot until the treat of grave bodily injury or death stops. We do not shoot more than is needed to stop the threat. Ever.

You're better course of action would have been to ask why your buddy was so emotional about the issue than to have become emotional yourself.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You were in fear of your life or someone elses. That and MAYBE property depeding on where you live. You shoot till the threat is not a threat anymore. Maybe they are injured, maybe they are dead, maybe they just ran. In any case that is why you shot in the first place.

Wounding or killing is immaterial.

 

[Cosmoline]

We shoot in fear, not anger. As such we shoot to defend ourselves and not to exact revenge or to exact "justice". Our goal is only to shoot to stop the attack. If one shot does it or 8 we shoot until the treat of grave bodily injury or death stops.

You can shoot in fear, you can shoot in anger, you can shoot out of respect or out of hatred. It DOES NOT MATTER. The law of self defense is concerned with the level of threat you're faced with, not with the desire in your heart. If you plug a bunch of bullets in they guy's COM, you're presumed to have intended to do so, and THAT is KILLING FORCE. It's DEADLY. DEADLY MEANS DEADLY. It may kill him, it may not. But you don't plug rounds into someone's chest and then claim you didn't mean to kill him.

We do not shoot more than is needed to stop the threat. Ever.

Sure, but that has BUPKUS to do with your subjective intent. It has to do with force matching force.

 

[Squidward]

'We are very good friends, almost like brothers'. If this is true, then I agree with what Lee Lapin said.

 

[Jeff White]

Jim March said;

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".

Pelvic shots are not knockdown shots. I say again pelvic shots are not knockdown shots. Once again in case you didn't get it the first two times, pelvic shots are not knockdown shots. There is no medical data backing up this defensive shooting myth. None. Your best chance of a fast incapacitation from a pelvic shot is to hit the brachial artery and let the subject bleed out. It's a myth. There have been dozens of documented cases where pelvic shots from centerfire rifles have failed to stop.

There are only two mechanisms that will cause rapid incapacitation of a human being. Both of them rely on shutting the brain down. You have to disrupt the nervous system to do that directly. The problem is, the body was designed to protect the brain and the nerves from rapid shutdown. You can shoot the brain stem at the top of the spinal cord. But that's a pretty hard target to reliably hit. Or you can shoot the bundle of nerves that runs basically from ear to ear, picture a person wearing walkman headphones and shoot for the headphone. The name has slipped from the tip of my tongue and as it's 3:30 am, I'm not going to look it up now. I'll post it later.

Or failing to shut the brain off directly you you can shut it down from lack of oxygen. The way to do that is to cause a rapid drop in blood pressure. Shooting for the blood rich internal organs and making the biggest hole or holes in them you can. Forget anything you might hear about shock and inpact and temporary cavities...it's all voodoo. The methods mentioned above are the only halfway reliable methods of rapid incapacitation.

Jeff

 

[jcramin]

Well during my Handgun Carry Class in the State of Tennessee we are told SHOOT TO KILL not to MAIM or SCARE. If we just shoot to MAIM or SCARE then we are at fault.

J

 

[tellner]

The instructor of that Tennessee CCW class is doing his students a disservice. If you "shoot to kill" a halfway decent prosecutor will bring up the fact that you wanted to kill the other guy. It wasn't an unfortunate consequence of a tough decision. You did whatever you did not to stop a crime but to take a life. Not good. Very bad.

It will also take you way outside the bounds of self defense if you actually take it seriously. He's down and his limbs aren't working anymore or he's running away. What do you do? Why you keep shooting because you've been trained to shoot to kill.

 

[7six2]

Hypothetical thought: You at some point become involved in a situation where you shoot someone. The DA or poor misunderstood BG families Lawyer talk to your friend. How would he describe you to them?

 

[Cosmoline]

If you "shoot to kill" a halfway decent prosecutor will bring up the fact that you wanted to kill the other guy. It wasn't an unfortunate consequence of a tough decision. You did whatever you did not to stop a crime but to take a life. Not good. Very bad.

.. and the confusion continues.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Shoot To Live

There was some guy . . . name on tip of tongue . . . I forget . . . who said:

Shoot to live.

The whole point of self defense is to STAY ALIVE.

Therefore:

Shoot to live.

Shoot to live.

Shoot to live.

BTW, StrikeFire, should the subject come up again with your friend:

Sorry, dude. I was wrong. The only reason to shoot is to stay alive. I would only shoot to live.

 

[tellner]

Cosmoline, I fail to see how I'm confused on the issue.

 

[Lonestar]

You had a scary thing happen to you and a gun might have saved your life, you got a different perspective then a gun owner that just likes to shoot at the range. I know people who "think" they live in guilded cages that don't feel the need to even own a firearm.

Everyone is going to act all Gung Ho, but honestly most of us, even you, will NOT shoot to kill anyone.

What do I mean by that??? A guy breaks into your home, and lets say he has a knife. Your able to get your gun and you shoot him in the COM. He drops the knife, and goes down quickly but he is very much alive, and screaming for mercy. You have effectively stopped this person. Similar example same guy with the knife in your home, sees that your armed and quickly drops his knife and surrenders. Shooting to kill means that regardless of what happens you just keep shooting, until the guy is dead, whether he falls to the ground, surrender, or turns to run away. Are you willing to stand over a man, on the ground, pleading for his life and kill him? No, that is outright murder.

What everyone does is Shoot to STOP, not kill. You can shoot someone coming at you 5 times in the COM with a .357 magnum and he can still be very much alive. You can try to STOP someone by wounding them in the leg with a .22 and that person can still wind up dead. I shot until the guy stops attacking me. That could mean that I kill him, wound him, or he surrenders without a shot being fired, either way I stop shooting when he stops being a threat.

It sound like your really good friends. Knowing your history, he should have changed the subject. Knowing your own history, you should realize that not everyone has walked in your shoes and they should not be forced to believe what you believe in regard to their own personal firearms. He has a point, you should keep your handgun on your person or locked up when your away from it.

 

[gunsmith]

you shoot to stop a threat

You should not shoot to injure anyone.
You have no idea if you shoot to injure it wont cause death.

Leave the fancy shooting for the Lone Ranger!


Only on TV & in the movies do people attempt to shoot to wound.
& Only on TV & in the movies do people survive those attempts.

Look up "Femoral Artery" a shot anywhere can be fatal.

I am a life member of the NRA and have a loaded gun
hanging on the wall right now.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Cosmoline, I get the legal point you are making; but I think you miss the way it will be applied practically. Correct me please if I misunderstood something.

If I understand you correctly, your point is that if it is a good self-defense shoot, then whether you meant to kill him, maim him, hated him, loved him, etc. is irrelevant to whether it was a good shoot.

I think the practical point you overlook is that evidence of those things will be used in determining whether it was a good shoot. These are situations that are driven very heavily by the facts and the evidence and if there isn't enough of either to make it clear, your subjective intent might well play a role in whether charges are brought against you.

Let's say you have a neighbor. You've had several feuds with him and both of you have called the police on the other one. You catch him hunting on your land without your permission and in spite of police warnings and warnings by you to stay off your private property. You confront him. He yells "I'll kill you" and points a shotgun your direction and you shoot him out of the tree.

The police arrive and have only your word to go on that he pointed a weapon at you and it isn't uncommon for hunters to end up on property where they don't belong. Now, do you want your first statement to be "I was in fear for my life and shot until there was no longer a threat." or should you say "That blanking idiot tried to kill me so I shot his bleeping behind five times - and brother I enjoyed every single trigger pull - until finally the dumb blanker slumped over?"

You are absolutely right that from a strictly legal theory perspective, neither of those statements matter so long as it can be established that he did in fact try to kill you. However, if the evidence supporting that is a little cloudy, as it is in this case, which set of facts would you rather have presented to the DA deciding whether to press charges? Which would you rather put in front of a jury? On the practical side of the equation, those statements can't help but frame how the case is viewed by the investigators and whether they view it as a homicide or self-defense is very important to you.

 

[Cosmoline]

There is almost no limit on stupid things you can say to the police. You can get yourself into trouble by saying you wanted to kill the SOB and you can get yourself into trouble by saying you didn't mean to kill him but only "stop" him. That's why it's a good idea to get yourself a lawyer before you make any statements. Have one you can call and then go down to the station together to make a formal statement. There is no way to know what you should or shouldn't say or how you should phrase things until after it hits the fan and you know the facts. You can't have some ready-made pat answer or magic mantra that will get you off the hook, and trying to formulate one ahead of time is very dangerous.

You guys are worrying WAY too much about what you're going to tell the police. That's something you can't really plan for in advance and it's something you need legal counsel to assist you with. What you SHOULD worry about are the circumstances that give rise to the lawful use of deadly force. Is it a good shot? That's what you need to worry about, because that's what you're 100% responsible for. For the love of mike, don't try to put some clever spin on things or mince words with the cops afterwards!

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline, I fail to see how I'm confused on the issue.

Because, shooting someone in the COM with a firearm is ALWAYS shooting to kill. It's deadly force. And deadly force is deadly force is deadly force. It's DEADLY. It is likely to KILL. It's not a bean bag or a stun gun. It's not to be used for merely stopping someone.

 

[XavierBreath]

Strikefire,
I fully agree with Bullfrog Ken, Larry, Lee, et al. Shoot to stop.

I will not reiterate the wisdom that has already been spoken and accepted in this thread. I will say that nobody, nobody has a right to question what you had to do, to save your life. This includes your friend, and those on this forum. When you have been forced into that life or death predicament against your will, you have no choice if you wish to live. People who have not been there simply do not understand. It's best to not discuss it with those who cannot understand. Thus, BFKs advice to simply change the subject is the best route.

 

[BullfrogKen]

By statute in the vast majority of jurisdictions, the mere act of using the gun represents intent to kill. The state does not have the burden of establishing actual mindset and intent. The laws generally recognize that the act of using the gun, by itself and apart from actual intent, allows the court to construe the bearer intended to kill the shooting victim.

Of course, saying you intended to kill him won't help matters. But to believe that one can use a gun to shoot to wound, with the full intention of only wounding the victim, and it can't result in a murder charge, is a delusion. The intent is construed from the act.

 

[tellner]

Cosmoline - It really isn't. If you take a look at the figures for handgun mortality they aren't as high as you would believe. And once again - I'll keep repeating this for as long as it takes to get through - you shoot until the threat has abated. If he dies that's unfortunate but better than you being dead. If you hit him and he falls down twitching but breathing or runs away you stop shooting. Your goal has to be to stop the threat not "kill him graveyard dead".

 

[Cosmoline]

for handgun mortality they aren't as high as you would believe

So what? It's still deadly force, and if you shoot someone COM you'd better not claim to be surprised if they die.

Never shoot anyone or anything you don't intend to kill or destroy.

you shoot until the threat has abated.

Of course, but that doesn't mean you should shoot someone you don't intend to kill, or use a firearm to stop some activity you don't like. As I tried to explain, you are mixing up the concept of intent with the principle that force must match force.

Your goal has to be to stop the threat not "kill him graveyard dead".

Your goal is to stop him from killing you by using DEADLY FORCE in self defense. You don't put bullets through a man's chest and then claim you didn't intend to kill him. Of course you did! It was him or you. Intent is presumed from the pull of the trigger and follows the bullet. Your INTENT has nothing to do with the question of whether he's continuing to present an imminent of deadly force.

Take this hypo:

A pulls a knife and lunges at B without provocation
B pulls a firearm and shoots him in the chest
A drops the knife and clutches his chest

At that point, B must stop shooting because A no longer presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to him. That's the principle that force must match force. B's personal intent doesn't enter into it.

 

[tellner]

Cosmo, you seem to be making an argument where there isn't one. I agree that deadly force is deadly force, and you shouldn't use it unless you are prepared for someone dying as a result. What seems to be at issue is how far beyond that one lets the rhetoric go and how you can step on your manhood and empty your magazine into your foot by taking the hyperbolic statements of ill-informed trainers seriously.

Here's my position as clearly as I can lay it out:

• Do not use deadly force unless you are prepared for someone to die
• Use the necessary force until there is no longer a threat
• Once there is no threat stop shooting
• Your goal is to stay alive, not to kill, maim or frighten.
• No matter what the law says if you have been filled with stupid rhetoric that you repeat a prosecutor will turn a good shoot into a prison sentence.
• Don't count on any shot to stop someone quickly unless it takes out the CNS or physically blows important pieces off.
• Pistols are pistols.
• Rifles are rifles.
• Pistols are second best at stopping people. They have the advantage of being smaller.

 

[kungfuhippie]

your friend needs a shirt like this

If you need to draw you gun in a defense situation it's because you feel a need to use it. Hopefully that means BG takes off running. But if it doesn't you must shoot until the threat is over. If you can't do that please don't carry. That may mean you kill the BG, but that is not your concern, you need only be concerned of you and your loved ones well being. BG made the choice to potentially die when he decided to try and do you harm.

The trick is to know when to draw your gun and when to pull the trigger.

 

[22-rimfire]

I would shoot to stop the threat, I think. My house was robbed once while I was asleep. Changed me forever and I do not feel perfectly safe at home. The reality is that I don't know what I will do until the situation presents itself. But I hope that I stay somewhat level headed and deal with it effectively. I hope the perp doesn't hurt me first; I suspect I know what the conclusion will be... him or me in all its finality.

 

[Big Calhoun]

Well, a true friendship should outlast any arguments. As already alluded to and said, you don't have to agree with him and he doesn't have to agree with you. It's just one of those topics that you won't bring up in each others company again, that's all. Have friends like that and have had similar arguments. A beer later, we just forget about it and know not to discuss it with one another.

As far as the original question posed, IMO, it's not a question of maiming or killing. You simply want to stop the aggressive behavior. If that involves multiple shots and/or death, then so be it. Hopefully, just the sight of prepared 'victim' would be enough for a BG to go elsewhere.

Everyone has different stances when it comes to guns in the home. My grandfather had an assortment of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. They were never ever kept loaded inside the house. Even the little .22 in the dresser had the rounds loose and about. But, you'd also have to consider that my grandparents had five kids and with that came a lot of grandkids coming through the house. My personal stance is, "What good is it if it isn't loaded" so I keep all my firearms loaded and the 'bed' gun is chambered, hammer up. My wife and I are expecting, so once that happens, I do have a alternate plan to remain ready, but also to keep everyone safe. To each his/her own.

 

[tinygnat219]

I actuallly disagree with the title of the Thread; you should not shoot to maim, because the bad guy could keep coming and a flesh wound might just piss him off. You shouldn't shoot to kill, you should shoot to STOP the attacker, that means solid hits in solid places until he STOPS coming, or is incapacitated. STOPPING the attacker could mean that he's dead, or it could not.

As for your buddy, it depends on how close you are. I suggest you invite your buddy over for dinner, and listen to his side. Get a promise from him first that he will listen to you once he's done. discuss why he thinks things are unsafe. Show him some of the "It happened to me" columns from law enforcement magazines, show him the armed citizen articles, and then show him some newspaper articles where being armed at home saved a person's life. Show him the precautions you make to keep your home weapon safe. That's really about all you can do to show him that you are serious. Ask what he would do if his house were broken into and the phone line's been cut. He might just come around.
TJ