The Mythology of Shooting to Stop

[GEM]

I just thought I would comment outside of the Tyler, TX threads. I have now seen several times on the Internet that folks are hesitant to take head shots as they feel this compromises their ability to tell the courts that they were shooting to stop and/or neutralize.

This is a perversion of the concept. TX law clearly talks about when it is appropriate to use lethal force.

Shooting to stop is a training concept and not a legal concept. It emphasizes that we want to stop the bad guy and not mandated by law to kill a BG when we apply potential lethal means in a legal fashion. However, the concept has no force of law to say that we must not shot in the most effective manner in the use of lethal force.

It is also supposedly has utility in the psychological presentation to the law and the jury. If the shoot has a touch of ambiguity, you don't want to tip the balance in the direction that you are bloodthirsty with your rhetoric.

It has nothing to do with where you shoot in an ongoing fight. It is perilously close to the bogus doctrine of "Why didn't you shoot him in the leg?"

Lesson is over, boys and girls.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, so I thought this was going to be one of those silly semantic threads, and it isn't.

You are correct, at least in Texas and in many other states, either you have the right to use lethal force or you do not. If you do, shot placement is of no consequence so long as you don't injure somebody other than the bad guy. That includes head shots and shooting the person in the back. I am repeatedly disappointed to read posts about how shooting in the back is either illegal or indicates that the person was somehow of no threat. What a bunch of bogus trash.

So, why is shooting another person always considered lethal force, even if you shoot a person in the leg, foot, hand, arm, or other spot that we tend to think of as being a non-critical area? Simple. The damage produced has the potential to produce death, either by direct trauma or by shock. Bleeding out is probably the most common form of death produced by shots to supposedly non-critical regions, because some major blood vessels have been ruptured.

Texas law does clearly state when it is appropriate to use lethal force. It makes no mandates about where said lethal force has to be applied. It doesn't care as no matter where it is applied, it is considered lethal, regardless of the intent of the shooter.

Shooting to stop is a training concept, as noted, and a nifty little verbal play of words to be politically correct and massage or downplay the significance of the application of lethal force into a nice, touchy feely sort of framework that we can all discuss intelligently over crumpets. Of course, one of the absolute best stops is to shut down the central nervous system and the brain, brain stem, and spinal cord are the critical areas for this.

So if you are worried about head shots somehow indicating that you are trying to kill a bad guy (as opposed to stopping him/her), the argument is simple. Shutting down the CNS is the best way to produce a stop. It just often has the byproduct of producing death. That is the risk the bad guy accepted when he started engaging in the activities that necessitated the use of lethal force against him.

 

[Zundfolge]

When I took my CCW class here in Colorado we had a lawyer talk to the class and discuss the legal issues surrounding use of deadly force.

He said basically that if feel you are justified to shoot, you shoot to kill.

I asked him if it wouldn't be better to "shoot to stop" instead of "shoot to kill" to which he replied that if I was only "shooting to stop" that I must not have really been afraid for my life and therefor the shooting might not be ruled justified.


Lawyers live for semantics.


As for relying on shot placement to determine whether the shoot is a good shoot or not, there is nobody who expects one to shoot 1" groups dead COM under life or death stress. Under stress I've read that people tend to shoot a little high anyway, so aiming for COM might just pull off a headshot.


As long as you don't get a solid COM shot and after the BG goes down you walk up and plug him in the head, you should be okay

 

[hillbilly]

I teach CCW in Arkanas, and I use the "shoot to stop" concept in training.

Here's why.

1) As stated, there is this huge misconception on the part of the vast public, even amongst gun owners, that there is shooting to wound and shooting to kill. They've seen too dadgummed many movies wherein the "good guy" shoots the "bad guy" in the arm, or shoots the gun out his hand, or purposefully shoots the bad guy in the leg instead of killing him.....Too many folks believe in the movie fiction of taking the "high road" and just wounding the bad guy instead of actually killing him.

In almost every single CCW class I've taught, some student has asked me or the attorney who covers the self-defense and the law portion about the difference between "Shooting to kill" and "shooting to wound." Shooting to stop is an attempt to get them to forget this false distinction.

They also get the lecture on "that's why it's called LETHAL force."


2) It reinforces another key idea, of shooting until the bad guy is no longer a threat. That is, if you shoot once, and the bad guy falls on his knees with his hands over his head, screaming "DON'T KILL ME OH GOD PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!!!" then you've stopped him. By the same concept, if you've hit the guy 12 times, and he's still on his feet, coming at you, or on his back aiming his gun at you, he's still a threat, and isn't stopped yet, and thus you need to keep shooting him.

So many self-defense shootings have the shooter shooting a couple of times, and then just stopping, because in the movies, you shoot the bad guy once or twice, and he yells "OW!" and falls down.........

And even if he falls down, if he's still pointing a gun at you, he's still a threat. So is shooting a wounded man laying on his back "sporting?" If he's pointing a gun at you, hell yes. He's not stopped yet. Stop him. Shoot him some more.

The targets that I really want to use, but which I don't have yet, are the cardboard human torso and head targets that have three spots inside them to put a balloon, to which you attach a string to hang the target up by.

You can put the balloon inside the chest, or the head, or the pelvic area of the target. I don't see why you couldn't put multiple balloons inside the different cavities with attached strings making it doubly hard to put the target down.

That way, the student has to "solve" the situation and hit the target in the spot or spots required to stop the attacker....whatever that spot may be from target to target.

The target is not down until the shooter hits the balloon or ballons and the target actually goes down. But the student never knows where to shoot the target to make it go down, and has to keep shooting it in the head, chest, and pelvis until it goes down.

So many of us teach "shooting to stop" by center-of-mass shots to the chest because it's a bigger target than the head, and less difficult to hit in a high-stress situation under poor lighting and the influence of the startle reflex.

Of course, there is the unlikely event that the bad guy will have on body armor, and will require a head shot to stop. Which is what those falling balloon targets would be good practice for.

But no matter how much practice we all do, no matter how realistic we try to make our training, there is no way to actually prepare for "the real thing" other than getting into real gunfights......And there are all sorts of problems with training for a gunfight by getting into gunfights.

So "shoot to stop" is good training idea, I think.

But I don't think it's necessarily because we want to make self defense "kinder and gentler." At least I try to reinforce that idea to my students. Shooting to stop means you shoot until that threat is no longer a threat to you.....if that's one shot and he runs away, he's stopped. If that's two mags full of ammo, and he's still a threat, and you've got to grab loose rounds off the ground to finish the job, keep shooting until the threat is stopped.

hillbilly

 

[hillbilly]

Zundfolge: Yeah, I've had some weird experiences with lawyers.

But, as I teach for a living (English) and part-time (CCW) I think I know a thing or two about how folks learn.

If that lawyer you talked about taught 100% "shoot to kill" he would, guaranteed, have some poor sap have to explain why he chased the perpetrator down a side street, across the park, and into an alley before shooting him multiple times in the back of the head.

The poor sap would say, "Cuz that lawyer told me if'n I ever had ta shewt somebody, I had to shoot to kill, or I'd get in trouble for not needin' ta shewt at all......So I made durn sure I kilt him."

Shoot to kill, shoot to wound, too much to think about in that situation.

Shoot center of chest until the threat is no longer a threat, and try head and/or pelvis shots if the target is still a threat after a few shots is much simpler, and provides the required results.

hillbilly

 

[Gocart]

DNS,

Well said. Lethal force is lethal force. If you are justified, you are justified. If you are not, you're not.

Folks, when winning time comes, you'd better be thinking 100% about winning the fight, not winning the court battle. Do what it takes to win. Do it quickly, and do it enough.

 

[ZeroX]

Anyone know the lethal force situation in Indiana?

 

[El Tejon]

Zero, yes, death by injection.

If you are justified, you are justified. Mmmm, that depends. If you mean that the Tyler Texas hero was justified in taking a head shot, I agree. However, manner in which one applies deadly force CAN get you in big, big trouble. It depends.

 

[Sam]

The way the judge splain't to me was that if you were justified in shooting at all that it really didn't make any diference in the eyes of the law if the BG died or not. Your intention is to remove the threat to your person. how that happens is really not part of the argument.

Sam

 

[The Rabbi]

My understanding is, based on common law, that one is justified in using deadly force to stop an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. That means you do whatever is necessary--head shots, COM shots, pelvic shots, groin shots, gut shots etc etc--to stop that threat. Once it stops, you stop. If the BG dies in the process, so be it.
One of the few cases I have heard about here where a storekeeper got into trouble happened when BG entered store, produced weapon, and storekeeper countered and shot BG. BG then staggered outside and collapsed on the sidewalk. Storekeeper ran after him and popped him in the head as he lay there. I'd vote to convict too, altho he probably deserved a medal.

 

[hillbilly]

Rabbi, you're exactly right.

Shooting to stop means exactly what it says.....shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

CCW instructors typically don't teach head shots, not out of some sort of touchy-feely, political correctness crap, but because, quite frankly, your average pistol shooter just can't make head shots at 7 yards on moving targets.

Put the your average pistol shooter under life-and-death pressure and the chances for head shot hits goes even farther down.

We teach center-of-mass shots because COM provides the highest probability of a hit.

But what about body armor?

Uh yeah.............

Until at least 50% of the bad guys start wearing body armor, I'm still teaching COM shots and shooting to stop.

I'm not saying you shouldn't practice head shots and/or pelvic shots.

I'm just saying the overwhelmingly vast majority of self-defense shootings, and for the overwhelmingly vast majority of pistol shooters, COM is the way to go.

And if you are good enough and slick enough and practiced enough to consistently make hits on head-sized moving targets while under extreme pressure and duress?

Then I'd say you ought to be teaching at your very own high-priced private handgun academy.....that or training Navy SEALS or the FBI HRT

hillbilly

 

[c_yeager]

Either you can shoot the guy or you can't. If you are justified in shooting someone it doesnt matter where you shoot them, what caliber you use, if you used reloades, if your pistol was cocked, or if it was a fullmoon/christmas eve/new years day. It's either a good shoot or it isnt. And the factors that led up to it are what is going to matter.

The possibility of armored bad guys is definatly becoming a reality that we are going to have to learn to deal with. I suspect that a lot more people are going to be practicing "failure drills" to counter it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillbilly and Yeager,
You guys have said it!

Not teaching head shots and going for COM just seems like good tactics to me. In many situations the lighting will be bad, the BG might be partially hidden etc etc. The eye will naturally gravitate to the biggest, brightest object available. Sure, IF you make the head shot then you have ended the encounter (most likely) but thats a big if. If you miss then you have made your survival a lot less likely. I'm not much of a gambler so I would always take the lower stakes proposition.
Yeager, yes, if the situation warranted shooting then it warranted shooting. No one has ever provided persuasive evidence that other factors ever figure in whether to charge the shooter or not.

 

[JamisJockey]

I think that you're right, but you're also wrong.
The concept of shooting to stop isn't a PC thing. If you're not authorized to use lethal force, you're not authorized to use a firearm. Even if its shooting the guy in the leg, aka hollyweird.
Shooting to stop simply means that when the BG is no longer a threat you don't shoot anymore. If you've shot and wounded him, and he's flopping around crying for momma, I don't think he's a threat anymore. Did you kill him? nope, but you might have. Did you stop him? yup.
Its still lethal force, just a concept of the application thereof.
Shooting to kill infers that you're going to put one in the back of the head while the BG begs for his mommy.

 

[GEM]

Ahem, I wasn't discussing the difficulty of making head shots - plenty of discussion of that in other realms. Nor was I discussing the rationale for a Mozambique. It is clear that if you train you train for failure to stop drills and appropriate target areas.

Kids - I was discussing the idea of NOT taking a head shot because of the misinterpretation of the shooting to stop doctrine.

Back on track, if you please - althought that is hard for a gun list.

 

[buzz_knox]

If someone is teaching (or arguing for) not to take headshots because of the shoot to stop concept, then that person needs to be doing something else. Handguns are too weak to guarantee that the threat will stop even via the introduction of multiple rounds to COM, even without the consideration of body armor. Sometimes, the only way to stop the threat is by destroying the computer controlling and directing the threat, namely the brain. If COM isn't working and the threat is continuing, then shooting to stop means going after the brain.

There are two reasons why shooting to stop is valid and should remain valid, even though we all recognize that we are discussing deadly force.

1. It sends a signal to the trier of fact as to what your intentions were. If that wasn't the case, then shoot to stop would not be the standard for police depts., who have far less exposure to liability than other civilians.

2. It sends a signal to the shooter as to what he or she should be doing. It's not about killing the perp, it's about stopping the threat. We already have at least one instructor out there who is teaching civilians (uniformed or otherwise) that you're supposed to shoot the bad guy to the ground (i.e. don't stop shooting until he's down). Great. Brilliant. Too bad the guy dropped his gun after the 3rd round, and witnesses saw you put another 15 into him as he staggered around. Worst case scenario but plausible, unless you get it in your mind and keep it there that "I'm not trying to kill the guy, I'm trying to keep him from killing me." We have to recognize that death is a possibility due to the situation and our need to protect ourselves, but death is just a possibility, not our goal.

 

[GEM]

That's what I was talking about Buzz!

I did see folks arguing about whether shooting to stop implied some lunatic doctrine of head shots looking bad in the course of a righteous use of lethal force.

 

[Zundfolge]

In the class I took, headshots weren't considered "shooting to kill" ... the discussion was about whether telling the officers on the scene that you shot to kill was a good idea or not.


The lawyer said basically you shoot with the intent to kill the sumbich because thats the best way to stop him ... of course when the officers arrive on the scene all you tell them after you give him your name and contact info is; "I was afraid for my life so I shot him" then respond to any more questions with "Officer, I plan on cooperating fully, but I am in no condition to make a statement at this time." and then lawyer up.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

"I'm not trying to kill the guy, I'm trying to keep him from killing me."

You put 4 rounds in his chest and 3 in his head and you weren't trying to kill him? I'd guess most juries would have a problem believing that.

 

[GEM]

Your presentation is that you were trying to save your life or prevent grievously bodily harm. I suppose your defense team deal with nasty questions from the DA and is cognizant of how to present your actions as rational to the jury. A good lawyer should know the issue and how to present your actions in the best light, perhaps with the help of appropriate experts.

If you put all these rounds into him as he was lying on the ground and not moving you might have some trouble.

The main issue is a headshot in the heat of the firefight.

 

[hillbilly]

It sounds like we are all agreeing with each other.

Key points seem to be:

1) Shooting to stop is a great idea.

2) A head shot is a great way to stop an attacker.

3) Head shots are a lot tougher to make under stress than COM shots.

4) Some folks out there have gotten the mistaken idea that head shots are no-nos, not because they are harder to accomplish, but because somehow a head shot shows you were trying to kill the attacker, not "stop" him....Weird idea that head shot is evil and bad, but that shot that tore away his aorta? That one's just peachy.....weird idea because dead is, afterall, dead.

hillbilly

 

[Coltdriver]

One of the very nice things about Colorado is that the rules on when you can protect yourself are reasonably clear. And if you have complied with the law you can not be sued here. If you kill an intruder to your home, and do so within the bounds of the law, you can not be sued in civil court.

In North Carolina where I had a carry license for a couple of years, regardless of the circumstances, if you shot someone and killed them under any circumstances you could expect to be charged with murder in most jurisdictions. Then if you were acquitted or not, you could absolutely expect to be sued for wrongful death.

I always thought it was pretty silly to think that you were going to shoot someone with the intention of stopping them and that you would have any choice about killing them or not.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not teaching head shots and going for COM just seems like good tactics to me.

And then you run into somebody like Arroyo as Mark Wilson did and you get killed just as dead as Mark Wilson.

Head shots may not be easy and they may not be your first choice, but they may also be your only hope.

According to police dash cam footage, Arroyo in his body armor was brought down by a head shot while trying to effect his escape.

 

[Mannlicher]

GEM, thanks for being the teacher. I am sure all the boys and girls learned something.

 

[GEM]

Well, thank you. I am a teacher by the way, so that made me chuckle.