The Mythology of Shooting to Stop

[buzz_knox]

Pretty much sums it up, I think.

Something tells me that you focused solely on the liability aspect and missed the entire point.

 

[Jeff White]

After reading through the thread, I'm not sure it doesn't belong in Legal and Political.

This is the best answer to the question I've seen:

Originally posted by Buzz Knox:
Spend the time and money now to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with the law in your jurisdiction, the mood of the court and the jury pool, all the cases that never make the reporters and thus can't be found on a search, and who can have a real interaction with you rather than via posting.

Location, location, location...it's true for the law, just like it is in real estate. Even though the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force are generally similar throughout the country, how they are enforced, prosecuted, and interpreted by the courts varies from place to place, sometimes in different courts in the same judicial circuit. There are plenty of decisions made that affect how you may use force to defend yourself that you'll never find in the court records. Everything from the police officer deciding not to make an arrest, to the prosecuter who declines to file charges on a case the police present to him, to the judge who dismisses a case. Also in many jurisdictions use of force issues involving death may be decided by a coroner's jury.

Just because a use of deadly force wasn't prosecuted one time, doesn't mean it won't be the next time. I've posted in other threads the story of the trucking company owner who shot two people fleeing his truck yard in the back but was not prosecuted. We have a new states attorney now, and I have no doubt the owner would be facing prison time if a simial situation were to occur.

The only person who can give you more then the general guidance that you've received here is an attorney in your jurisdiction who deals with that type of cases. Unfortunately, police officers, trust and divorce attorneys, the guy in the pin striped suit picking up a nice double barrel at the gunshop who has an attorney on retainer...aren't the best places to go for this type of information.

Jeff

 

[Island Beretta]

Wrote a long treatise on a coroner's inquest in a case recently in another thread..

That said a head shot is no different from the COM shot in that you shoot to a spot.. the difference between the head shot and COM though is that the COM gives you a greater margin of error (esp. since under SHTF situations your performance may degrade).

In quite a few cases, a head shot has proven to be less lethal than a COM shot for the very reason that the skull is difficult to penetrate.. I have seen victims with head shots and more often than not death was from chest wounds..

the head shot story is a myth re: trying to score a fatal hit rather than just 'stopping a threat'. . so forget it and move on..

Finally, the catchword is in 'stop' and it depends on what do we mean by 'stop'... this definition is determined by the situation that presents itself to you and nothing else.

e.g. from 2 feet away, a knife attack might involve grappling and several torso shots as you need to end this ultra-quick..time is at a premium..

at 30 yds. and charging you may have time to weaken the attack with 2 well-placed shots..and reassess your options..quickly..

there are many concepts in the defn. of legal defense such as distance, type of weaponry, physique, escape options, cover options, # of attackers, visibility etc. etc. - worry more about these than where on the anatomy of the attacker you place shots.. heck, I have heard people say that if you feel that you were in danger because he had a gun in his hand why did you not shoot the gun out of his hands..MY RESPONSE: the gun is not the danger, it is the person who is the danger, the gun is just a tool to assist him in his mission..

 

[Coronach]

Your intent does NOT negate your right to use lethal force in a situation where it is legally viable to use lethal force. If you think it does, actually prove me wrong.

You're missing the point.

Scenario: Bad Guy breaks into your house. You hear the sound of the door splintering and grab your bedside gun. He comes up the steps to your bedroom door. He screams "I will KILL you!" and walks forward, with a butcher's knife in his hands.

Oh my! *BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM*

Well, this is obviously a clearcut scenario of self defense, and will fly in almost every quarter of the free world, except England (sorry, Agricola). Shot to stop, shot to kill- really kinda moot because, regardless of intent, you're probably shooting COM, or doing a failure drill like a mozambique...and the whole time the BG is on his feet, has a knife, and is closing.

Now, lets take it a step further. BG drops to the ground, obviously wounded by your rapid and accurate gunfire. The knife clatters from his hands. He lays there, making a mess of your area rug and is obviously not a threat (stay with the scenario on this one, and it said "obviously not a threat").

Decision time: Does he get the rest of the magazine/tube/cylinder, or not? A shooter that is shooting to stop says "no, he is no longer a viable threat." A shooter that is shooting to kill walks up and shoots him a few more times.

Now, let's not cloud the issue with "dead men tell no tales" and similar stuff- we're dealing with the plain fact patterns here, not ways to get yourself out of a legal jam. Assuming that when the gendarmes show up both of our hypothetical shooters are honest, one of them is probably going to be in trouble, and one of them probably is not. One of them shot to kill, and one of them shot to stop.

"Ah ha!" says someone. "The original quote said 'Your intent does NOT negate your right to use lethal force in a situation where it is legally viable to use lethal force.' In this scenario the one guy no longer had the right to use lethal force, ergo this argument is a lot of hot air."

Not quite: the fact that the shooter no longer had the right to use lethal force is the crux of the argument. It proves that the intent of the whole endevour was to stop the threat: so long as the threat was valid, the use of force, up to and including lethal force, was valid. The instant the threat was stopped (note that word), the right to use force, lethal or otherwise, no longer existed.

And, as Buzz_Knox pointed out, we are, regardless of profession, just a bunch of guys (cops, lawyers, whatever) posting on the internet in our free time. If you have questions or concerns about this, you need to consult a local attorney. Not only does that invoke an attorney/client relationship, but he also knows the statutory and case law in your jurisdiction, which are the rules under which you will play the game.

Mike

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

Agreed

I agree with the post. Legally, we may use deadly force if threatened with deadly force or substantial bodily injury (or defend another under such threat). We need not and should not aim for less vital areas of the attackers body. We do say and "testify" that "I shot to stop the threat" OR "I kept shooting until he (the threat) stopped." We do this so as to not inflame the jury etc. BUT it is also what we are doing....hopefully. It is not our FIRST desire or priority.....to kill the perpetrator...that is. Our priority is to stop the threat. It just so happens that 2 to the body and one to the head (killing him) just might be the best way to do it. (*nothing in this post is to be construed as legal advice.....you're on your own......thanks*)

 

[GEM]

Coronach - great post. It deals with the issue of shooting at a living but clearly disabled opponent. Thus, shooting to stop is relevant at this point.

There is another thread going on rendering aid - an interesting nuance to your post. Render aid or finish them off.

Most reasonable seems to call for help and maintain a protective readiness position.

The original thread topic was the folks who would not take a head shot in a clear lethal force situation because it would look bad - ex. being Tyler. That clearly was nonsensical.

Finishing off an opponent is always problematic if an active threat is not clearly viable. This issue does come up. In the Diallo case, the rounds that entered his legs and feet from angles presuming that he was down - was an issue. However, being down doesn't preclude firing at a target with capacity to attack you.

 

[RetLt0123]

Taking a head shot

In a hostage situation or barricaded suspect most plice swat team snipers are going to go for the head shot, Why you might ask ? because it is more likely to result in the sudden and immediate "stopping of the threat". and after all the only reason one ever shoots another in a justifible situation is to stop the threat to themselves or someone else. if that is accepted by the DA,s in your neck of the woods as being prudent for the police, then it should be okay for you to. Shooting to stop the threat can and does sometimes lead to death for the person on the receiving end of the shooting, however that is not decided by you or I its a matter between them and god, the only thing you made happen was the stoppage of the threat to yourself.wether that shot is in the leg , torso, head, etc. is of little consequnce to you as you were simply shooting to stop the threat, besides if every bullet you ever fired went exactly where you aimed it at none of us would ever need to practice. I shot a guy robbing a bank once I was aiming for center mass and as best as i can recall when i dropped the hammer the bullett should have struck him in the chest, however he moved and it hit him the wrist. So with that in mind one would be hard pressed to prove that any head shot was not just the result of a center of mass shot gone a little highdue to movement of the target or of your weapon

 

[Island Beretta]

good one, Coronach.

There are also LEOs who will 'ask why you didn't finish off the scumbag. one less on the streets', don't fall for that- you have neutralised the threat and that is enough..