There is an article on "center mass" in Guns America

[LibShooter]

I live a quiet life in a quiet town. I'm not a police officer or a drug dealer or an international spy. Therefore a gunfight is an unlikely event for me. Most of the stranger on stranger violent crime faced by folks like me would come at the hands of an amateur, poorly armed criminal nearly as scared as I.

So I carry a tiny .38 snubbie. If I stumble into a gang banger shootout, I won't have enough firepower to fight my way out. I don't have the skill, anyway. If one or five shots of .38 special to center mass don't stop or dissuade the bad guy I meet on the worst day of my life, my luck has run out. I'm betting my life on the very good chance that never happens.

 

[massad ayoob]

Lots of good advice here...and one insanely bad suggestion, to wit, the "make sure he's dead" theme.

As so many have noted, it crosses the line from justifiable self-defense to murder.

Courtroom outcome revolves around the intent of the shooter as determined by the trier(s) of the facts. Why did you do what you did?

"I shot to kill" communicates that the purpose of your action was to deprive the other person of his life. Not justifiable.

"I shot to stop" communicates that the purpose of your action was to save your own life or that of another innocent person. It's the difference between guilt and innocence, the difference between light and dark.

 

[bababooey32]

I'm still waiting for a description of how you are going to establish that "the threat has stopped" without endangering yourself or others.

Conversely, how are YOU going to establish that the threat is dead? Walk over and take his pulse?

The answer to your question is simple: the threat has stopped when I am no longer in grave danger - When the BG has stopped trying to injur me.

If you are inent on killing anyone that crosses you, trade in the gun for peppergas or some other non-lethal weapon.

There...fixed it for ya....

you can shoot a bad guy and he can fall to the ground in the fetal position facing away from you and you don't know what the heck he is doing. Did you "stop" him?

For the moment, yes. If he re-engages and becomes a threat again, you can resume defending yourself. I'll pose the same question back to you: You shoot a badguy and he falls to the ground in the fetal position facing away from you and you don't know if he's alive or dead. Do you continue to engage?

I doubt very much if I did have to shoot and KILL a bad guy, the shysters would come on the High Road Forums and use this thread as some kind of evidence against me.

Holy cow. Is it cozy underneath that rock? Read these:

Court case decision reveals danger of networking sites

Boy who posed with guns convicted

In both cases a persons own postings were used against them in court to gain a conviction or effect a sentence.

You might want to rethink the way you view your postings here, especially given your views on the use of deadly force.

 

[bababooey32]

Originally Posted by massad ayoob
Courtroom outcome revolves around the intent of the shooter as determined by the trier(s) of the facts. Why did you do what you did?

Mas, thanks for weighing in...I've been accused of being an "amateur Ayoob" in this thread (Post #11) - something I took as a compliment!

In this instance, should DeputyRet be unlucky enough to be involved ina SD shooting and end up killing the suspect, he has written down is intent for the prosecutor and jury to see - in advance. He has notified the world that he intends to kill any bg who threatens him. Seems to me he is now in a position where even the justifiable use of force becomes legally problematic. It might be wise for him to issue a restatement of his approach so as to be clear about what he really meant?

 

[MisterMike]

Lots of good advice here...and one insanely bad suggestion, to wit, the "make sure he's dead" theme.

While there's little need to bolster the credibility of someone like Massad, I'll add, as a prosecutor, that he's right on the money. By all means, do what you must to protect yourself. But if you go beyond self defense to execution, you've committed murder.

The breakdown of "it takes ___ rounds of .45 to stop a bad guy vs. ___ rounds of 9mm" is a crock of BS.

Indeed. Also, I'd question the tactical efficacy of the underlying advice in that article, which amounts to "keep plugging away till he's down." My training was essentially, "double tap, then assess." That's not to say that you wait a minute or two to see what happens, but that you assess the effect on your target and also any other threats that may be exist before resuming fire. In an actual shooting situation this would ideally take only a fraction of a second. The alternative is an invitation to empty your gun, leaving you defenseless to any remaining threats.

 

[Maelstrom]

He was split in half

I've always marveled at the human body. It is so frail and so resilient at the same time. People have fallen six miles from an airplane and survived the impact, and people have slipped in the shower and died.

I don't count on anything to work the first time.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

In the interest of supplying at least one data point, there's a pharmacist in these parts by the name of J. Ersland who is facing murder charges for repeatedly shooting a robber after he initially “stopped” him with one shot to the head. His argument: guy was still a threat, so he shot him some more. DA's argument: guy was down and out of the fight, so didn't need additional shooting. The matter has yet to go to trial.

 

[JShirley]

keep shooting until the bad guy is no longer a threat...ie DEAD

If the BG is no longer threatening, there is no longer any justification for using (potentially) deadly force. When I was actively training in martial arts, we were told that a technique could stop the aggressor at any point: if he sensed you were a hard target, he might stop; if you blocked, he might stop; as you counter-struck, he might stop; as you struck again or grappled, he might stop. The important thing was to always retain situational awareness, and be ready to continue the fight, against a single attacker or multiple opponents, until you were no longer in danger, or "the lights went out".

Using a firearm defensively is similar: as you move to draw your handgun, or cover the threat with the muzzle of your firearm, he might drop the weapon, drop the weapon and run, or drop the weapon and scream "Don't shoot!". As you fired your weapon, your opponent might drop his weapon, turn and run, or fall down. As you continue to retain situation awareness, use cover effectively, and fire until the threat is not a threat, you could win at any time.

Now, any hunter has probably seen downed game that is not dead yet, but is not moving. It's also possible for downed game to still be twitching or spasming, but show no indication of getting up. For solidly anchored game, it's usually best to just give it time. If you shot defensively, you can stop shooting as soon as the threat is no longer a threat. The goal isn't "dead" anything/one. The goal is live, safe you & family/friends.

Any shooting should be easily explainable in terms of what a reasonable man might do. Was it reasonable to believe your attacker was still a threat as he lay sprawled on the ground, with his knife four feet away? Probably not. Would it be reasonable to assume your attacker might be a threat as he crawled to the gun he'd dropped? Probably.

There is no substitute for common sense. Sadly, as Voltaire pointed out, it is not common.

John

 

[gym]

I think this was an informative series of responses, especially since "Mass", joined in and gave us his expert opinion. In NYC, several times a year, people fall in between the subway and the tracks. The emergency service guys show up, but it's a well known fact that they are done for, but some can speak and sometimes move their arms, and also sometimes feel no pain. The EMT's know that "they are dead once the train moves" as there is no way to remove them from the situation that they are in, and they are bleeding out.
I only bring this up to explain that sometimes you just have to re acess your actions during high stress situations. Once a person is unable to do you any further harm, there is no threat any more. People are not wild animals, you don't walk up and murder them once you have stopped the attack. Now if they are killed during the conflict or as a result of the conflict, that's a different story. Just my take

 

[Shawn Dodson]

...but when he says a BG walked through 5 .357 hollowpoints and kept on, I have to be skeptical.

The incident ocurred in Nov 1992. The bad guy's name is Richard Blackburn. He was shot five times in the torso by South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates. See: http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates

 

[searcher451]

Fascinating thread. What's especially interesting for me, in particular, is that the noise level has been as high if not higher on one side of the argument as it initially was on the other. I'm not sure what that says, exactly, but it's painfully obvious that a great many of the comments have been far less than what you'd expect to normally find on The High Road, especially with so many of the moderators weighing in.

 

[JShirley]

Yeah...hard to imagine anyone would be upset that bad and potentially legally disastrous advice was being given on THR...

 

[Jonah71]

Well, dead is stopped in the vast majority of cases.

The fact one is using lethal force implies the willingness to inflict lethal wounds. And, as I am sure DeputyRet would confirm, all police or civilian self-defense training involves placing shots in areas where they are likely to cause mortal wounds.

Of course, if you're really smart and do like any competent attorney in the world would advise, you don't say anything other than providing identification and confirming it is yours. The police will come to their own conclusions, so don't explain, don't excuse, don't do anything. In this way, you not only protect your interests in any possible criminal proceedings, you haven't supplied any ammunition for any possible civil actions.

I think this kinda sums it all up nicely.

 

[Pharmacology]

I'm still waiting for a description of how you are going to establish that "the threat has stopped" without endangering yourself or others.

I've got these two marbley things in my head that show this big smooshy thing in my skull pictures, and they work together to tell me when a person has stopped and when they're still attacking.

 

[bababooey32]

Originally Posted by TexasBill
Well, dead is stopped in the vast majority of cases.

To which Jonah 71 Responded:
I think this kinda sums it all up nicely.

Well, not really, as it leaves out the part that we are arguing about: "but stopped isn't always dead".

Once we apply lethal force, death is a possible outcome. It should not, however, be the goal of pulling the trigger. The goal should be to stop the actions that resulted in your decision to fire. Once those actions have stopped - FOR WHATEVER REASON - you are obligated to stop pulling the trigger unless and until you are threatened again. To do otherwise is legally questionable (at best).

 

[ForumSurfer]

I intend to shoot to stop the threat. It may or may not result in death (I understand that I am employing deadly force), but my intent is to STOP, not kill.

My hope (heaven forbid I find myself in a position where self defense via gunfire is the only outcome) is to stop the threat, what happens after that remains to be seen.

Having been sued over nothing before, and having seen a friend sued personally for damages/medical due to gunshot wounds to a felon during the process of an armed robbery while he was a LE...my ideal outcome would be to leave fewer witnesses with less rounds if possible. Seven people in one area can't tell one coherent, constant account of a shooting, so I'd prefer the aggressor not to give any account. Dead men tell no tales...

In a self defense mode, it remains to be seen if I would be calm and cool with great shot placement or empty all 9 rounds into the assailant. I'd like to say I'd give him 2-3 in the chest or one in the head, but having never been confronted with the situation; I just don't know what I would do. I've known LE officers personally, even with military backgrounds that emptied entire magazines into a bad guy when confronted in a dark setting all alone. We're human, we can train and plan...but we don't know what we'll do till we get there.

 

[Coronach]

Fascinating thread. What's especially interesting for me, in particular, is that the noise level has been as high if not higher on one side of the argument as it initially was on the other. I'm not sure what that says, exactly, but it's painfully obvious that a great many of the comments have been far less than what you'd expect to normally find on The High Road, especially with so many of the moderators weighing in.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but the discussion has been free from personal attacks, and generally free of off-topic chatter. That is what we commonly call "noise." Do not confuse a thorough debunking of a bad idea with "noise". Bad ideas need to be debunked, especially when a failure to do so can, and eventually will, lead to someone going to jail needlessly.

Mike

 

[bababooey32]

Originally posted by ForumSurfer:
...my ideal outcome would be to leave fewer witnesses [ ] with less rounds if possible. Seven people in one area can't tell one coherent, constant account of a shooting, so I'd prefer the aggressor not to give any account. Dead men tell no tales...

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:



Again, all I can say is: good grief....

We're human, we can train and plan...but we don't know what we'll do till we get there.

And yet here, on an internet forum for all the world to see (preumably) under no duress, you and a couple of others have professed your intent to "leave fewer witnesses" and "shoot to kill".

While you may be right that I might not have as much control under threat as I hope but at least my PLAN going in isn't to murder the witnesses!

 

[ForumSurfer]

While you may be right that I might not have as much control under threat as I hope but at least my PLAN going in isn't to murder the witnesses!

My intent is to stop the threat, period. I can honestly say if I were forced to use a firearm, my intent is lethal. If I were going the less than lethal approach, I'd choose a different weapon. My logic is to put a few rounds center of mass. If you set out to put one or two rounds center of mass, surely the target living would be an unintended side effect. My aim is to stop the attack, but if that involves the use of a firearm...yes, that is deadly force.

Forgive me if I made it sound like I was shooting everyone on scene.

 

[bababooey32]

ForumSurfer - I understand that you weren't going to off the crowd around you...but you did state

my ideal outcome would be to leave fewer witnesses with less rounds if possible. Seven people in one area can't tell one coherent, constant account of a shooting, so I'd prefer the aggressor not to give any account. Dead men tell no tales...

To me that means you are intending to kill the BG. Intending to kill a person is different than intending to stop a threat. The BG can cease being a threat, at which point your engaing him becomes a crime.

I understand that employing deadly force to stop a threat may (or is even likely to) result in the BG's death, but that is far different from the reasons I employ deadly force. I employ deadly force in order to stop a grave threat to me or my family.

My intent is to stop the threat, period. I can honestly say if I were forced to use a firearm, my intent is lethal.

So which is it? Is your intent to stop the threat or is your intent "lethal"?

 

[Coronach]

I think what we have here is a misunderstanding about "lethal force" vis a vis "stopping the attack vs shooting to kill". The first issue is easily handled: lethal force is that level of force which can reasonably result in death. Each state will have its own definition of lethal force, but it will be some variation on this theme. Shooting someone with a firearm is lethal force, period. No one denies this.

But it is completely different to say that if you have to use your firearm, your intent is lethal. For instance:

I can draw my gun, and before I shoot, the suspect drops his gun, turns, and starts to run.

I can draw, shoot, and miss. The suspect can drop his gun and put his hands up.

I can draw shoot, hit the BG multiple times, and he can drop the ground, bleeding profusely, and stop moving. I reload and look...the BG is still down, still not moving, but is still breathing.

Now what?

In every scenario, the BG is very much alive. In every scenario, the immediate assault has been stopped. ABSENT OTHER INFORMATION*, what do you do? If your intent is truly lethal, you're going to shoot again. Why? The BG is very much not dead. If your intent is to stop the attack, you're done.

The ball is in the shooter's court.

Mike

* I say this because we ALL can start adding stuff to change and skew the scenario. That's not the point.

 

[shockwave]

In the interest of supplying at least one data point, there's a pharmacist in these parts by the name of J. Ersland who is facing murder charges for repeatedly shooting a robber after he initially “stopped” him with one shot to the head. His argument: guy was still a threat, so he shot him some more. DA's argument: guy was down and out of the fight, so didn't need additional shooting. The matter has yet to go to trial.

How fortunate that you bring up the Ersland case. Although not germane to the "center mass" discussion, it is extremely relevant to the question of deadly force. Ersland's own surveillance camera captured the entire incident. Video here.

Note that up to the moment Ersland leaves the store, he's legally in the clear. If he'd left it there, he'd be a hero. What happened next is why he will undoubtedly see some time in the slammer. We're talking about this. When the threat is over, you have to stop shooting to stay within the law.

 

[Telumehtar]

So the conclusion is that while applicable to zombies, Zombieland Rule #2: The Double Tap, (specifically to ensure that dead is really dead) does not automatically carry over to the living(even if the living may have the mental capacity and demeaner of a flesh eating zombie).

Sorry, but after all the above I thought perhaps a little levity might be needed.

 

[Coronach]

So the conclusion is that while applicable to zombies, Zombieland Rule #2: The Double Tap, (specifically to ensure that dead is really dead) does not automatically carry over to the living(even if the living may have the mental capacity and demeaner of a flesh eating zombie).

Sorry, but after all the above I thought perhaps a little levity might be needed.

I understand you're making a joke, but allow me to use it to make a serious point.

The idea that you're shooting to stop does NOT imply that you must stop and evaluate after each shot. There is nothing wrong with doing a doubletap, or shooting to slidelock, or doing a mozambique drill, so long as during the execution of that move the BG does not obviously stop his aggressive actions. The current training idea is to put lead on target as quickly as possible- until the threat is neutralized. This does NOT mean dead (except maybe in a battlefield scenario, I can't speak to military training), but it does mean that aggressive action has stopped. It can be because he is dead, it can be because he is incapacitated, it can be because he soiled his undies and ran away. But once one of those has happened, you better hit PAUSE on the bullet hose, because your cause for shooting- the need to protect yourself- has just passed.

Mike

 

[ForumSurfer]

So which is it? Is your intent to stop the threat or is your intent "lethal"?

Both, I guess.

I intend to stop the threat by means of lethal force. I don't intend to to kneecap a rushing assailant for fear of a miss, my target is center of mass. You can't fire two rounds center of mass and say "Ooopsie, I killed the bad guy by accident when I severed his aorta with a 45 slug." In my eyes, you're shooting to kill under the premise of stopping the attack...so both.

I see your point, though. My official statement would read to the effect of "defendant fired 2-3 rounds at the assailant in self defense to stop the attack after making an attempt to retreat from the situation." If I emptied the entire mag, I'll assume my lawyer will make it known that a combination of fight or flight mode and adrenaline kicked in, causing me to neutralize the threat for fear of my own life (or others).

Edit: Likewise, if I were to fire one shot that resulted in a non lethal hit and I ceased firing...and his attack ceased...I would not fire a second shot. Maybe my intent isn't to kill, but my intent is to certainly use deadly force to stop the attack for fear of my life. I still stand by statement of both lethal intent and stopping the attack. You'd have to speak to my lawyer in a "real" scenario though to get my official response.