Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[country boy]

I believe you misunderstood me Chee-to. I'm just saying that one should shoot untill the threat is no longer present, if one fires on the attacker when the threat is no longer there, you will most likely be charged with murder. That being said, if the asailant dies as a result, so be it.

 

[el gringo loco]

Probably a topic for a new thread, but.....

As much as I hate to see new restrictions on gun use, this thread has brought up something I have have believed for years: It may be too easy to get your CHL.

Before anyone starts bouncing off the walls, please hear me out. Reading the comments on this thread and many other threads, ostensibly made by people who carry on a regular basis, I shudder at what a large percentage of posters either do not know the statutes and case law surrounding the use of deadly force or willfully ignore those laws when on an online forum.

I would hope that anyone who carried would take the time to go seek out this information on their own. However, that does not appear to be the case and, presumably, most of these people have passed a CHL course. I wonder if requiring a few more hours in the CHL course and maybe a test on the laws of deadly force would help. It seems way too many people base what they would do in a given deadly force scenario on what they were told thirty years ago by a family member, what a "buddy who knows a cop" told them, or what they read online (source and location of the source unknown). While the phrase, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," is certainly true, it seems that a little studying could avoid both.

P.S. I hope that it is just for the sake of argument, but some people seem to have blind allegiance to their ideology and how they think the law should be. Unfortunately, that is not how they will be judged. The law is going to be applied not by how it is written or by what you think it should say, but how it is currently interpreted by the legal system (ie. case law).

 

[twoclones]

My thoughts are that.. If you have to shoot someone, their well being should be the last thing in your mind.

I have to agree.

 

[NK777]

P.S. I hope that it is just for the sake of argument, but some people seem to have blind allegiance to their ideology and how they think the law should be. Unfortunately, that is not how they will be judged. The law is going to be applied not by how it is written or by what you think it should say, but how it is currently interpreted by the legal system (ie. case law).

I agree and see the point. Most people should have a course devoted to deadly force and when it is authorized. Those of us that are ex-military or ex-law enforcement have a better understanding of it I think.

That being said I do feel that most of it is common sense. One simply must make good logical judgments and not act out emotionally. It's about survival without crossing the line and it has nothing to do with your emotions. Resist rage and vengeance because they can both get you in trouble and turn a good person into a bad one.

 

[tinknocker]

I agree that we need to know the laws and how they pertain to us on this subject, more education would be very helpful.

With that said, I believe that your training will take over and that training should guide your actions. If you feel your life or your family or someone in danger and you take the time to think if you should kill or maim, and then take the time to aim just to stop (maim), that could be enough time for your attacker to get you. I know that it only takes seconds, but that can be too much time. In a tense situation training will win out, that and a good healthy survival instinct.

The only time we pull a firearm is when we are in eminent fear of losing our lives or the life of another or defending our homes.
When my father taught me to shoot, he always said "Don't point your gun at something you don't want to kill." I don't want to kill anyone, but if I do shoot at someone I'm going to fire until the threat is gone.

 

[el gringo loco]

I agree and see the point. Most people should have a course devoted to deadly force and when it is authorized. Those of us that are ex-military or ex-law enforcement have a better understanding of it I think.

That being said I do feel that most of it is common sense. One simply must make good logical judgments and not act out emotionally. It's about survival without crossing the line and it has nothing to do with your emotions. Resist rage and vengeance because they can both get you in trouble and turn a good person into a bad one.

I guess my concern is that an otherwise decent person might risk incarceration or financial ruin, not because they responded inappropriately, but because they did not understand the legal justification for what they were doing. I also think that younger folks are often quicker to act and think about the consequences later. I was 21 or 22 when I got my CHL and I know that my understanding of what was acceptable use of deadly force has changed over the years. Thankfully, I never had to test my my inadequate legal knowledge. But, I do wish someone had sat me down and explained the law more thoroughly before granting me a permit.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I guess my concern is that an otherwise decent person might risk incarceration or financial ruin, not because they responded inappropriately, but because they did not understand the legal justification for what they were doing. I also think that younger folks are often quicker to act and think about the consequences later. I was 21 or 22 when I got my CHL and I know that my understanding of what was acceptable use of deadly force has changed over the years. Thankfully, I never had to test my my inadequate legal knowledge. But, I do wish someone had sat me down and explained the law more thoroughly before granting me a permit.

Absolutely....in the eyes of the law the difference between a good man defending his life and his family and a crazed killer can be as little as one extra round fired. Sad but true. It can be the difference between the news reporting "A prepared gunman shot an attacker who later died of his wounds" or "A crazed gunman repeatedly fired upon a downed man."

 

[telemakos]

When I train, it's with the idea that I need to "quickly, very quickly" drop their blood pressure so fast that they lose consciousness.

I want to make the threat go away; the faster the better.

With that in mind, 4 quick shots, center mass. Good ammo, no smaller than a .40 S&W. That's my typical training routine. I suppose some situations would merit on the spot adjustments.

I've given thought that that pattern would likely be fatal. And I've given thought that I'd render first aid and call for medical/police once the threat ceased.

But I can not give thought to anything except my and my family's "human right" to life. To that end, I'm willing to employ self-defensive tactics that are - at that moment in time - necessary.

 

[Chee-to]

I believe you misunderstood me Chee-to. I'm just saying that one should shoot untill the threat is no longer present, if one fires on the attacker when the threat is no longer there, you will most likely be charged with murder. That being said, if the asailant dies as a result, so be it.

OK, how's this, "your enemy is your enemy until he's absolutely, positively no threat." ..I was taught and practice double tap center mass, keep shooting until he's down, don't pull a gun unless you're prepared to terminate, and be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. Google "Tueller Drill" It's a shooting drill that shows that a person with a knife or any edged or impact weapon (hammer, baseball bat, ax, shovel, screwdriver, etc) is a direct and imminent threat to you if that person is within 7 yards (21 feet.)

Many police officers are taught and trained that a person with a knife who is closer than 7 yards can stab or cut them before they can stop them with a gun.....

 

[NK777]

Google "Tueller Drill" It's a shooting drill that shows that a person with a knife or any edged or impact weapon (hammer, baseball bat, ax, shovel, screwdriver, etc) is a direct and imminent threat to you if that person is within 7 yards (21 feet.)

Many police officers are taught and trained that a person with a knife who is closer than 7 yards can stab or cut them before they can stop them with a gun.....

That's all true and people that don't understand this often become victims of people with melee weapons at close range. I seriously doubt I'd shoot at somebody armed with a screw driver but a bat, crowbar, ax, hatchet, knife, sword, etc. absolutely I would. If the attacker is charging you with any of those things and you haven't drawn already you want to retreat while drawing or they'll likely get a blow (possibly fatal) in before you can draw and fire. It's a fact! Now back to the topic. Would I put 8 rounds of 45 acp center of mass into a man with a melee weapon? I doubt it, a couple is likely going to take the fight out of them but if they do continue to attack and I'm still in fear of my life I might but honestly they'd have to be either psychotic or drugged up to be able to continue the fight with a melee weapon after taking two well placed shots to the chest so again it's unlikely I'd have to.

 

[country boy]

OK, how's this, "your enemy is your enemy until he's absolutely, positively no threat."

Ah, sounds like we just interpreted it differently. I'll check out that drill, thanks

 

[spookshack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Dennis Tueller taught the Glock Armoror's class that I attended last Jan.
He is a great instructor and a great guy! Best 150 bucks I've ever spent.

 

[RobertJ.]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that one should never keep his carry weapon loaded with handloads. When you go to court, and you will after a shooting regardless of how justified it was, the attorney for his side, or his families side, will try to convince the judge and or jury that you loaded them yourself to make them more lethal than factory ammo.

 

[tionico]

yup.. anything to make the GG out to be the BG. As if whatever I carry has anything to do with the perp's actions.....

 

[krawl]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that one should never keep his carry weapon loaded with handloads. When you go to court, and you will after a shooting regardless of how justified it was, the attorney for his side, or his families side, will try to convince the judge and or jury that you loaded them yourself to make them more lethal than factory ammo.

I still don't know how much I buy into this. The same argument could be made for defense loads, could be made for fmj, could be made for carrying period.

 

[badclam]

One must always remember that in a gun fight you don't win anything. The very best outcome possible is to keep what you had before the shot's were fired. In fact, even in a justified shooting you will probably be sued. With that in mind. I carry the largest caliber handgun I can conceal and use the factory bullets that will disrupt the most vital bodily function's possible.
I am equipped with the deadliest force possible in a concealed mode.
In fact I have studied and trained to the best of my ability, to make sure that the force I have is as deadly as possible.

If I ever have to shoot somebody, I hope they die.
That is the surest "STOP" of a threat, immediate and lingering.
If I didn't want to kill them, I wouldn't shoot them.

If a robber has a gun to a hostages head,and your behind him,are you going to shoot him center mass or are you going to shoot him in the head?

 

[tionico]

Well, read some of Massad Ayoub's tales.. he's been a cop for a long time, has been called to testify in hundreds of court cases, both as an on-scene witness, and as a professional, or expert, witness. HE says don't use hand-loads. And cites the same reason as above. As to the others.... he recommends finding out what the LEO in your area buy and use in their duty weapons, and getting that..... seems it works to trust the judgement and research of the local LEO's as to what is appropriate for defensive ammo, and use that. That way, you, as defendant, don't have to scratch about looking for your reasons in choosing that Blitz stuff.... and possibly saying the wrong thing and the jury labelling you as some wierdo bent on killing. Use what the cops do, and the juries seem to think "well, if its OK for the pros, it must be nothing unusual for the man on the street". HE says.... but, I rather expect he's got some experience worth leaning on.

 

[badclam]

That would be a good idea,but the LEO's around here shoot 9mm.
And then theres that whole being alive to get sued thing.

 

[Chee-to]

That would be a good idea,but the LEO's around here shoot 9mm.
And then theres that whole being alive to get sued thing.

You can get sued whether the perp lives or dies, his/her family can come after you with a "wrongful death suit. " The grand jury can totally say it was a righteous shoot , that won't stop a civil suit.

 

[krawl]

Well, read some of Massad Ayoub's tales.. he's been a cop for a long time, has been called to testify in hundreds of court cases, both as an on-scene witness, and as a professional, or expert, witness. HE says don't use hand-loads. And cites the same reason as above. As to the others.... he recommends finding out what the LEO in your area buy and use in their duty weapons, and getting that..... seems it works to trust the judgement and research of the local LEO's as to what is appropriate for defensive ammo, and use that. That way, you, as defendant, don't have to scratch about looking for your reasons in choosing that Blitz stuff.... and possibly saying the wrong thing and the jury labelling you as some wierdo bent on killing. Use what the cops do, and the juries seem to think "well, if its OK for the pros, it must be nothing unusual for the man on the street". HE says.... but, I rather expect he's got some experience worth leaning on.

I have read his writings. Not saying it's bad advice, which I do think it's the smarter decision, but I don't know in the grand scheme of things how much of a difference it would make.