Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[Conan]

Most of my threads have a certain amount of a "tongue-in-cheek" intent to them, but this is completely serious. This thread has the potential to go very wrong but it also has the potential to be quite thought provoking. I am hoping it is a frank discussion that we can all be adult and honest about. I feel being able to understand and discuss this subject is a very big part of being competent to carry a deadly weapon. It has been discussed before but it is a topic that needs repeating from time to time.

This topic was brought up in another thread today on another forum and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

When it comes to shooting an attacker, our intent should always be "shoot to stop" and not "shoot to kill." You want to stop the action which is presenting a clear and present danger to yourself, to loved ones, or to innocent parties. You never want to make it personal enough to be intending to kill the assailant. Once you cross that line you seriously undermine your own position and competence. You become a bad guy yourself to some degree.

That being said, I can be adult enough to admit there would be times when "shoot to kill" would probably be my intent alongside stopping the threat. I could very easily see myself crossing that line if someone was intentionally trying to seriously injure or kill a loved one or a child. I would like to think I could keep emotion out of the situation and only be intending to stop the present threat, but I am afraid I am only human and could easily allow myself to be overtaken by anger and fear in such a situation.

I do not think that makes me, or anyone else like me, unfit to carry a gun. I just think it makes us human. I do not think someone needs to be perfect to be armed. I think they just have to be aware of the reality of being armed with a deadly weapon and the weight/responsibility that comes with it.

Thoughts?

Here are my thoughts on this matter.

If and I mean if I have to defend myself where I have to pull the trigger on my 40-cal....its is to stop that individual at all cost, otherwise your best bet is to keep it holstered. There cannot be any shades of gray. Your either within the law to defend yourself from clear and present danger or your not.

And in which case I will follow what police had told me many times if I have to defend myself. 2 to body and 1 to the head....you put your threat down.

My two cents anyways.

Conan

 

[ccw9mm]

When it comes to shooting an attacker, our intent should always be "shoot to stop" and not "shoot to kill."

That being said, I can be adult enough to admit there would be times when "shoot to kill" would probably be my intent alongside stopping the threat.

The point of shooting to stop is stopping when there is no longer a threat.

The idea of proposing shooting to kill implies continuing to shoot despite there no longer being a threat. At least, that's the way I read the suggestion of shooting to kill (with the killing as the goal, as opposed to erasure of the threat being the goal). That's bloody hard to justify to a D.A. or a jury, no matter how intellectually interesting to chew on. It's not a matter of "being adult enough" to chew on it. It's a matter of simply being practical and bright enough to know what's what, when decision about "reasonableness" of our actions is NOT in our hands.

I've been trained to shoot sufficiently to take down the attacker, until that person is no longer able to threaten me or mine. I've been trained to continue shooting until it's clear that impact on the CNS/BP is sufficient that the threat no longer exists. This might well involve much to all of my ammunition. Until the threat is terminated. That's not likely to happen with one shot, and highly unlikely to happen with 2COM/1Head.

Now, with medical procedures getting better all the time, it's entirely possible for someone to survive a handful of shots. Good for him/her/them. So long as that person doesn't continue to harm me or mine at the scene, that's not exactly a call I get to make (whether to "shut him up" or whatever else is being implied by the "shoot to kill" argument).

I'm perfectly aware of Oregon's failure to have specific statutes covering the "Castle" areas, to shield folks engaged in legitimate self-defense from legal and financial impacts (both civil and criminal) in situations where the person is "no-billed." I wish it were different, that Oregon's elected weenies felt strongly enough to protect upstanding folks who defend against violent criminals. Sadly, we're not there yet, hence there is some risk to stopping early enough that the attacking criminal ends up living. Not our call.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The idea of proposing shooting to kill implies continuing to shoot despite there no longer being a threat

No, people need to get that out of their head. You can shoot with intent to kill with one shot.

 

[k7grc]

How many of you go to the range and practice shooting "center mass"?, now how many go to the range a practice shooting arms and legs?
I'm not the Lone Ranger, I can't shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand at 50ft., but I can hit center mass at that distance.
I practice two round bursts; shoot, analyze, shoot,... and I hope I never have to use it.

 

[badclam]

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.

I was making refrence to me being alive to get sued.
The point was to insure my survival first, then worry about the legalities of winning,(or rather not losing), a gun fight.

 

[deadeye]

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.....

I would have to dissagree with the whole knife, shovel, baseball bat etc. as a means to determine the need to shoot or even draw a weapon. I personally feel that these are a threat but not a deadly one as you have the option to back away or take said deadly weapon from them. I have had people come at me in the past with knives and bats and just relieved them of the objects. I guess if you are that afraid of dieing that you feel the need to use deadly force than the judgement you recieve is the judgement you live with. In my opinion the only time I would draw a hand gun is when the attacker has one too.

 

[badclam]

would have to dissagree with the whole knife, shovel, baseball bat etc. as a means to determine the need to shoot or even draw a weapon. I personally feel that these are a threat but not a deadly one as you have the option to back away or take said deadly weapon from them. I have had people come at me in the past with knives and bats and just relieved them of the objects. I guess if you are that afraid of dieing that you feel the need to use deadly force than the judgement you recieve is the judgement you live with. In my opinion the only time I would draw a hand gun is when the attacker has one too.

deadeye, I personally challenge you to take a bat away from me.
I'll wager a c-note, that you can't take a bat away from me,before I bean you with it,coming from 7 yards.
I will of course use a plastic bat. If your really that much of a badass, it would be worth it to see you do it. Loser pays up and announces on this thread if a bat is a lethal weapon at close range.
PM me if you want to take my Franklin away from me.

 

[glockguy]

I was told this by a police officer. when i asked him this Question once... and his response.... Dead men don't talk.

 

[deadeye]

deadeye, I personally challenge you to take a bat away from me.
I'll wager a c-note, that you can't take a bat away from me,before I bean you with it,coming from 7 yards.
I will of course use a plastic bat. If your really that much of a badass, it would be worth it to see you do it. Loser pays up and announces on this thread if a bat is a lethal weapon at close range.
PM me if you want to take my Franklin away from me.

I would guess that you would be one of the shoot first types,rather than defusing the situation. You do not know me and do not know what type of training I have had. I do not need to prove that I can take it away as I have done so more than once. Yes you may get a swing and maybe a minor connection in but the end result will be the same. Do what you see as right when confronted by an attacker but have a real good lawyer on retainer. I would take you up on the offer but a "C-Note" is hardly worth the lawsuit. Talk to me later when your daddy gives you a raise in your allowance.

 

[Deavis]

Well... the number of times I am willing to get cut (neck/femoral etc) or bludgeoned in the head (death/serious physical inury) or appendage (broken) with a bat is.....ummmm.....zero.

But I'm not a ninja and better than ALL those single threat bat/knife threats out there......

 

[dmbcht]

are as follows. the fastest way to stop someone is to kill them. So if I were to come to the conclusion that I needed to shoot someone for whatever reason it would be to kill or better term to stop their action. just my thought..........

 

[powermad]

I've been stabbed twice and beaten with a bat trying to diffuse a situation.
Now days I will not screw around.

Sucks to be you bringing a knife to a gun fight
I practice 2 to the chest and a security round to the head.

If you are trained to do hand to hand and can do it my hat is off to you.

If you are closing in on me armed with anything other than your fists...
I will shoot you dead. End of story.

Not bravado, being internet macho, it's a fact of "life"

I am well aware that anything and everything can end a fight.

I have an aversion to being stabbed or cracked with a bat nowdays.
Maybe I need to practice my ninja skills some more.

 

[badclam]

I would guess that you would be one of the shoot first types,rather than defusing the situation. You do not know me and do not know what type of training I have had. I do not need to prove that I can take it away as I have done so more than once. Yes you may get a swing and maybe a minor connection in but the end result will be the same. Do what you see as right when confronted by an attacker but have a real good lawyer on retainer. I would take you up on the offer but a "C-Note" is hardly worth the lawsuit. Talk to me later when your daddy gives you a raise in your allowance.

First off my father is dead. I did not get an allowance as you must have.
Seconly, what lawsuit would be involed in two men having a physical competition?
Or were you planning on shotting me when I started beating you about your ears with a plastic bat?
Third, If you want higher stakes,get a release drawn up and I'll match what ever amount you want to wager.But if I'm going to put my money where my mouth is I'd want to use a real bat to make this a legitimate experiment.

So once again, if you are such a badass that you can take on anybody with any handheld weapon you are indeed a rare specimin and worthy of fame and fortune.

But you are not such a person are you? You make very large,likely unrealistic claims of your abilities.

I claim only the obvious. That myself,with my level of training,(which I think you've under estimated),can easily take you,or any other unarmed person, down with a weapon like a baseball bat.

Which put's us back on topic. Should you use deadly force if a person has a deadly weapon other than a gun?

I think it is a rare person that is more scared of a lawyer than the death of themselves and their loveone's.

 

[Tactical SS]

I'll try to stop them before I ever draw my pistol. If I have to draw... It's not looking good for the aggressor. With that said I wouldn't ever think about shooting unless another life was in immediate danger or harm or death, and at that point it's pretty much me/family or the aggressor... and let me tell you, my family and I would be okay.

 

[PfcSalt]

I have been trained extensively in the use of firearms, been to war, and studied the law.
I was in a bad situation: Three drunken college kids brandishing weapons (knife, bat and tire iron) in a menacing manner and verbally threatening were approaching me after they forced my car off the road in a fit of "road rage". When the first kid got close to me, I drew my weapon and pointed it into his face. His tire iron clanged as he dropped it to the ground and backed up, while crying out to his accomplices in a terrified voice,
"He's got a gun!!"
I neutralized the threat without firing... I didn't say a word... Although prepared, I didn't have to shoot three drunken kids, after all.
They got into their car and left in a hurry.
Had I fired, the first kid would have died, as I was aiming at his nose, and in all probability I would have shot and killed the other two, when my Marine Corps combat survival skills and training kicked in...
I would have permanently lost my beautiful 1911, and gone to jail. I would have been prosecuted for manslaughter or murder under Kalifornia law, as there is only ONE time you can use a gun in Kalifornia and that is on an attacker armed with a gun who puts you or someone else's life in immediate danger.. Period. Knife? Bat? Screwdriver? Home invader in the dark? Better not shoot. You will be prosecuted, sued and will lose a fortune even if you win in court.
If you shoot your gun at someone, you will have to deal with the consequences, and they are very substantial. That means expensive.
Better jail, financial ruin, PTSD, than death of an innocent (me). But, be wise, and avoid shooting people if at all possible. There are no winners in a gun fight. It is truly a last resort to shoot someone, and an awful life-changing event for you.

 

[nixuser]

re: cool heads prevail
i might ad that a friend of mine was traveling up I-5 in Washington state and witnessed a road rage in progress. a motorist ran a bicyclist off the road and stopped, and
then started beating the bicycler my friend pulled over and stopped a few car lengths behind the road rage car. when the road rage person saw my friend he started towards him in a threatening manner my friend has a cwp and had his weapon on him he opened the door and stepped out behind the door and had his weapon pointed down to the ground. when the attacker saw the weapon he ran back to his car and called 911 when the wsp got there they arrested my friend for brandishing a weapon and now he is fighting a ten year prison term and all that goes with it !! so beware in Washington state that the time and situation is right before you draw your weapon !!

 

[badclam]

nixuser

re: cool heads prevail
i might ad that a friend of mine was traveling up I-5 in Washington state and witnessed a road rage in progress. a motorist ran a bicyclist off the road and stopped, and
then started beating the bicycler my friend pulled over and stopped a few car lengths behind the road rage car. when the road rage person saw my friend he started towards him in a threatening manner my friend has a cwp and had his weapon on him he opened the door and stepped out behind the door and had his weapon pointed down to the ground. when the attacker saw the weapon he ran back to his car and called 911 when the wsp got there they arrested my friend for brandishing a weapon and now he is fighting a ten year prison term and all that goes with it !! so beware in Washington state that the time and situation is right before you draw your weapon !!

I'm lucky in that I have a close relative that I see all the time that is a lawyer in both WA. and OR. I pump him for free legal advice all the time.
In WA. ,simply brandishing a weapon is not a felony. Brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner can be a felony. It would not have been a crime for your friend to say he had a weapon or to let him see the weapon while it remained in it's holster.Which probably would have stopped him the same as pulling the weapon. Your friend should have been the one calling 911, which also will often stop a problem if the bad guy knows the cop's are coming.

Now on your own property,or place of business,whether you own it or not, the law is more on the side of the armed defender.
And if your property is posted,and is obviously not open to the public, you can legally hold someone at gun point to interrogate them as to their intention's and to hold them till the authorities arrive in WA.State.
The law is very specific about this right and unlike most law's is not at all vague.

If you get training in the use of a concealed weapon,you will be taught to make up your mind ahead of time as to what would justify the pulling and firing of your weapon.The reason for this is that in the heat of the moment you can't always make what should be well thought out decisions. It has to be instinctive which comes from fore thought and training.This kind of training would have probably kept your friend out of the mess he's in.

 

[Chee-to]

I would have to dissagree with the whole knife, shovel, baseball bat etc. as a means to determine the need to shoot or even draw a weapon. I personally feel that these are a threat but not a deadly one as you have the option to back away or take said deadly weapon from them. I have had people come at me in the past with knives and bats and just relieved them of the objects. I guess if you are that afraid of dieing that you feel the need to use deadly force than the judgement you recieve is the judgement you live with. In my opinion the only time I would draw a hand gun is when the attacker has one too.

Good luck............

 

[Chee-to]

I was making refrence to me being alive to get sued.
The point was to insure my survival first, then worry about the legalities of winning,(or rather not losing), a gun fight.

 

[Placentajustice]

The only time that you should draw your weapon is when YOUR life or YOUR families life is in imminent danger.


Jack

With no intent to offend, I think this type of thinking is what's wrong with the world. "If it doesn't involve you, then don't worry about it". That's bs. If I see some cracked out hippie chasing his wife down the street with a knife, you bet your *** I'm going to pull and try to put a stop to it. Its the same reasoning for taking cpr classes. Am I just going to stand there when I know I can offer assistance? NO