Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

[davidsog]

Aiming for the bowling pin is aiming for the area considered by experts most likely to result in the rapid cessation of violent criminal activity.

Exactly.

From PAGE 1

davidsog said:

Yes. If you are going to use lethal force then being fast and effective is in the interest of public safety.

If you look at the police qualification and what they are training the lizard brain to do....It is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6747691&postcount=14

That is followed by two pages of claims the use of deadly force is not about the intention of using deadly force.

 

[davidsog]

That would, by definition, eliminate the justification for using deadly force and could classify the behavior of the shooter as criminal. In a widely publicized case in Florida, a woman fired a warning shot and was jailed as a result (although she did win the right to a retrial). The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force. Since she clearly didn’t feel that deadly force was warranted, therefore she had no legal justification for firing the gun in a situation that endangered bystanders.

This is where some of the legal logic presented falls off the track.

The case in Florida is a great example. Here the law says since you did not intend to use deadly force the perception of threat was not there to claim self defense.

I agree with that.

The flip side to that same logic is when the decision is made that deadly force is appropriate, the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death.

 

[cjwils]

" the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death."

You apply lethal force in order to stop the threat. That does not mean you intend to kill. You must understand that your goal is to stop the threat. Lots of people shot by handguns (and sometimes by rifles) do not die. What if you apply lethal force, and the bad guy goes down, stopping the threat, but he is not dead. Do you walk up and administer a coup de grace? I think not.

 

[MTT TL]

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

That is the intent of stimulus response training.

I am not sure where you get this badly flawed idea from. I can't imagine you have served in the military or law enforcement in any type of capacity that invovles the application of deadly force whatsoever.

You really are badly confused about the whole intent of dealy force thing. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Simply post a legal reference or case that supports your position. Since there are none that I know of this might take a while.

LEOs give terrible legal advice

Do they ever. The only people that give even worse advice than that are just about everyone else other than lawyers and judges. I saw some dude put on facebook the other day that you were now allowed to carry up to a pound of marijuana in your vehicle everywhere in the country. Although my understanding is that LEOs are not qualified to give legal advice and find it strange in this day and age that any LEOs would give anyone legal advice with all the liability issues surrounding such a thing. So if they are giving legal advice you really should not listen to it.

Because:
1 - they are dumb enough to try to give you advice when they don't know what they are talking about.

And

2 - Are likely violating their LEA policy when doing so.

So I would never ask one for advice and ignore it if it were offered freely as it is probably going to be wrong and represent their personal opinion and not one of the agency that they represent.

 

[davidsog]

I am not sure where you get this badly flawed idea from. I can't imagine you have served in the military or law enforcement in any type of capacity that invovles the application of deadly force whatsoever.

You really are badly confused about the whole intent of dealy force thing. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Simply post a legal reference or case that supports your position. Since there are none that I know of this might take a while.

Well, proves your flawed instincts....

So EXACTLY what is so flawed about the fact stimulus response training is used to overcome our natural instincts not the kill?

Specifics is nice instead of emotional appeals.

Operant conditioning techniques program into officers' behavior an automatic response to stimuli. This combination of training enables officers to respond successfully to deadly threats regardless of their inborn aversion to using force against other human beings.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=179726

On Killing was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence.

https://www.killology.com/publications

It is required reading at SWCS....

So my statement:

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

That is the intent of stimulus response training.

The fact you have no idea what I am talking about is well...expected.

 

[davidsog]

You must understand that your goal is to stop the threat.

Absolutely. You must also understand that by application of stimulus response training and the decision to use lethal force....

The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force.

Your intention is to bring death. If the threat stops before that happens....

Then the application of deadly force ENDS and a new phase begins.

We shift into a different mode moving down the force continuum to an appropriate level to effect arrest.

To suggest that the intention to not kill is part of the deadly force application process and not something else is to water down and make the application of deadly force confusing. It will result in dead officers and soldiers too. Yeah...certain units in the Military Inventory are target selective. Every time you pull the trigger, there is a "shoot or do not shoot" evaluation.

 

[MTT TL]

I guess you keep conflating the issue of stimulus response because your actual position of "shooting people not being lethal force" is completely unsupportable.

So one more time just be clear and concise please support that position with any kind of case law or legal opinion whatsoever. Other than your own opinion which like I said is pretty unique.

 

[davidsog]

I guess you keep conflating the issue of stimulus response because your actual position of "shooting people not being lethal force" is completely unsupportable.

You do realize that is not what I said at all. You are completely confused.

I said that if the intention was not to be lethal, then LEO would not be trained to shoot the bowling pin. They are trained to target the most lethal areas with most likely chance of achieving a hit in those lethal areas. They achieve this thru stimulus response training that ensures the lizard brain in the absence of conscious thought will act appropriately and shoot with deadly intent into the most lethal areas of the human body they are targeting.

It is simply a medical fact being shot in the shoulder or arm results in fewer gunshot deaths than being shot center mass in the chest or pelvic girdle.

So as I said earlier, your point is valid but unsound.

 

[44 AMP]

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

If you kill the enemy, enough, you win. That's the goal.
This is NOT the goal of our Police, or the goal of the private citizen defending themselves.

Do not confuse the two, they are separate, and pointing out that our DI's trained us to "Kill, kill, KILL!!!" has NO bearing on the use of deadly force for citizen defense, or even police duties.

We use deadly force, because the precise level of force needed to stop an attack is unknown, and unknowable, and even if it were known, there is no way to use "just enough" and have it work, 100% of the time.

So, we opt for deadly force, knowing it can kill, because it has often stopped threats short of killing, and also because killing DOES always stop the threat.

Either way, the threat is ended, THAT is the goal.

If the bad guy happens to die as a result (a reasonably foreseeable result) that's their tough luck.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is pretty apt, sometimes...

 

[MTT TL]

That isn't what you said. You can change it now if you like but what you wrote was:

Negative Ghostrider.

There is a reason why you have a bowling pin on an FBI standard silhouette.

Why? There are plenty of places you can shoot someone are that not likely to result in death.

Aiming for the bowling pin is intent to kill. LEO are trained using stimulus response training to aim for the bowling pin.

Please note that seven other posters interpreted what you wrote exactly the same way I did. And it seems I am the one confused? Well you are half right.

I'll accept you walking back your statements in good grace, since we both know that what your wrote is not supportable.

 

[MTT TL]

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

If you kill the enemy, enough, you win. That's the goal.
This is NOT the goal of our Police, or the goal of the private citizen defending themselves.

Do not confuse the two, they are separate, and pointing out that our DI's trained us to "Kill, kill, KILL!!!" has NO bearing on the use of deadly force for citizen defense, or even police duties.

We use deadly force, because the precise level of force needed to stop an attack is unknown, and unknowable, and even if it were known, there is no way to use "just enough" and have it work, 100% of the time.

So, we opt for deadly force, knowing it can kill, because it has often stopped threats short of killing, and also because killing DOES always stop the threat.

Either way, the threat is ended, THAT is the goal.

If the bad guy happens to die as a result (a reasonably foreseeable result) that's their tough luck.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is pretty apt, sometimes...

And double tap to all of the above.

The military shoots at man shaped targets in basic training and all throughout. No bowling pins.

 

[davidsog]

The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.

For the Regular Forces...yes. Not all the Military is this simplistic. In fact, we went thru what many Departments will experience once the lines of lethal force get blurred.

We put too much emphasis on non-lethals and target discrimination. Guys got killed in the house. I distinctly remember their being one cartoon target that when used with the flashlight pasty was very hard to distinguish from a gun barrel under a taclight down the hallway.

Guys would hesitate and really take their time because a bad shoot could mean the end of your training.

Well, that taught them to really hesitate in combat and several paid the price. The reality is people act accordingly in the circumstances they are in.

In other words, those in the fight, get in the fight....

Those not in the fight get away from the fight. Hands Kill.

Once we changed our mindset our casualties decreased without a subsequent increase in bad shoots. We still maintained our perfect record up as of the time I left.

So yeah, as others have said...words and terminology is important. Just not in the fashion they are using them.

 

[davidsog]

The military shoots at man shaped targets in basic training and all throughout. No bowling pins.

Again, LEO's shoot at bowling pins.

 

[davidsog]

Please note that seven other posters interpreted what you wrote exactly the same way I did. And it seems I am the one confused? Well you are half right.

You have taken two concepts I said and put them at cross purposes resulting in something I DID NOT say.

What is so hard understand or are you so arrogant as to insist your version is correct?

 

[MTT TL]

Again, LEO's shoot at bowling pins.

Great but you wrote:

I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species.

You have taken two concepts I said and put them at cross purposes resulting in something I DID NOT say.

By directly quoting you? How does that work?

 

[JohnKSa]

That is followed by two pages of claims the use of deadly force is not about the intention of using deadly force.

Not at all. It is explaining why the legal use of deadly force is not the same thing as trying to kill someone even if the actual actions taken appear to be very similar, if not identical.

It may be a fine distinction, but it is an important one and the explanation of why it is important is quite clear.

The flip side to that same logic is when the decision is made that deadly force is appropriate, the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death.

You don't get to make up your own definition for "deadly force"--there's already one that is accepted, both in common use and from a legal perspective.

Here's the sentence restated using the proper definition of deadly force.

You most definitely must, by law, intend to apply actions that are "likely to cause death or serious bodily harm".

Again, it's a fine distinction, but an important one.

Your intention is to bring death. If the threat stops before that happens....

If that is your intention, then it is not legal. The LEGAL intent of deadly force is to stop the threat. The purpose of the legal use of deadly force is to save innocent life, not to kill.

Specifics is nice instead of emotional appeals.

The quote you provide absolutely does not state that one must try to kill an attacker. It merely speaks to the use of "force".

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=179726

The source you provide absolutely does not say one must try to kill an attacker, it speaks to the issues relating to having killed, and facing the prospect of possibly killing someone. We all understand that killing is a possible outcome of the use of deadly force, and some people have more trouble coming to grips with that fact than others. That is a commentary on human nature, not any sort of proof that it is required that a defender must try to kill an attacker as opposed to try to stop the attack.

By the way, it's worth noting that the military operates under somewhat different rules than apply to civilian self-defense. It's a mistake to try to mix the two and pretend that they are identical.

The source, by the way "On Killing" is worth reading, as is Grossman's other book, "On Combat". I recommend them both and have them in my personal library.

I said that if the intention was not to be lethal, then LEO would not be trained to shoot the bowling pin.

Which is a false claim. The experts have determined that shooting at that area provides the best chance of rapidly stopping an attack, which is the goal. It is true, of course, that shooting someone in that area is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, but that's simply the reality of using deadly force--it has nothing to do with it being necessary to try to kill vs. trying to stop.

So yeah, as others have said...words and terminology is important.

Yes it is. It is very important.

Our goals drive our actions and our speech. It is a tremendous mistake to fall into the mindset that the attacker's death is the goal for several reasons.

First of all, it creates a situation where the defender may take unnecessary risks to kill the attacker when the situation could actually be resolved with less danger to the defender. It can also generate a tendency for the defender to take actions that may later call his motives (and therefore the legality of his actions) into question. Remember the defender’s motive/mindset can be an important component of justifying self-defense. Finally, an improper mindset can increase the chances that the defender will make what appear to be self-incriminating comments to others. That can happen before or after the incident.

 

[rickyrick]

having graduated law school

Haha, lawyers give terrible free legal advice.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In the absence of any new information, together with a lot of wagon circling, I think we can declare this discussion has reached a logical end. In addition, the discussion has veered far off the original question.

Closed.