We have all heard the old "two in the belly and one in the head" adage, and an LEO in my town dispatched a gunman holding a hostage with a head shot. But it seems to me that really exposes you to prosecution, being labeled a sadistic fiend out to do harm instead of engaging in self defense.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ethics and legality of headshots
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
FireForged
New member
I will not allow those kinds of issues to take up valuable space in my head. I do not look for trouble, avoid it where I can, I always mind my own business and if forced to defend myself, I will do only what I must to secure my safety. Whatever happens after,.. happens after. I will worry then but not now and not in the moment. Being conflicted is a bad place to be when you need to make a critical decision right NOW. Being conflicted usually translates into hesitation or half-heartedness.
When I got serious about self defense I practiced two to Center mass and one to the head
I also carried "killer" ammo
The I started reading many of the lawyers in the gun mags explain how juries think
We first moved to safer location
we changed training for this location
we decided basic .45 ball ammo or shot gun was good enough for our environment
If you rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 then you need to be sure the 12 do NOT see you as the problem
we recently had a local 16 year old beat to death a 52 year old predator abusing him... jury still called it homicide....he got jail... as a victim (IMO) if I was on jury....it was justifiable
Full disclosure...and general assumption why he got jammed....after killing the predator he hid the body....
Most thought this seemed to suggest premeditation... I tend to think just a scared KID
I also carried "killer" ammo
The I started reading many of the lawyers in the gun mags explain how juries think
We first moved to safer location
we changed training for this location
we decided basic .45 ball ammo or shot gun was good enough for our environment
If you rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 then you need to be sure the 12 do NOT see you as the problem
we recently had a local 16 year old beat to death a 52 year old predator abusing him... jury still called it homicide....he got jail... as a victim (IMO) if I was on jury....it was justifiable
Full disclosure...and general assumption why he got jammed....after killing the predator he hid the body....
Most thought this seemed to suggest premeditation... I tend to think just a scared KID
Double Naught Spy
New member
Ethics and legality of headshots
We have all heard the old "two in the belly and one in the head" adage, and an LEO in my town dispatched a gunman holding a hostage with a head shot. But it seems to me that really exposes you to prosecution, being labeled a sadistic fiend out to do harm instead of engaging in self defense.
Last I checked, no local, state, or federal laws specified locations in which shots fired in self defense must land. In fact, no local, state, or federal laws say you even have to hit the bad guy.
Also last I checked, there is no sadistic fiend law.
As for the ethics of head shots, I believe they are 100% ethical to alleviate undue pain and suffering so long as you were in a position to fire your gun in self defense.
Ruga Booga
New member
Seems like location of shots is somewhat of a priority. You cant stop the threat with misplaced shots“Stop the threat”.
Location of impact is secondary.
I'll agree we get conflicting information.I'll also agree you never know what argument a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney may present.
And I'm not any kind of lawyer or legal expert.
Lets take this a bit farther. (It IS called "The use of Deadly Force",BTW)
Suppose you shoot him in the knee,or even better,just clip his ear with a "warning shot" .How will that go?
I think we get in big trouble if we just shoot a bad guy "a little bit" to gain compliance. It undermines the idea of "gravest extreme"
I'm assuming your bad guy has placed you in an urgent situation,without a lot of time to analyze and overthink.
If you hit him two or three times COM and you still perceive a threat...is it time for "Excuse me,Sir,might you be wearing Kevlar? Or shall I shoot you COM again??
MAYBE 2 hits COM gives you time to get a good sight picture. How many more bullets do you want to be responsible for?
Handgun COM shots often DO NOT prevent the bad guy from shooting or stabbing you. He might have 15 seconds to mag dump in your direction.
A solid CNS hit is a stop.
I'm thinking our "Hostage shot" is pretty rare for a civilian,but if it DOES come up,consider if you do not bust the brain or equiv CNS,your hostage will likely be killed by the bad guy. That's how the hostage thing works.
Some would say "2+1" MIGHT be a reasonable idea with a 7+1 1911.But counting and looking to see "Did you fall down yet?
Some might say 5 to the chest and two to the head ,or whatever mag cap allows till the threat is over.
I've never been in a gunfight,but I think its not like watching your feet trying to learn to dance.
And I'm not any kind of lawyer or legal expert.
Lets take this a bit farther. (It IS called "The use of Deadly Force",BTW)
Suppose you shoot him in the knee,or even better,just clip his ear with a "warning shot" .How will that go?
I think we get in big trouble if we just shoot a bad guy "a little bit" to gain compliance. It undermines the idea of "gravest extreme"
I'm assuming your bad guy has placed you in an urgent situation,without a lot of time to analyze and overthink.
If you hit him two or three times COM and you still perceive a threat...is it time for "Excuse me,Sir,might you be wearing Kevlar? Or shall I shoot you COM again??
MAYBE 2 hits COM gives you time to get a good sight picture. How many more bullets do you want to be responsible for?
Handgun COM shots often DO NOT prevent the bad guy from shooting or stabbing you. He might have 15 seconds to mag dump in your direction.
A solid CNS hit is a stop.
I'm thinking our "Hostage shot" is pretty rare for a civilian,but if it DOES come up,consider if you do not bust the brain or equiv CNS,your hostage will likely be killed by the bad guy. That's how the hostage thing works.
Some would say "2+1" MIGHT be a reasonable idea with a 7+1 1911.But counting and looking to see "Did you fall down yet?
Some might say 5 to the chest and two to the head ,or whatever mag cap allows till the threat is over.
I've never been in a gunfight,but I think its not like watching your feet trying to learn to dance.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
I'm thinking our "Hostage shot" is pretty rare for a civilian,but if it DOES come up,consider if you do not bust the brain or equiv CNS,your hostage will likely be killed by the bad guy. That's how the hostage thing works.
Well, the reason you are shooting is because you feel you have no other choice in the matter, that the hostage will likely be shot if you don't pull the trigger. That there is the potential for multiple outcomes is a reality, but would you rather the hostage taker kill your friend or loved one without you trying to do anything?
I think "will likely be killed" should be "might still be shot." Not all hostage takers actually plan on shooting anybody. Not all have real or loaded guns. Not all actually have the ability to kill another person despite threatening to do so. While "busting the brain" is the goal (aka significant disruption to the CNS resulting in incapacitation), shots to the head that connect solidly with bone often still have a dramatic impact on the person who is who. Not a lot of people have the wherewithal to continue with their current courses of action. Shooting out an eye, blowing out the sinuses, bouncing a bullet off the frontal bone, breaking out a goodly portion of the jaw or dental arcade is very disruptive.
There is also the possibility that if the spinal cord isn't severed despite "busting the brain," that there still may be a brain initiated muscle spasm causing the trigger to be pulled. I don't know that this has ever been documented, however.
If the bad guy is not totally incapacitated by the shot, the hostage might still be shot, but then again it may still be enough to buy time for the hostage to break lose or for a follow-up shot. That is the way reality thing works.
You do what you gotta do.
DNS....I doubt we have an argument,but I'm not sure I get your point.
The OP was asking about head shots being a problem in court.
I was saying the head shot is justified with a hostage.
Pardon me for not being so surgically precise with my words (bust the brain) that no one could find fault.
I did say "disrupt the equivalent CNS"
Might a near miss,still striking head bone structure work? Sometimes.Sometimes not.
Might a hostage get shot or stabbed and live? Sometimes.
Might a hostage shot fail? Sometimes.
But those were not about the OP's question. I only gave it a sentence or two.
Thank you for clearing that all up,I guess.
The OP was asking about head shots being a problem in court.
I was saying the head shot is justified with a hostage.
Pardon me for not being so surgically precise with my words (bust the brain) that no one could find fault.
I did say "disrupt the equivalent CNS"
Might a near miss,still striking head bone structure work? Sometimes.Sometimes not.
Might a hostage get shot or stabbed and live? Sometimes.
Might a hostage shot fail? Sometimes.
But those were not about the OP's question. I only gave it a sentence or two.
Thank you for clearing that all up,I guess.
Last edited:
peacefulgary
New member
It would be more sadistic to gut shoot someone.being labeled a sadistic fiend out to do harm instead of engaging in self defense.
A head shot is actually more merciful.
If you stop the threat, then it doesn’t matter if you “hit the apricot “, shot his weapon disabling it with the ricochet into his knee putting him on the ground, vaporized him with a photon torpedo or used a .50 cal to disconnect his neck from his body. The threat was neutralized.Seems like location of shots is somewhat of a priority. You cant stop the threat with misplaced shots
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Legally, using a firearm is deadly force - force that is llkely to cause death or serious bodily injury. This is why there are so many restrictions on its use. So, in theory at least, shooting someone in the head is just as justifiable as shooting them in the foot.
In practice, if you are involved in a Trayvon Martin style use of force, expect the prosecutor to use anything they can argue to secure a conviction - right down to the color of your shirt.
A key way to avoid being in that situation is to not treat firearms as magical problem solvers. If shooting someone in the head seems like an extreme solution to your problem, there is a good chance a firearm is the wrong tool to be using.
In practice, if you are involved in a Trayvon Martin style use of force, expect the prosecutor to use anything they can argue to secure a conviction - right down to the color of your shirt.
A key way to avoid being in that situation is to not treat firearms as magical problem solvers. If shooting someone in the head seems like an extreme solution to your problem, there is a good chance a firearm is the wrong tool to be using.
The legal system goes to great lengths to prove intent and they do so by establishing what you did and what you said. So, if you shoot with the intent to kill, you're a murderer. If you shoot with the intent to stop the threat, it's a justifiable homicide if the BG inadvertently dies.
It's a key reason why we have to guard our words right after a shooting, during our conversations with other people, our posts on public forums. That will protect us from a prosecutor establishing your intent as being to stop the threat.
--Wag--
It's a key reason why we have to guard our words right after a shooting, during our conversations with other people, our posts on public forums. That will protect us from a prosecutor establishing your intent as being to stop the threat.
--Wag--
NOT A LAWYER
We have allowed ourselves to fall prey to some sort of logical fallacy here.
We have stated, over and over again, that we are shooting to stop the threat and the consequences of that shot are a secondary concern. I do not want to kill anyone but if you are attacking me or my family in a manner that I must respond with deadly force I am going to shoot to stop the threat. If such action results in fatal wounds to the attacker it is regrettable but is still acceptable.
Now we are wondering if aiming for an area other than "normal" center of mass presents more likelihood of prosecution because of where we aimed.
Firing a gun at someone carries the same level of legal risk regardless of the outcome. In MI in particular there is no such thing as a warning shot. If I fire a gun in self defense I better have justification for firing that shot or shots. If I miss it carries the same legal risk of prosecution as if I hit the attacker in the head and he or she dies instantly. Now of course there is a question about political vs legal prosecution but I doubt it really matters for this discussion.
Personally I believe one should concentrate on the most likely scenarios that we have a reasonable chance of surviving and most likely methods and train for those. Chances are our training is limited by time and we will never max out our abilities. Exactly what this is is going to vary from person to person. For me this means engaging three attackers, firing two shots center of mass, reassessing and re-engaging as needed with at least some hardware failures accounted for (misfires through snap caps). For others this means something else entirely. If you feel head shots should be part of your training I would not worry about the legal aftermath - if you were justified to fire the shot you were justified to fire the shot.
We have allowed ourselves to fall prey to some sort of logical fallacy here.
We have stated, over and over again, that we are shooting to stop the threat and the consequences of that shot are a secondary concern. I do not want to kill anyone but if you are attacking me or my family in a manner that I must respond with deadly force I am going to shoot to stop the threat. If such action results in fatal wounds to the attacker it is regrettable but is still acceptable.
Now we are wondering if aiming for an area other than "normal" center of mass presents more likelihood of prosecution because of where we aimed.
Firing a gun at someone carries the same level of legal risk regardless of the outcome. In MI in particular there is no such thing as a warning shot. If I fire a gun in self defense I better have justification for firing that shot or shots. If I miss it carries the same legal risk of prosecution as if I hit the attacker in the head and he or she dies instantly. Now of course there is a question about political vs legal prosecution but I doubt it really matters for this discussion.
Personally I believe one should concentrate on the most likely scenarios that we have a reasonable chance of surviving and most likely methods and train for those. Chances are our training is limited by time and we will never max out our abilities. Exactly what this is is going to vary from person to person. For me this means engaging three attackers, firing two shots center of mass, reassessing and re-engaging as needed with at least some hardware failures accounted for (misfires through snap caps). For others this means something else entirely. If you feel head shots should be part of your training I would not worry about the legal aftermath - if you were justified to fire the shot you were justified to fire the shot.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I'm not sure that line of thought is legal. That comment leads me to believe you are shooting to kill.I believe they are 100% ethical to alleviate undue pain and suffering so long as you were in a position to fire your gun in self defense.
If you have trained well AND you keep calm, the target is very likely to die if truly applying deadly force. The ~15% hit in shootout statistics are interesting, but looking further into them more so. In most of the limited data I have seen it is about 15% of shooters hit about 100% of the time and the other 85% of shooters almost never hit.
Much of that is obviously shooting off target consciously or unconsciously.
Unsure where to find it now, but there was a Clint Smith clip out there where Clint relates a hypothetical lawyer saying something like, "You shot my client 8 times!" and Clint says, "Your client was advancing on me in my own home with a butcher knife. I shot at him until he stopped doing that." Lawyer, "You shot him in face after he fell down!" Clint, "He didn't stay down. I shot what was available."
That's pretty much the way I feel about it...... I'm no firearms expert ..... "I did what I thought was necessary to stop the threat. End of Story."
That's pretty much the way I feel about it...... I'm no firearms expert ..... "I did what I thought was necessary to stop the threat. End of Story."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.