Ethics and legality of headshots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shooting a person in the head when he is down after shooting him twice in the center mass shows that you are not only skilled enough to stop an assailant in self defense, but that you are so skilled that you put an unnecessary shot to the head to finish the assailant off. Show me a jury who won't see that when the prosecution team tells them this.

You have already managed to put the guy at a serious disadvantage and continuing the attack in that same manner will obviously cause even greater damage. But through deliberate choice and great effort you wasted the guy in what could be seen as cold blooded murder of a helpless individual who may or may not have needed that degree of force.

The word of law can only go so far. there is civil liability. Will you lose in the law suit to follow? will prosecution decide that your self defense was nothing but a lame excuse to kill someone who posed a threat of some sort.

that is My sincere belief, based on the idea that chaos rules the entire world, that the worst that can possibly happen sometimes does, that no matter who you are and what you do, things go absolutely to hell more times than we believe.

Your actions are yours to own. Shoot the bad guys in the head, kill the bejeesus out of them, There may be serious, painful repercussions if you do, and they will happen because of your own actions. Unless you are a high level LEO, swat, commando, putting a bullet into the head of a "bad guy" will not be the great idea that armchair commandos and mall ninjas say it is. You are a civilian, for the love of god, not a navy seal, and the guy you shoot isn't a crazed zombie.
 
The "two in the belly and one in the head" is a shooting game adage that has nothing to do with reality. And it's two in the chest.
Click to expand...

Depends upon who you ask. ..... Clint Smith recommends putting multiple bullets in the first part of your assailant that is available- that's usually the crotch, if one is drawing from your waistband or coming up from low ready. It also is not likely to have body armor over it.
 
Once again,I've never been in a gunfight. I hope it stays that way.I never want to shoot anybody.
If I am forced to shoot to defend myself,if the bad guy drops and appears to no longer be a threat quickly enough at the first shot,good enough.No need to expend more ammo...in theory. But in practice,at least two or three rounds might be sent before the bad guy has a chance to drop,and the trigger will be pressed till he is down.

Shooting a person in the head when he is down
Click to expand...

Where did that come from? Seems editorialized just a bit.Who said anything about a head shot after the bad guy is down??? A coup d grace would most likely be murder,if it is after the threat is over.
But it would be a correct response if the down bad guy raised a weapon.

Remember "Fist Full of Dollars"? Blondie says "Shoot for the heart"? The steel plate?
Body armor happens.
If,for example,you trained with Jeff Cooper and if he trained 2+1 and if that is something you just DO in just over one second,as in "One thousand one"
"Bam,bam...Bam" there is not some insidious thought process involved.There is no time.
It is an effective technique to use a marginally effective tool(handgun) in a way some truly experienced experts believe delivers the most "threat stop" in the least amount of time,with fewest rounds expended,with the highest degree of survival.

That is why it is a "Drill"

The three shots are one dose of response,without hestitation,to one threat,as one motion.
A really key factor to keep in mind for the idealistic,politically correct dissection:

We reluctantly decided to use deadly force because our bad guy had the means,the will,and had made the choice to kill us
 
Last edited:
DNS....I doubt we have an argument,but I'm not sure I get your point.
Click to expand...

My point was that you made an unsupported assumption that if you shoot the hostage taker in the head and it doesn't "bust the brain" that the hostage likely will die and simply put, you have no information to corroborate that statement. I just went ahead and explained numerous reasons why the hostage might not die.
 
Right,DNS.

That "brain bust" comment was not the point of the post. Its a brevity thing. A snapshot.
You want me to write a footnoted thesis on it. Fine. You took care of that for me. Thanks.

I hope you write as well as you expect me to.

Its easy to complain about the cooking. Did you show up with a dish for the table?
 
I have spent time as a LEO, and long-time firearms enthusiast and shooter. I have never fired a shot in anger, but have received LEO training. But I have studied some situations in which a gun was used in self defense, so perhaps I am as well qualified as some folks to comment on the issue.

The "2 and 1" and similar comments are, in almost all situations, simple fantasy. In a tight situation, with a handgun, few shooters (no matter what they claim on sites like this) would be able to even hit the bad guy, let alone place shots precisely. The idea that you (or I) would stand calmly, with bullets incoming, and place shots in a precise area with a tight group is dreaming. I have witnessed trained police officers, on a calm range, under ideal conditions, miss a man-size silhouette target at 50 feet. Armed with a handgun and Under stress, with bullets flying, I doubt they (or I) could have taken careful aim and fired a head shot. Of course, there are some shooters who could do so as far as mechanical ability goes. But they are people who often do almost nothing but practice shooting, competition or "trick" shooters who have no other job and no other duties. But they also are almost never found engaged in combat; they are the exhibition shooters we all envy, not the police or armed citizens who may actually be out on the street when the need arises.

Should everyone who carries a handgun be able to fire one-inch groups at 50 yards? Of course, in some other world. In this one, everyone, whether police officer, jury member, or simply commenter, needs to recognize that the real world is seldom ideal and that most shooters will, at best, be able to defend themselves and their loved ones effectively, not ideally in some fantasy land of tight groups and between-the-eyes shots.

Jim
 
James K said:
I have spent time as a LEO, and long-time firearms enthusiast and shooter. I have never fired a shot in anger, but have received LEO training. But I have studied some situations in which a gun was used in self defense, so perhaps I am as well qualified as some folks to comment on the issue.

The "2 and 1" and similar comments are, in almost all situations, simple fantasy. In a tight situation, with a handgun, few shooters (no matter what they claim on sites like this) would be able to even hit the bad guy, let alone place shots precisely. The idea that you (or I) would stand calmly, with bullets incoming, and place shots in a precise area with a tight group is dreaming. I have witnessed trained police officers, on a calm range, under ideal conditions, miss a man-size silhouette target at 50 feet. Armed with a handgun and Under stress, with bullets flying, I doubt they (or I) could have taken careful aim and fired a head shot. Of course, there are some shooters who could do so as far as mechanical ability goes. But they are people who often do almost nothing but practice shooting, competition or "trick" shooters who have no other job and no other duties. But they also are almost never found engaged in combat; they are the exhibition shooters we all envy, not the police or armed citizens who may actually be out on the street when the need arises.

Should everyone who carries a handgun be able to fire one-inch groups at 50 yards? Of course, in some other world. In this one, everyone, whether police officer, jury member, or simply commenter, needs to recognize that the real world is seldom ideal and that most shooters will, at best, be able to defend themselves and their loved ones effectively, not ideally in some fantasy land of tight groups and between-the-eyes shots.

Jim
Click to expand...

"At crunch time, it is unlikely that you will rise to the occasion, but rather more likely that you will sink to the level of your training." That's why drills are done, so that actions become reactions, and can be executed as soon as the decision is made to do so.

..... And I do get SO tired of the term, "trained Police Officer" in reference to firearms proficiency..... I have talked with LEOs, both gun enthusiasts and not.....shot with them......... cops that are not enthusiasts don't shoot any more than necessary, by and large...... And those that do not shoot, do not drill, whether they are cop, butcher,baker or candlestick maker ....... Stink at shooting. Of course, compared to John Q. Public, they have infinitely more experience with guns, because even if John has a gun, he probably hasn't moved the socks off it since he bought it and put it in the sock drawer.......
 
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
__________________
Click to expand...

Were you in the court room? Perhaps the jury heard evidence you did not.
 
Having watched at least one rabbit do what seemed like an eight-foot back flip after being shot through the eye, I’d caution against assuming that even a well-delivered head shot will prevent a spasm or other dying reaction of the nervous system.
 
We first moved to safer location
Click to expand...
False sense of security. Bad things happen in good places. So with regards to where you live the possibility is there for trouble and in closing we in general do not spend 27/7 in our homes.
 
Having watched at least one rabbit do what seemed like an eight-foot back flip after being shot through the eye, I’d caution against assuming that even a well-delivered head shot will prevent a spasm or other dying reaction of the nervous system.
Click to expand...

I have seen the same thing, however, it is the most consistant way to shut something off.
 
A head shot you will need a lawyer because you will end up in court, at least civil court!
Click to expand...

Depends on the totality of the circumstances and your location. Where I live currently (north Dakota) in a SD use of force you are immune civil liability from the former attacker or his family.
 
The "2 and 1" and similar comments are, in almost all situations, simple fantasy. In a tight situation, with a handgun, few shooters (no matter what they claim on sites like this) would be able to even hit the bad guy, let alone place shots precisely. The idea that you (or I) would stand calmly, with bullets incoming, and place shots in a precise area with a tight group is dreaming.
Click to expand...
True, even without "bullets incoming" if someone is charging with a contact weapon.

A head shot you will need a lawyer because you will end up in court, at least civil court!
Click to expand...
Just whaat is if that you believe should lead to a different aftermath with a head shot vs a shot on the abdomen plus one in the chest plus one in the arm?
 
A head shot you will need a lawyer because you will end up in court, at least civil court!
Click to expand...

After any shooting, you need a lawyer. You are not going to get the "It's a Good Shoot" parade down your street by the arriving police and neighbors.
 
Hi, at no point did anyone say anything about body armor. It said right inside the first brief, unambiguous post "in the belly" not "bounced off of his armor." Two hits in the belly or chest is going to be very damaging, and two hits in the belly or chest do not automatically call for a more difficult follow up shot to the head to put an end to aggression, not at all. That shot will either be at a moving target the size of a swollen soft ball, or at a stationary target that's just laying there immobile.

We keep coming back to the absolute foolishness of taking head shots when unnecessary. Turning away from something that works and risking a weak attempt at a final, finishing move to end all possible aggression. Unless the terminator is still coming and uninjured after taking the two initial hits, why would it be desirable, especially if the probability is that probably only one percent of americans could actually make a brain pan follow up shot during a genuine, actual gunfight?

Call it editorializing if you want, I really don't care, everything that is said in the aftermath of that shooting will be skewed. shooting a guy three times with a kill shot finishing him off if going to be the most controversial and polarizing shooting possible. Everybody is going to find something to say about it, and not a lot of it will be unbiased. If someone does this very thing, there is one absolute certainty. There will be screaming, loud, endless screaming about what happened. Even if your own family and friends, and maybe even everyone in the whole county is clapping their hands, there will be plenty of others who will be calling the professional rabble rousers like the aclu, or god forbid, paid protestors. You will have hostile lawyers who have an absolute obligation to rip your reputation apart and do everything possible to make you hurt, even put you in prison for life if possible.


The three shots are one dose of response,without hestitation,to one threat,as one motion.
A really key factor to keep in mind for the idealistic,politically correct dissection:

We reluctantly decided to use deadly force because our bad guy had the means,the will,and had made the choice to kill us
Click to expand...

You sound as if you have a press release already prepared. Good luck with that, saying that to an emotional, gun hating, hysterical public after you shot some poor kid in the head because he pointed a gun at you and said "gimme your money".

No matter how you think it should be or want it to be, you have an entire world of people out there who are just looking for an excuse to vent their hate. Lynch mobs don't bother with ropes now, they just set buildings on fire.
 
"It's a Good Shoot" parade down your street by the arriving police and neighbors.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that there hasn't been such a parade for over half a century. The only incident I can think of offhand during which a man was hailed as a hero for stopping a shooter was down in austin at the tower.


The day was declared by the City of Austin as "Ramiro Martinez Day".[40]

In 2008 the following names of persons who helped stop Whitman were added to a plaque on an Austin police precinct building.

Martinez and McCoy were awarded Medals of Valor by the city of Austin.[
Click to expand...

All from wikipedia
 
briandg said:
I'm guessing that there hasn't been such a parade for over half a century. The only incident I can think of offhand during which a man was hailed as a hero for stopping a shooter was down in austin at the tower.


All from wikipedia
Click to expand...

That wouldn’t happen today in Austin. The DA and former police chief decided *EVERY* defensive shooter is arrested and goes to the grand jury.
 
SIGSHR wrote:
Ethics and legality of headshots
Click to expand...

I will leave the legal aspects of this question to the attorneys since I have no idea whether the courts see one as more or less indicative of criminal intent.

AS the the moral and ethical aspect, your question. as presented, seems premised on the idea that if you intentionally shoot for the head as opposed for shooting at the "center of mass", you are more intent on achieving a deadly outcome. Is this the way you intended for it to be taken?

A civilian self-defense shooting is intended to neutralize an immediate threat to your life or the life of another that is in immediate peril. If the idea is to neutralize the aggressor with the minimum damage to that agressor and the maximum potential to save the aggressor's life and allow him/her to return to a normal life, then the fact the vital organs make up a smaller portion of the assailant's body make up a smaller portion of the body than the brain does of the assailant's head, In that respect, you would shoot for the center-of-mass and thus - hopefully - realized the lower legality likely with shots into this area.

If, however, the objective to take the assailant "out of the fight" for as long as the fight lasts so a to allow you to save innocent by-standers, the fact a head wound is more likely to divert the assailant's attention would argue for a head shot every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top