Ethics and legality of headshots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lohman446 said:
These discussions are useful because they influence training and allow us a chance to articulate why we trained or acted in a particular manner. Being able to articulate why, or more correctly being wise enough to let your lawyer articulate why, may make a major difference in the aftermath
Click to expand...
Precisely! If you're ever in an SD shooting, you'll have to be able to articulate why you did a whole lot of things. If you're really unlucky, you'll have to articulate it to the police, then to your lawyer (who may or may not be "a gun guy"), and then to a jury.
 
When involved in any armed defense shooting or not.
I was in fear of death, I stopped the threat, I want to speak to a lawyer, Then shut up.
This gives you time to calm down clear your thoughts, so what comes out of your mouth is what you actually did. Immediacy after your brain is racing at 1,000 miles an hour but your mouth can only go 100 miles an hour so your words won't come out correctly
 
When involved in any armed defense shooting or not.
I was in fear of death, I stopped the threat, I want to speak to a lawyer, Then shut up.
This gives you time to calm down clear your thoughts, so what comes out of your mouth is what you actually did. Immediacy after your brain is racing at 1,000 miles an hour but your mouth can only go 100 miles an hour so your words won't come out correctly
Click to expand...


Better advice:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/what-to-do-after-a-self-defense-encounter.589272/
 
SIGSHR said:
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.
Click to expand...



ANY lawyer worth their salt would easily be able to defend a “headshot.” It has already been done successfully. The reality is...if asked why you “shot for the head,” I think you should have an idea for what your reply should be.

“It was center mass at the time. If I didn’t he would have killed me.”

“It was the most viable option at the time. If I didn’t he would have killed me.”

“I had to end the threat. If I didn’t he would have killed me.”

“We were in close proximity and that was the first place viable target that I was able to aim at and I could not waste time or else he would have killed me.”

Nothing says where you can and cannot shoot. And if you feared for your life...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In teaching people to shoot, who where to be employed as Security armed people, or Police. My shooting test was 20 rounds, the last two rounds, were centre head. From close up.

The closest big City Police, Toronto Canada. Informed me if one of my students employed a headshot, they would be charged with murder, me too! For teaching this method. That was when I started my School. In 1980.

Toronto PD started teaching headshots in 2004!

The 15 seconds (or so) of total mobility, after a shot to the heart gives a really good reason for a head shot.

Having an attorney on call (NRA Insurance) is a good thing.
 
The closest big City Police, Toronto Canada. Informed me if one of my students employed a headshot, they would be charged with murder, me too! For teaching this method. That was when I started my School. In 1980.
Click to expand...

Good old Canada. At least here in the states we don't have to worry about Canadian laws.
 
Shoot to stop the threat...if it comes to the point where you're forced to discharge a firearm at someone it's doubtful you'll care about shot lacement as long as you stop them.....you could argue that a head shot is more humane.....no chance of suffering.
 
you could argue that a head shot is more humane.....no chance of suffering
Click to expand...

I'm not even certain this is accurate. While it can take a very small amount of trauma to the head to cause death there are portions a very short distance away that can take a gruesome amount of damage and not cause death.

From an argument based purely on what a perspective juror might see if the person you are forced to use deadly force against testifies if he or she should survive (or the crime scene photos if he or she does not) I'm fairly certain head shots may offer a distinct disadvantage.

Right or wrong a good share of our criminal justice system is based on perception.
 
I'm not even certain this [(a head shot is more humane....no chance of suffering)] is accurate.
Click to expand...
It is not.

From an argument based purely on what a perspective juror might see if the person you are forced to use deadly force against testifies if he or she should survive (or the crime scene photos if he or she does not) I'm fairly certain head shots may offer a distinct disadvantage.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, in a defense of justification poorly conducted by a less than capable defense team.

But a well-represented defendant will bring in expert witnesses who will credibly explain, and introduce convincing evidence to the effect that, in most circumstances in a defensive shooting, the fact that a bullet may have stuck someone in the head does not indicate that the shooter necessarily intend ed for it to do so.
 
Precisely! If you're ever in an SD shooting, you'll have to be able to articulate why you did a whole lot of things. If you're really unlucky, you'll have to articulate it to the police, then to your lawyer (who may or may not be "a gun guy"), and then to a jury.
Click to expand...

5th Amendment and Miranda says that you don't have to say anything to the cops or a jury.
 
The really sad part about all of this is, even if you're 100% right in your actions legally, ethically and morally, it's likely to cost you some serious $$$$ for the legal system to agree.
 
If you need some sort of justification for yourself for head shots, think of it this way: a predatory animal is attacking you; (a bear) what are you going to shoot at? The head, it will shut down the attack the fastest. Knowing that the average carry handgun is 1/3-1/5 as powerful as a rifle, makes you sure you must shoot the CNS to stop the attacking animal. Sorry if that target is your face.
 
EMB135Driver said:
. . . .you could argue that a head shot is more humane.....no chance of suffering.
Click to expand...
I won't speak for other lawyers, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'd make that argument to a jury. We worry about whether something is humane when we know far in advance that we're going to kill something, like putting a sick animal down, or slaughtering one for food. IMHO, it really runs the risk of giving the jury the impression that you went into the situation just wanting to kill someone.
 
If you need some sort of justification for yourself for head shots, think of it this way: a predatory animal is attacking you; (a bear) what are you going to shoot at? The head, it will shut down the attack the fastest. Knowing that the average carry handgun is 1/3-1/5 as powerful as a rifle, makes you sure you must shoot the CNS to stop the attacking animal. Sorry if that target is your face.
Click to expand...
I do not know of any knowledgeable police officer or defensive trainer who would recommend trying a head shot at a charging human attacker.
 
My though on ethics and legality are about the same as the rules of war. If you have someone shooting at you rules and legality be damned, they are out the window.
 
If a predatory animal is attacking me, a charging animal of any sort, which is what I take you to be saying, i'm going to shoot for the chest.

A predatory animal still has a brain the size of a grapefruit and a body the size of a compact car. The idea of bobbing my croshairs around trying to put that round between his angry red eyes is never going to even enter my mind, I'm going to put my crosshairs into the center of that things chest and fire as soon as I get on target. I can probably get two or three rounds into its chest in less time than I would take to miss his head twice.

The story of old Eddie 'flapjack' von fleming, the african hunter is interesting. He made a head shot at an angry elephant and missed. An elephant's brain is not much larger than a human's, and hidden behind that great big head. The heart is about three times or more larger than the brain, and any shot at the heart is still in the area of other organs and nerve systems, as well as necessary bones.

There just isn't any good reason to attempt a head shot on a predator of any sort. without trying every other possible means first, and even then, it's possible, if not probable, that repeating the same shots several more times would be a more effective thing than to give up after firing two shots at the chest and attempting to shoot the head?

I have sometimes wondered, what if you miss the first two shots? what if you can't tell if you hit on the first two shots? Do you yell at the bad guy and ask him if you got him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top