How many do you shoot?

[pfch1977]

What is the difference between shooting to kill and shooting until the threat is eliminated?

My opinion is that the "threat eliminated" argument was created by defense lawyers to defend police in these shooting incidents?

If I shoot my pistol at someone until the threat is eliminated, I believe that person would probably be dead.
Am I thinking correctly that this terminology was just created by administrators and defense attornies to help out their police comrades when their gun gets a little too wild?

 

[JohnKSa]

What is the difference between shooting to kill and shooting until the threat is eliminated?

One difference is intent and if you believe that intent doesn't matter to the law you need to do more research. The other difference is that a threat can be eliminated without death being the result. In fact, in more than 80% of the cases where a gun is used in self-defense the attacker isn't even injured. In the majority of the remaining cases the attacker survives.

My opinion is that the "threat eliminated" argument was created by defense lawyers to defend police in these shooting incidents?

Your opinion is incorrect, although you're welcome to it.

If I shoot my pistol at someone until the threat is eliminated, I believe that person would probably be dead.

Demonstrably false. 80% of those shot with a handgun survive. Furthermore the majority of gun self-defense cases don't require that the attacker be shot at all.

Am I thinking correctly that this terminology was just created by administrators and defense attornies to help out their police comrades when their gun gets a little too wild?

No.

 

[buzz_knox]

My opinion is that the "threat eliminated" argument was created by defense lawyers to defend police in these shooting incidents?

The argument was derived from the laws on the subject, which provide that you may use the necessary force to deal with the threat. If the aggressor dies as a result, you have an affirmative defense against a charge of homicide.

 

[TexasSeaRay]

What is the difference between shooting to kill and shooting until the threat is eliminated?

Dead is dead, obviously.

But you can shoot someone, wound them, and have them subsequently flee or surrender.

At either point, the threat is eliminated.

Jeff

 

[TridentInstitute]

Excellent phrasing TSR. "Eliminating the threat" can mean you or the attacker are no longer in the area.

"Eliminating the threat" does not only mean elimination of the attackers life.

 

[bds32]

If I shoot my pistol at someone until the threat is eliminated, I believe that person would probably be dead.

From a completely non-legal standpoint, your physical well being demands that the attacker be "stopped" right now. At the point he is a threat, you should never be concerned with whether he lives or dies. A guy who is dead but still doesn't know it has time to put you down. Shots to the torso may cause an immediate stop but not death, conversly, they may cause the death but not the immediate stop. Shots to the cranial vault are much better in stopping but are not always attainable in a gunfight.

It sounds good legally but even better from a physcial survival standpoint if you ask me.

 

[pfch1977]

I dont know guys. Government administrators tend to love saying the same things in different ways as to sound kinder and gentler. I guess saying to eliminate the threat makes for a kinder and gentler police force rather then shoot to kill. Quite honestly, as many news articles and youtube videos suggest, officers usually shoot to kill. Thank god for sources like google and youtube that save such bits of evidence so all can see.

 

[JohnKSa]

I dont know guys.

Correct.

Government administrators tend to love saying the same things in different ways as to sound kinder and gentler. I guess saying to eliminate the threat makes for a kinder and gentler police force rather then shoot to kill.

They DO love saying things that sound nice. However, in this particular case that's not why they say it.

Quite honestly, as many news articles and youtube videos suggest, officers usually shoot to kill.

This demonstrates a complete, yet classic, misunderstanding of the situation. One can not tell by LOOKING what the intent of the officer is. The fact is that the point of aim for shooting to stop is almost always the same as the point of aim for shooting to kill when handguns are involved. Both the military (whose job is explicitly to kill) and LE (whose job is to protect and serve) are trained to shoot at the center-of-mass when they use a pistol in an engagement because that is what experts believe is most effective in either case.

Thank god for sources like google and youtube that save such bits of evidence so all can see.

What one sees means little if one does not understand what he is seeing.

 

[bikerbill]

In every class I've attended, the lesson is clear: Shoot until the threat is neutralized. If one shot puts the threat on the ground, unable to continue the fight, so be it. If it takes two shots ... or three ... or four, that's how many it takes. One thing we discussed in one class was sitting in court while the prosecution asks, "Why did you shoot Mr. Jones nine times with your .357 Magnum?" Good question, and you might need a good answer.

 

[Erik]

Answer: To stop the threat.

The "to stop the threat" assertion works in three ways: On one hand it removes intent to kill from the equation, and on the other it serves to explain the round count, and it "frees up" tactical responses from a given box. The supporting arguments and evidence must add up, of course.

Why'd you shoot him once in the head? To stop the threat.
Why'd you shoot him three times in the chest? To stop the threat?
Why'd you, the four of you, shoot at him fifty times? To stop the threat.
And so on... Again, so long as the supporting arguments and evidence add up.

I agree, though, that the expected result of most shooting is death; expected as it what the shooter invisions as opposed to the likelihood of actual death.

No? Be honest with yourself.

That said, the statistics are handy in case someone tries to paint you as a death merchant.

Oh, I plan on shooting to stop the threat, be it one or how ever many rounds in whatever combination, from whatever guns are necessary.

If my I'd rather not shoot at all plan fails, of course.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree, though, that the expected result of most shooting is death; expected as it what the shooter invisions as opposed to the likelihood of actual death.

That may be the EXPECTED result, but if so, it is only because people are uninformed.

Regardless, the point is that the prognosis of the attacker should have no bearing on the strategy, only the cessation of the attack should be of interest since that is the legal goal.

 

[Deaf Smith]

First, this presumes I have a fairly powerful handgun like my Glock 27 .40 with Winchester T series and not some hard to shoot mouse gun.

If I knew I had hit him real well ('calling the shot' as it's called) then maybe two or three times with a bit of pause after that. If, on the other hand, it happens so fast I can't be sure then I'd shoot till he drops.

Trouble is, it's real easy to shoot 5 or 6 shots a second and it might take you 2 to 3 seconds to even realize the guy is falling. And that's how you hear of cops firing 15 or 20 shots!

This is another reason to carry as powerful a sidearm as you can handle well.

 

[Hook686]

04-15-2008, 09:16 AM #28
JohnKSa wrote:

I think most here would agree "shoot until the threat is stopped" whether that's one or all of the rounds in your piece.

Which would be exactly the correct thing to do.

Here's the point I was trying to make with my earlier post. Booby traps are illegal because they apply deadly force without a human making the decision. The law requires that there be a reasonable human making reasonable decisions operating a deady force tool.

If we program ourselves to always respond exactly the same way to a threat (e.g. draw then fire X shots automatically) then once the engagement begins we become nothing more than a booby trap until our "programmed" shot sequence is over. Certainly we make the decision to draw, but at that point, it's all simply a matter of programming. I don't think that's wise.

Statistics show that over 80% of all self-defense gun uses are successfully resolved by merely showing the gun. What that says to me is if a person programs himself that when he presents his gun he automatically fires, over 80% of the time he will be firing at a person who would have given up without a single shot being fired.

Likewise, another 10% or so of successful self-defense gun uses end after a single shot has been fired whether or not a serious injury has been dealt. If a person automatically fires 2 or 3 shots then clearly at least some of the time they're doing so when they don't need to and therefore shouldn't have.

It's good to practice, it's good to have a plan, but we can't oversimplify to the point that our responses become so automatic that we're not assessing the threat as the situation progresses.

MORE to the point, it's probably not the best idea to publicly announce that if you're forced to use a gun you're automatically going to draw and shoot X shots aimed here and then X shots aimed there, etc. In the unlikely event that you ever do get involved in a deadly force scenario, a statement like that will not back up your assertions that you only used the minimum amount of deadly force required to insure your safety as the law typically requires...

John I usually agree with your posts. However in this situation, I do not want to be on the 20% side, the 10% side, or even 1% side of it being the wrong side of a lethal encounter.

As long as I'm thinking I'm in a lethal encounter I'm shooting (as long as I have rounds to shoot).

I figure the lawyers can figure all the other stuff out, I'm not able to do such an in depth analysis as you post about percentages. Until I'm insured of my safety, I figure it best to keep firing ... no particular pattern, but simply to continue to fire until I've insured myself the threat is no longer there.

Lawyers will do what ever they want, there is no stopping them. However I do not think it a wise use of mental resources to be thinking about that in a lethal situation.

 

[exprt9]

Double tap and re-access the situation. If threat is still there shoot again until threat is gone.

 

[buzz_knox]

Double tap and re-access the situation. If threat is still there shoot again until threat is gone.

That used to be the standard rule. It's been discarded because during the time you take the evaluate the threat, the threat (who may or may not have been shot or put out of action) is responding to you.