Shoot To Kill or Shoot to Wound? Is such a Decision possible under threat?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guntec

New member
Not having beein a situation that calls for me to draw, I've only wondered whether or not in the emergency, I would be able to decide whether to shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

Sometimes when you watch the movie, you see people in a situation where they dont' want to kill the person, so they hesitate, and eventually have their guns wrestled away from them. Wouldn't it be prudent to simple put a round in the leg in such a situation?

And others, when you're not sure if the bad guy remains a threat to you, ie. they fake death, but get you in the last shot, etc, should you put a few more into the skull?
 
Shoot to stop the threat. The best chance for stopping the threat is to shoot for what is called COM or "center of mass" meaning the center of the upper torso.

Only one thing that you need to know about movies... they aren't real. If someone only needs shooting in the leg, then they are not enough of a threat to legally justify your having shot them at all.

Persons trained for CQB are fortunate to hit their target(s) at all in personal combat. Aim for COM. Shoot to stop the threat.
 
2 to the chest 1 two the head :) , truth is you should shoot to stop the aggression. if you say well i shot to wound, then it can be said that you were not truly in danger and had the time avoid the confrontation, also that you must not have been as threatened as to warrant shooting at all. i know you may be the best marksman in the world and im not arguing that, i know quickly drawing and firing i could wound or kill by controlling placement. but for the average citizen defending themself, the uneducated jury or liberals will scream it takes so long to decide where to shoot and to wound or not, so stick with aim for center mass ie torso, and i shot to stop the aggression.
 
We shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill or wound. If you're concerned that your attacker is faking, either cover down and be ready to shoot again while seeking hard cover, or better yet get out of the area. There's a word for "putting in a few extra to the skull" when an assailant has ceased to be a threat: it's called murder.

I agree with Fred about COM, but respectfully disagree with his definition. To me, COM is to shoot center mass of anything I can see and hit. For example if only a half of the assailant's head is showing, shoot for the center of that.

Denny
 
There is nothing anywhere in the law that authorizes you to shoot people "a little bit". You are either justified in blowing him to pieces, or you're not justified in shooting toward him, at all.
If he is a credible threat to your life, you had better be doing your best to put him down and out. If he's not a credible threat to your life, you have no legal justification for firing.
 
The real pisser about wounding someone is that if they survive chances are good they'll file a lawsuit against you. The other real pisser is that when you're in court facing attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, they're able to take the stand and tell everyone how they were just minding their own business when a crazed psycho with a gun... The theory here being that a dead bad guy is less likely to get you sent to prison. I say, if you're justiified, don't stop pulling the trigger until it goes click or the pumpkin is gone.
 
If you have time to make that decision, you probably have time to disengage. And you can be that some lawyer (uh, NOT yours!) is going to try to make that point.
 
If you're trained well enough, and value your life, liberty and your desire to stay out of prison a great deal, then you have only two options in such an encounter:

1) Safely get away.

2) Shoot until your target is down. Down as in "dead." A crippled perp is still a dangerous perp.

In liberal America, lawsuits abound, and juries are just twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Why leave a witness? Dead men tell no tales.
 
As has been said, we shoot to stop, not to wound or to kill. The difference, while some say it is only semantics, is the difference between the unlawful use of deadly force or murder and justifiable self-defense. I would never shoot to wound since that would imply a doubt as to the need for the use of deadly force and I would not shoot to kill, since I don't want to kill anyone, I shoot to stop since I am in reasonable fear for my life and I only want to stop the immediate threat to my life. Getting the heck out of there is always my first choice and using deadly force and shooting to stop is my last choice.

Just my view of things, YMMV. It is a good question to ask - since we all need to clearly understand before we find ourselves in such a terrible situation what our responsibilities are and decide what we must do or not do to meet those responsibilities.
 
The issue of deadly force must be crystal clear in your mind before you carry a firearm with you. You must know when and under what circumstances you can use it. You must know without a shadow of a doubt, that should those unfortunate circumstances ever present themselves to you, that you could use deadly force. If you are unsure, you should not carry a deadly weapon. Your question is a very good one and a very important one. The issues here could land you in prison and/or get your pants sued off in a wrongful death suit should you act in a negligent manner. You can also be charged for brandishing (pointing) a firearm at an individual should you do so when deadly force is not called for. Call your local police agency and inquire about personal protection classes covering these issues. Forget everything you ever learned from the movies about firearms and deadly force encounters. If you can't seperate the two it may be time to sell the firearm and get a new DVD player.
Good luck!!
 
Again, that question must be answered long before carrying. And a person shoots to stop a threat, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Fed, what if someone were to break into your house, and you shoot him in the leg to stop the threat, "no more, no less". After the police take him away and he makes bail, do you think his days of B&E are over? Hardly. First off, he's going to sue you, and given the state of our country's legal system, he's going to win. Even if he doesn't you'll be shelling out thousands in legal fees just to save your ass. After his lawsuit is over, he'll most likely continue his lucrative business of breaking into people's homes and taking their belongings. That is, until someone takes him out of the population.

Obviously, there are more scenarios than this one, but the general rule stays the same. A "wound" is not a "stop". Given the chance, an armed criminal would kill you to meet his goal, so your response must be just as swift, decisive, and deadly.
 
First off, he's going to sue you, and given the state of our country's legal system, he's going to win.
Click to expand...

Maybe where you live, but not here. Arizona has a law on the books that clearly says a criminal can not profit from criminal activities--that includes not suing someone who legally used a fiream to protect himself.

Denny
 
Suing someone for negligence is not the same as, say, writing a book about your criminal exploits and profiting from it. But like you say, I'm in NY, where victims have historically had zero rights.
 
First of all, of course such a decision of "shoot to kill or shoot to wound" is possible under threat. What seems to not be reliably possible acting on the premise properly. As many shooters and a few cops have said, how do you expect the cops to shoot the gun out of a suspect's hand when the cops can't be counted on to reliably hit the suspect in the first place, anywhere!

You can decide all you want, but doesn't mean you are going to get it properly implemented.

Take this view. Say you decide to shoot to kill. You shoot and hit where you aimed but the suspect does not go down or die. Say you shoot to wound and his the suspect in the leg, just to slow him down, and he bleeds out at the femoral artery.

"Shooting to stop" is a great idea. It sounds so politically correct as well. If the person is dead, their head separated from their body by at least four feet, then you can count on them being almost assuredly stopped.
 
Deliberately shooting someone in a non-lethal way- in an extremity- is a crime in some states. It's called "shooting to maim". Shoot the center of what you have to shoot for. As long as it's a threat.

John
 
Shoot to stop the threat.

The old canard about shooting him in the leg to wound him is just that, a canard. If you nick the femoral artery (which is easy to do if you hit a leg), he's dead anyway -- and you are left in a world of legal and ethical hurt because you didn't think killing him was justified, yet you killed him anyway.

pax
 
As many shooters and a few cops have said, how do you expect the cops to shoot the gun out of a suspect's hand when the cops can't be counted on to reliably hit the suspect in the first place, anywhere!
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a problem. And part of that problem is many officers across this great land are simply not paid enough to afford extra training on their own. 3-4K at a pop at Gunsite (including travel, lodging and time off work) is BIG money when a rural cop is getting paid 18K a year. I wonder how many of us who think the police are undertrained actually take the time to go before their city coucil and demand that more dollars and time be released for additional training?

Denny
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top