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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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.
Click to expand...

Hmph. OBviously YOU haven't watched enough movies! Head separated from their body by 4 feet?


That's just when they get REALLY dangerous....



:D


Shooting to stop a threat to your life is not murder. Shooting to kill might be. Shooting to wound is shooting when you don't need to.

And, as mentioned, is not done with anything like 100% reliability.
 
:rolleyes: If the shot is justified, then, shoot to kill! The hard part is deciding exactly, 'when' that shot is warranted. Some of the most dangerous people I've known have, all, been, 'siddlers'. What is a, 'siddler' you might ask? 'Sammy, the Bull' is a, 'siddler'. Most of the people he, 'wacked' never saw it coming! ;)
 
"Deadly force" is usually defined as (or to the effect), "that which would reasonably expected to result in death or serious bodily harm". While "serious bodily harm" is a list of serious but not lethal permanent injuries, "death" means dead.

I think when discussing this it should be remembered that the injuries sustained in the course of an "instant stop", or near to it, are very likely to result in death. That is; the destruction of central nervous tissue, or the cardio-vascular system with catastrophic blood and pressure loss. Anything else is a big "if" as to whether a "stop" is effected or not. The psychological stop where a person gives up, thinking they have been shot, or after receiving a shot which does not literally incapacitate them physically, can not be relied upon. And there is no legal provision separating it from literal physical incapacitation in the legal use of force.

There is no differentiation between "being in fear for one's life" or "being in fear of serious bodily harm" as a justification for the use of deadly force in self defense. The term "justifiable homicide" means the justifiable killing of a person, not killing by "accident" or chance.
 
Your actions in any shooting are going to be judged by the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable and prudent person, under the same or similar circumstances, have done the same thing as you did?

Answer that question in the affirmative, and you should be good, regardless of the jurisdiction.
 
If you ever have the misfortune of having to shoot someone to save your life or the life of another person, the last thing you should articulate to anyone about that incident was that you shot to kill. Shooting to kill has a connotation of malice. Your firearm is used to end an immediate threat to your life or the life of another. Police are trained to aim at the center of mass. Police aim at the center of mass of what ever is visible, because it gives the best chance for a hit. If that be the torso, vital organs will be most likely disrupted and therefore ending the fight. In a deadly force encounter, you can't get the fight stopped soon enough!!! A determined suspect can continue to shoot, stab, cut, or hit you with something for quite a long time after a bullet destroys the heart completely, for instance. A shot to the brain or spine will end a persons ability to continue to fight almost immediately. A shot to the brain or spine is hard to accomplish in a combat situation. Outside of a shot to the brain or spinal region, one must wait for the person to bleed enough to cause a significant loss of blood pressure. What reaction should you expect from an assailant you have just shot? Most likely, you will get no immediate reaction. The assailant will continue to try to fight you. There are a lot of factors that come into play here, but don't expect them to just drop like a rock as depicted in the movies. It usually just doesn't happen that way. Some individuals can absorb a tremendous amount of damage and continue to fight and survive, because of their will to survive and win. Some individuals stop fighting at the first sign of blood and have died from borderline fatal injuries. Some people are conditioned to think they are out of the fight and are supposed to just fall over when they are shot as is the case in the movies. If you engage in a gun-battle you should expect to get hit! Never ever quit, be more determined than the other guy to survive. As has been said many times, there are no second place winners in a gunfight. There has been a lot said about the low hit percentage by trained police personnel. There has been a shift in the way police are trained to try to incorporate a more real enviroment, by adding stress, movement, and so forth. However, there are so many variables that can be factored into a real shooting. You have lighting conditions, weather conditions, moving targets, etc. The assailant always dictates the deadly force issue in police shootings. The police are always playing catchup after the deadly threat is perceived. Officers are shooting while moving away from the threat and toward cover most of the time. Hits are going to be low in comparison to shooting on a sunny afternoon at your favorite IDPA range. Aim center of mass and fire until the threat ceases to be a threat. If the assailant dies as a result, it is just the result of having to stop him, not your intent to kill him or do him more harm than absolutely necessary.
 
Once, about ten years ago, when I was re-attending a novice self-defense pistol course taught by a local deputy, an attendee raised her hand and timidly asked "How many times are we supposed to shoot someone?"
The deputy replied "Well, I figure you should keep shooting at him until he stops doing whatever it was that made you start shooting at him in the first place."

There is great wisdom buried in that homily. :)
 
This is a continuation of the Thread that I started a few weeks ago, asking if anyone ever had to use their side arm in self defense. This is the way that I see it, I don't know anyone that carry's a .22 or a .25. Most people carry (for defense) a larger, harder hitting side arm; therefore, the chances are greater that upon impact, the results will be to terminate the aggressor.

Lately, down here in Charlotte, to my dismay, there have been numerous shootings. Sometimes, I don't get out of my office until 1 - 2 A.M., I have to walk 2 blocks to get into my parking garage and then into the elevator and then onto the deserted floor where my car is parked. To be honest, I usually do get nervous because I never know who else is out there. Sometimes, I see homeless people on the street and sometimes, I see teenagers walking around. I don't classify people but I'm always aware of my surroundings. I drive a Trans Am, which is a pretty nice car and sometimes, I do think about car jackings at that late hour. My thoughts are: What would I do if someone tried to mug me (or worse) in the parking lot? What would I do if someone tried to jack me for my car? All I can say is, if a situation came at me, I am willing to do whatever it takes to get out of it and quickly and safely as I can. I refuse to be a victim. Even if that means taking out a teenager that has a pistol. Growing up in Bklyn, I remember always hearing the saying, "Don't pull out a gun unless you plan on using it." I hope to god that I'm never in that situation but if I am, I will be well prepared. The world that we're living in today is full of sick, angry, blood thirsty people. So to answer the thread, I would never take a chance in doing some sort of trick shot. If I have to pull out my side piece on someone, s/he's going down.
 
One thing not mentioned above: You're shooting to stop the Bad Guy, right? Okay. If the bang and muzzle flash from a missed shot cause him to stop his actions against you, you're done with shooting--particularly if he turns to run.

Art
 
If the bang and muzzle flash from a missed shot cause him to stop his actions against you, you're done with shooting--particularly if he turns to run.
Click to expand...

Hey Art, if that happens, can I run up behind him and pistol whip the SOB.
 
First, let me apologize to any LEOs for my statement about not counting on cops to hit suspects. That was not meant as a condemnation of LEOs, but as a blatant statement of reality of just how fluid situations may be and how difficult. There is a lot more data on cop shootings than non-cop shootings and a lot more stats kept on hit percentages for cops. The comment of not shooting the gun out of the hand when we can't expect them to hit the suspect actually came from a comment a cop made 2 or 3 years ago in an interview where he was commenting on the actions of one of his men shooting a suspect (armed with a gun) at close range. The question to the cop was specifically why didn't his officer shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand. I appreciated his candid statement. Last I read, the average for police shootings ranges somewhere around 24-28%. The numbers don't reflect that a much higher percentage of police shootings are at longer ranges than many civilian shootings.

We are all taught, at some point, to shoot to stop. A shot that kills will therefore produce a stop. There is some misbelief propagated that intentionally shooting at a person's head shows and intent to kill and not an intent to stop. As far as I know, this has never been a problem in a situation where the shooting was a legal sort of self defense shooting.

It is sort of funny. Many folks do manage to shoot the gun in the hands of their opponent, but not so much because they are super trick shootings (although there are some very real sniper shots that have been made in this manner and are documented on TV programs), but because they involuntarily end up shooting where their attention is focussed. Often, that will be on the hands or weapon of the opponent. Additionally, guns get hit because they are in front of the body of the person holding the gun. A percentage of COM shots will manage to hit the gun or hands of the opponent unintentionally as the gun just happens to be in the way.
 
Thank you Guntec

Guntec, I thank you for this thread. Your subject is very serious and one that all who carry guns must think about. I trust you will come to terms with what you decide to do. Many excellent points have been made by others in response to your questions that should enable you to make a sound decision.

My opinion on the subject is, if one carries a handgun for the purpose of self-protection, one must accept the responsibility that goes with it; namely, the probability that the handgun will be used to take the life of another. If this premise is unacceptable, one should not carry a handgun.

That said, if attacked and no successful exit from the threat exists, self preservation requires that the most effective use of handgun firepower be directed to a location on an attacker that will instantly stop the attacker. To me, that location is first center mass and second, the head. The amount of firepower required is whatever amount stops the attacker.

Believing that one has the time to think about where to shoot and how many rounds to fire is simply not possible in a real life situation. This is why good repetitive practice is an absolute must for one who carries a handgun for self protection. The automatic learned response (or reflex if you prefer) is what training is all about. There is no substitute for it.
 
Some interesting statistics:

I recently took a Conceal Carry class and the instructor mentioned the following stats:

At 21 ft the national hit percentage for LEO's is 18%.

At just 5 ft the national hit percentage for LEO's is 52%

That means out of 10 Shots at 7 yards if you are trained as well as the average police officer you can expect to hit twice... maybe. If one of those two shots is lucky enough to destroy the heart he will continue to function up to 35 seconds and depending totally on his will he may continue to fight for those 35 seconds. 35 seconds is FOREVER. Its enough time for him to empty his own magazine. Avoid a gunfight at all costs.

No... I don't know my instructor's source, but he' been training police and conceal carry classes for 25 years.
 
Those are pretty standard numbers, Ape. They have been sanctified by repitition, if nothing else. :D


But ask your instructor how many police officers actually care about shooting well. Most times you'll hear a number something like 10 or 20%.

Gun lovers should have a bit higher percentage.
 
I think the answer is simple and has been already stated.

"Well, I figure you should keep shooting at him until he stops doing whatever it was that made you start shooting at him in the first place."
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up.

If you draw your weapon to engage and stop a threat, then you need to STOP THE THREAT!

If he doesn't turn around and "make like a bakery truck" when you draw and aim at him, you pull the trigger. You continue to do so until he runs away, falls to the ground and stops moving, or is otherwise unable to do any more harm to you.

You own and carry a gun. A gun is a lethal weapon. A lethal weapon is used to stop a threat on one's life or safety by means of deadly force. This means I'm going to shoot for what may likely kill him. I don't necessarily want him to die, for I never want to have to take a human life. If he survives, he'll have lots of surgery and a long recovery while sitting in prison. If he dies, then at least I know he won't be able to come back and attempt to harm me again (or anyone else for that matter).

I think this keeps the solution to the question simple and to the point.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA
 
Shoot now worry later, really when it comes down to it just shoot the BG it doesn't matter what happen, if you shoot for the leg and hit the main atery he dies anyway so I'll just shoot and worry about if the BG's dead or not after the clip is empty. :D
 
Shoot now worry later, really when it comes down to it just shoot the BG it doesn't matter what happen, if you shoot for the leg and hit the main atery he dies anyway so I'll just shoot and worry about if the BG's dead or not after the clip is empty.
Click to expand...
Any .45, I sincerely hope there's some sarcasm in that statement (considering the smiley at the end of it). If you're actually being 100% serious, I have to wonder how responsible a gun owner you are. In self-defense training, you are taught to shoot for COM any time you are forced to shoot the BG. If you aimed for COM and for some reason it hits the artery in his leg and he goes down, then that's well enough and good, but that's not what I'm aiming for. As far as "emptying the clip," 1) it's called a magazine, not a "clip", unless of course you're a "'dawg' from the streets". 2) If you empty a full magazine into somebody, you had better have a good reason for doing so when you have to explain to a judge why you needed to fire even one shot in the first place, since you're only supposed to fire enough shots to STOP THE THREAT!

Again, I hope you were only being sarcastic with that comment. If not, I suggest you get some training (both on the marksmanship/gun handling and legal aspects of armed self-defense), grow up a little, and go back to carrying a lethal weapon only when you are responsible enough to do so.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top