Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound?

C

czmatt

New member
Simple Question...

Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound?

I hope this isnt too stupid of a question. I have been pondering this question ever since my CHL class. Is there a correct answer? What if I were in this position, would I shoot to Kill, or Shoot to wound? I would like everyones insight on this. Thanks...

P.S. Touchy subject, hope I dont offend anyone...
 
Ditto - you shoot to stop the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself or whomever you are protecting, and the best way to accomplish that is to shoot at the center of mass of the threatener until they are no longer threatening.

When the threat is stopped, you stop shooting. The attacker may be dead, or wounded, or have run away or surrendered. You only care that the threat is ended by whatever means necessary.
 
NO shooter ever born is good enough to really "shoot to kill, or shoot to wound".

In a real-life gun fight, even experienced gunmen are lucky to hit an opponent AT ALL, much less pick and choose.

Shooting to kill, HOW?
Do you try to hit the heart? Most people don't know where the human heart is really located.
Hit the head? The head is a weaving, bobbing, and constantly moving SMALL target.

Shoot to wound, again HOW?
Shoot for an arm or leg? Fine, what if you miss the small target? What is HE going to be shooting at while you're shooting and missing?
What if it FAILS to stop him?

In both shoot to kill/wound, if you do miss the the small target, where's the bullet going? Who else might get hit by it?

If you fail to STOP him, who else might HE shoot?

You may get only ONE shot, so you better make it a good one.

If it's serious enough to warrant shooting someone, it legally and morally doesn't matter if he lives or dies.
By doing whatever he was doing to justify you shooting him, he "punched his own ticket".

To quote famous gunman Bill Jordon, "Shooting someone "just a little bit" is like being "just a little" pregnant. If you HAVE to shoot someone, shoot him GOOD".
 
Might take several mags to do it too!

what Dfariswheel said is very true. When you realize someone is pulling or has pulled a gun on you the adrenalin kicks in (fight or flight) and you're lucky to be able to move anything, let alone get a steady aim. Think back to the last time you really got the S**t scared out of you, how your body reacted, that's what you will be dealing with.Since most shootings occur within 3 feet it's up close and personal. Training can help, but the response will still be there to deal with. If you're asking these kinds of questions I fully recommend you take personal defense courses and start going to IDPA matches as well. Each states rules for the use of deadly force is different but most are like others have said in this post. In my state I can legally shoot through the door (window etc) and kill someone sight unseen, once the person is in my house I have to use the rules of deadly force which says I feel imminent danger that the person is going to kill me before I can shoot. Thus, you never pull a gun unless you intend to use it to repell a deadly threat. In my case, unless he or she gets me first I will fire until the threat is no longer moving (explains my title of this post). Keep in mind the other party will have the same reaction and there are multiple examples of people taking several rounds before going down. Pray you never have to use the gun, but know what to do with it if you ever need to.
The police will confiscate your gun and take statements from any potential witnesses. You may well be arrested. I have even heard of cases where they've gone in to the defenders home and confiscated all guns until the person was cleared.There have been cases where the criminal has had someone with him at the time and the "law-abiding" citizen got the short end of the stick with jail time and civil damages. "I was just trying to wound him won't work as a defense"!
 
I don't know many people who would really be able to exercise these as options. Shooting to hit is tough enough.


But really, if you have the time and option of choosing to shoot someone's arm, you aren't at the point of extremis that justifies shooting at all. Shooting a gun at someone is the last option.
 
INSTANTANEOUSLY DISABLE. In most jurisdictions, lethal force can ONLY be employed to stop an immediate and grave danger of death or serious injury. Therefore, reasonable force can be used until the “immediate and grave” danger terminates.

- - - - -
Go Navy. Sink Army. THE Commander-in-Chief's Trophy.
 
Last edited:
Re-Phrase...

Maybe I phrased my question wrong...
I fully understand why we pull our weapons, when to, and where to. I also understand the laws that go with Texas (the state I live in) and I understand that there is no reason other than making a person "Stop" should we pull our weapons. I also hope that I am NEVER forced to pull my weapon.

I guess my post is about the civil lawsuits, and if it would be better to wound someone, or kill them. Or, if it made any difference at all...
 
I've always been taught to shoot center mass, like many others here. It has the biggest surface area, and a few things that, if shot, would be detrimental to the health of the scumbag :)
 
NO shooter ever born is good enough to really "shoot to kill, or shoot to wound".
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there have been at least a few who had the skill, if not the desire. But not your average shooter, true. In any case, why would one (average shooter at least) deliberately 'shoot to wound'? Seems like an invitation to a civil-court rape of one's assets, if you will.

By the same token, asserting a desire to 'shoot-to-kill', outside of a war zone, seems to be inviting the asset-raiders to take it all.

In the context of a SD shoot by Joe Citizen, shooting to stop is the only viable, defensible objective, IMO.
 
Shoot to stop.

Aim center of mass - this one confuses some people. They take center of mass to mean center of the torso which is too low. If you shoot the exact center you will hit the BG in the stomach. Imagine a triangle formed by lines drawn from your nose to your armpits and across your chest. Inside there is where the hit should be.

Stop as it pertains to gunshots-
1. If the BG turns tail and runs he is stopped.
2. If the BG falls to the ground and is unable to keep fighting he is stopped.
3. If the BG falls down DRT he is stopped.

The BG gets to decide which version of the stop he wants. Your job is to keep shooting to the COM described above until he chooses one.

Kill or wound is his choice so don't waste your time worrying about it. Make sure your mind is right and you are willing to take the shot. Then practice until your skills are right and you can make the shot.
 
It has been said already, but the purpose if shooting is to stop an attack.
As you are aware from studying for your CHL test, you can only pull out your gun when you are in fear of your own life, or others. Until you believe harm will come to yourself (or others) your gun stays concealed.

Therefore another person is acting in a criminally violent way. This is what you want to stop.
If they run before the shooting stops (or surrenders, etc.) this is great - now there are all sorts of consequences you won't have to deal with.
If the shooting starts and the criminal stops when wounded, you (legally) should stop.
A missing on purpose (i.e. a 'warning shot') is foolish. The bullet lands somewhere. You have legal ownership of that bullet. Any consequences are on your head.
 
I guess my post is about the civil lawsuits, and if it would be better to wound someone, or kill them. Or, if it made any difference at all...
Click to expand...

Czmatt, it seems what you might be asking is if, given the choice, a live or dead attacker would be preferable from a lawsuit/financial standpoint.

If you think about it, you'd realize this is an extremely foolish and potentially dangerous question to be asking on a public forum. If you are given the advice that a dead attacker will lower you civil liability, what damage would such advice, if found by the DA, do to your criminal inquest?


I would suggest no one commit themselves with an opinion on that and let this topic die.
 
Deadly force by definition is that which can be expected to cause serious bodily harm or death. In the case of using a firearm, it is simply matter of fact that the nature of the tissue destruction required to effect an instant or rapid "stop" will likely result in death. It is only the latest advances in trauma care that have moderated this some, but never the less it is still true.

Using the term "shooting to stop" somewhat sidesteps these issues, but remains the phrase of choice, despite the fact that you must be willing to kill your assailant in order to use deadly force. Adding "if necessary" doesn't truly apply since you have no control over this outcome.

By contrast if the term is used "shooting to wound only", the intent is shifted to shooting in the hope that an assailant will stand down in the face of a non-life threatening wound. You could get yourself into trouble with a jury if you attempted to say something that verges on "I did not think the threat justified killing so I shot to wound or disable".
 
Of course, what has been said already is true: shoot to STOP the immediate threat.

Of course, you should never draw or present your weapon until you are sure that a lethal threat exists.

What you must also remember is that you must be able to CEASE your counterattack the instant the threat stops.

Example: You have a person coming toward you. This person has, without mistake, communicated to you that in the next few seconds, they will present a lethal threat to you or someone else.

You present your firearm, and even may start to press the trigger.

The BG, however, sees your gun; his eyes get as big as saucers, he drops his weapon and turns to run.

The INSTANT you recognized that the person no longer held the desire to attack is the INSTANT your right to use deadly force ended.
 
I guess my post is about the civil lawsuits, and if it would be better to wound someone, or kill them. Or, if it made any difference at all...
Click to expand...
CZMatt ~

Legally, shooting a gun at someone is using deadly force against them, even if they are not killed.

Deadly force, legally, is that degree of force a reasonable and prudent person would consider capable of causing death or grave bodily harm. Grave bodily harm is a little bit of a slippery term, but it's basically a crippling injury, or an injury that will cause problems more than a year later.

Getting shot in the hand, arm, or leg could cause the person shot to die, or to be crippled for life. Any reasonable person knows this. Therefore, any shot fired in the direction of another human being is using deadly force, no matter where on the person's body you aim.

So if you fire a shot, it needs to be as legally defensible if you kill them as it would be if you didn't kill them. You said you already know when the laws in Texas allow you to kill someone. The exact same laws apply to you whether you 'shoot to kill' or 'shoot to wound.' There is no legal difference at all; by the standards used in criminal court, firing a gun at another person is deadly force. *

If you are worried about civil court or being sued, keep in mind that anyone in America can sue anyone else for anything at all. Whether such suits are successful is a different story.

If your shot was justified and the criminal court finds you not guilty, you've got a better chance of surviving the civil action unscathed.

If your shot was not justified, if you plea bargain or lose the criminal trial, you've got a worse chance of getting through the civil action.

The size of the award in civil court really doesn't matter at that point. I think as a rule of thumb, a lost suit for a maimed person will be higher than a suit for a dead person. But a lost suit is going to break the bank in any case.

Better make sure you really needed to fire that gun before you pull the trigger.

pax

* Of course, if they're dead and you shouldn't have fired, you get charged with homicide, whereas if they're not dead and you shouldn't have fired you get charged with attempted homicide. But the legal standards used to judge whether you are guilty or not guilty of the charges will be exactly the same.
 
This question shoild have been thoroughly answered in your CHL class WITHOUT you having to ask it. In every state I hold a CHL in, it is against the law to "shoot to wound". The use of lethal force to achieve a non-lethal result is a big no-no. With that said, breaking the law and causing bodily injury to anyone is going to make an injury lawyer that much more rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top