Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound?
- Thread starter czmatt
- Start date
Mannlicher
New member
its not a stupid question, but it does show that you did not pay attention in class. As the first responder said, you shoot to stop your attacker. His or her winding up wounded or dead, should be the result of how quickly the attack on you or yours ceases.
Shoot to kil or wound? If the situation is grave enough to warrant shooting at all, that means your life or someone elses is at stake. In that case you shoot to kill as wounding may not stop the situation. Many instances have shown that a wounded suspect still took the life of another, if they had been killed it would have ended the situation.
I have said this before and I shall say it again: Take some of your money you use for training/equipment and invest it with an attorney. Meet with a local attorney, who specializes in these types of cases. By the man/woman lunch, make a list of questions you want answered, and pay them to answer them. Then you have it from someone other then a layman or police officer. Someone who has sat through court and argued all of the "proper wording, etc."
Not to mention, you just made a contact for that 3 AM phone call, after shooting the bad guy.
One more thing which is often overlooked: Make sure your wife, girlfriend, and/or significant others, including roommates and children, know what to say and/or what not to say.
Wives are NOTORIOUS for ratting out their husbands...
Not to mention, you just made a contact for that 3 AM phone call, after shooting the bad guy.
One more thing which is often overlooked: Make sure your wife, girlfriend, and/or significant others, including roommates and children, know what to say and/or what not to say.
Wives are NOTORIOUS for ratting out their husbands...
I know of one shooting, the little gal used a .22, fired one round into the ex, the bullet clipped the aorta, he turned walked about 5-6 feet and promply expired!
She didn't want to kill him only "scare" him to make him stop beating her!
I know of another case, the little gal was in the kitchen, the husband was beating the s*** out of her, she grabbed a small paring knife and shoved it into the femor artery...by the time he walked from the kitchen to the street he had bled out and died...a knife wound about 1/2 inch wide and 2-3 inches deep!
If you need to fire, keep shooting them until they stop!
Bill Jordan wrote "There are no second place winners!"
Again, if the situation warrants your having to use a firearm, then use everything you can to stop the problem!
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
She didn't want to kill him only "scare" him to make him stop beating her!
I know of another case, the little gal was in the kitchen, the husband was beating the s*** out of her, she grabbed a small paring knife and shoved it into the femor artery...by the time he walked from the kitchen to the street he had bled out and died...a knife wound about 1/2 inch wide and 2-3 inches deep!
If you need to fire, keep shooting them until they stop!
Bill Jordan wrote "There are no second place winners!"
Again, if the situation warrants your having to use a firearm, then use everything you can to stop the problem!
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6!
Mannlicher, I did pay attention in my CHL class. More than any other class I took in Highschool or College. I had a great teacher who taught the class very well, as well as an attourney that taught us the laws for our state. I have a very good understanding of SHOOT TO STOP, as everyone in here has stated....
I guess I needed to consult what was in my head, before posting in here...
Thanks
I guess I needed to consult what was in my head, before posting in here...
Thanks
RKBAadvocate
New member
Shoot with intent to kill, but if the threat subsides before the threat expires, then of course defensive actions should be concluded (i.e a threat is clearly out of the fight with COM shots but is still alive)
In addition to practical concerns of a lingering threat, the law requires that a threat pose an imminent and deadly threat to a shooter and/or bystanders. Any lethal threat in my mind warrants a lethal response.
In addition to practical concerns of a lingering threat, the law requires that a threat pose an imminent and deadly threat to a shooter and/or bystanders. Any lethal threat in my mind warrants a lethal response.
Shoot to wound has always been a call of the softer left, you often hear "Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?" Actually there have been several instances where Police Departments have shot to wound albeit only on other LEOs who are threatening to take their own life.
If your life is in great danger, it is still in great danger if the perp is only wounded. A wounded threat now has revenge on their mind.
Now how to "stop" the threat does include learning hip shots to break the hip so the threat cannot advance on you.
But alas, shooting to wound is only an idea you see in the movies, or until we obtain Faser weapons.
If your life is in great danger, it is still in great danger if the perp is only wounded. A wounded threat now has revenge on their mind.
Now how to "stop" the threat does include learning hip shots to break the hip so the threat cannot advance on you.
But alas, shooting to wound is only an idea you see in the movies, or until we obtain Faser weapons.
lionslayer
Inactive
Shoot to stop
Shoot to stop- shoot until opponent is no longer a threat for whatever reason, i.e., KIA, wounded beyond abilitity to any longer pose threat, ran away, voluntarily proned out with hands outstretched, or whatever...
Want a paralyzed "victim" in a wheelchair testifying about your bad behavior (with his mother and aggrieved sisters and aunts telling the jury what a "good boy" he always was), or rather the cold hard facts of the crime scene photos telling the tale ???
Shoot to stop- shoot until opponent is no longer a threat for whatever reason, i.e., KIA, wounded beyond abilitity to any longer pose threat, ran away, voluntarily proned out with hands outstretched, or whatever...
Want a paralyzed "victim" in a wheelchair testifying about your bad behavior (with his mother and aggrieved sisters and aunts telling the jury what a "good boy" he always was), or rather the cold hard facts of the crime scene photos telling the tale ???
I'll keep him covered from a distance until the heat shows up.i agree
i think you should shoot to stop aswell. but i also think you should for the highest chance of success which is the torso. above the belly button, below the clavical. you are most likley to fatally wound in that region than any other. so if you are shooting for high success you are shooting to kill. you may not but your chances are pretty good. i think that shooting to wound (in the arm or leg) is not smart at all and wound not teach it nor reccomend it to anyone. but it is always shooter prefence. thanks... joe.
i think you should shoot to stop aswell. but i also think you should for the highest chance of success which is the torso. above the belly button, below the clavical. you are most likley to fatally wound in that region than any other. so if you are shooting for high success you are shooting to kill. you may not but your chances are pretty good. i think that shooting to wound (in the arm or leg) is not smart at all and wound not teach it nor reccomend it to anyone. but it is always shooter prefence. thanks... joe.
God-Forbid you ever have to shoot someone. If you do and if you are not pursued by the local D.A., odds are you will be sued civily. Hence all these posts and all these threads may become evidenciary. It behooves us all to remember that, not only when we answer posts about what we would do, or how we will "handle it", but also be smart and think carefully regarding phraseology when asking questions in this very public forum.
This is the sort of mental training that needs to go hand in hand with all the actual hardware training we do to become proficient and responsible armed citizens. Train your mind to be responsible for your own well-being should the worst case scenario ever come to be a bad reality. Carry yourself before and after that fact so as to minimize your exposure to life changing (in a very bad way) litigation. To answer your original question, if you must shoot, it will be to stop someone who has the means, proximity, and manifested intent to harm (kill) you or another. You must, at that instant believe that your or another's life is imminently threatened.
SatCong
This is the sort of mental training that needs to go hand in hand with all the actual hardware training we do to become proficient and responsible armed citizens. Train your mind to be responsible for your own well-being should the worst case scenario ever come to be a bad reality. Carry yourself before and after that fact so as to minimize your exposure to life changing (in a very bad way) litigation. To answer your original question, if you must shoot, it will be to stop someone who has the means, proximity, and manifested intent to harm (kill) you or another. You must, at that instant believe that your or another's life is imminently threatened.
SatCong
hummelsander
New member
What about the "three shots, he's out" technique? As you come up first shot to the abs, second to the chest, third to the head. He's out.
The question I've always had is what criteria are applied to follow-up shots, and the time lag between each shot. Here's an example:
I fire a shot, and hit the threat. He doesn't go down - but, if I took time to notice, I might notice that he's stopped long enough to look down at the wound. Does he still constitute a threat (he hasn't dropped his weapon, he hasn't dropped to the ground, he hasn't asked me to stop)?
The reason I'm asking is because I can fire four or five shots at close range at a very rapid pace - probably five shots in 1 second if I'm pushing it. So I shoot him five times. Am I accountable to re-assess between each shot, or not? Or, what is the minimum time span where I would be held accountable? If I took 1 second between each shot, would I then be accountable for the re-assessment between each shot?
Also, if witnesses hear a "fusillade" of shots, and they're all yours, and you empty the pistol into the threat in just over a second, is that going beyond trying to "stop the threat"?
I fire a shot, and hit the threat. He doesn't go down - but, if I took time to notice, I might notice that he's stopped long enough to look down at the wound. Does he still constitute a threat (he hasn't dropped his weapon, he hasn't dropped to the ground, he hasn't asked me to stop)?
The reason I'm asking is because I can fire four or five shots at close range at a very rapid pace - probably five shots in 1 second if I'm pushing it. So I shoot him five times. Am I accountable to re-assess between each shot, or not? Or, what is the minimum time span where I would be held accountable? If I took 1 second between each shot, would I then be accountable for the re-assessment between each shot?
Also, if witnesses hear a "fusillade" of shots, and they're all yours, and you empty the pistol into the threat in just over a second, is that going beyond trying to "stop the threat"?
jtkwon ~
I asked some similar questions during a class I took from Marty Hayes at the Firearms Academy of Seattle. Marty's answer has stuck with me: "You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger."
The answers to all the questions you ask are found inside that very basic truth.
pax
I asked some similar questions during a class I took from Marty Hayes at the Firearms Academy of Seattle. Marty's answer has stuck with me: "You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger."
The answers to all the questions you ask are found inside that very basic truth.
pax