Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound?

The thing about "shooting to wound" is that the minute you pull your gun, you're legally considered to be using deadly force. Likewise whether you shoot him in the leg or center mass, you've still used deadly force on him.

If you are not in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm, then you have no legal authority to use deadly force, and shooting someone in the leg instead of center mass may suggest that you weren't actually in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death and had no legal right to use deadly force.

The police are required to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend a suspect, the rest of us are required to refrain from using deadly force until we are put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
 
In the case of a defensive shooting situation if you are worried about civil loses, don't! In my state(and I belive most others)a person with a knife within 21 feet is considered a deadly threat for the simple reason that it takes 1.5 seconds for a reasonably fit person to cover that distance. If you stop to think instead deal with the threat you will be dead. If you shoot the assailant and they live, deal with lawsuits then, at least you are alive, which is the prefered outcome for a defensive shooting situation.

I personaly think that all gun-owners have a responsibility to themselves and others to push politicians toward legislature that bars civil penalties to a shooter in a shoot that is deemed legaly rightous by law-enforecment officials. That way we don't have to worry.

That is my take on it for what its worth.
 
For UFO:

http://www.polite-society.org/forum...eadid=1094&highlight=Ultimate+Tactical+Course

This is another gun website. This review was written by a person with a helluva lot more training and experience then I. If you notice, the part about the SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE talking about what to do and what not to do, the judge also supports what I say. However, what the hell do I know?

I merely post this information for you to assist you. I don't really care if you follow it and/or believe it. In fact, I kinda hope you don't. Makes my pay checks alot bigger.

I don't know your background, your training, and/or your experience. However, I do know mine. I make money off of people who "don't believe." Lots of money...
 
Phil,
The fact that the author of those posts went to a 5-day tactical training school could be used against him in court too, if a DA chose to make an issue out of it. By the way.....if you're going to link to anything on the internet to prove a point it's considered very rude to link to a site where the reader has to register in advance to read it. I don't know what state you work out of but I can tell you that every CCW shooting "does not" make it all the way to jury trial, by a long shot. There were several cases out of my county of residence last year where the CCW shooter gave a statement at the scene of the shooting corraborated by witness account and drove himself home for the evening. I'm as tickled as you seem to be that you make lots of money as another high-priced dingy chugging in the muddy waters commonly referred to as the American Judicial System. Keep trying to bust people who may have had every right to defend themselves. The anti-gun folks like your work.

U.F.O.

Addendum: I just saw you work out of California. That explains a lot. Cal. is about as gun friendly as pre-WWII Germany.
 
UFO, I think Phil's just saying that if it DOES make it all the way to a jury trial by virtue of your having had the bad luck to get a slavering anti-gun, anti-self-defense DA, then impertinent things you may have written on message boards may very well come back to bite you in the butt.
 
I agree with everyone else on this, you shoot until the threat is neutralized. Unless you're a highly trained individual, I doubt you could decide in that split sec. in a high stress situation to shoot to kill or just wound, let alone get that deciding shot off succesfully to attain your goal.

In this "Great State" of Ca., law states that you can only use deadly force if your life or another person's life is in imminent grave danger, other than that you can only use as much force necessary until the threat is stopped.

Not so "Great" is it! So my advice to anyone out there is to train, train, and train some more in whatever martial disciplines you choose to, so when that day comes you're prepared to take action instead of sitting there wondering what to do while your life flashes before your eyes.

Remember, Awareness and Training are the two keys to successful self-defense in any situation. That means both mental and physical for both aspects. Other than that, read up on your local laws and state laws regarding self-defense issues, so that way you don't end up looking like some over-trained wanna-be Rambo to the judge if you land in court after defending yourself from whomever tried to hurt you in the first place.

Just like my Dad used to tell me, " Learn to use your head first before you use your fists."

Last but not least, is my favorite movie quote, " Either you're trained or you're untrained." - from Man On Fire starring Denzel Washington.
 
gee whiz

Simple Question...

Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound?

Simple answer . . . in the form of a question . . .

Can you competently shoot on the walk, on the run, in 360 degree turns, going to the knees, going to the ground without using your hands, in low light, at night, in a hostage situation, with an unfamiliar weapon? If you personally and honestly answer "no", then you have an answer to your question.

Have you ever fired a weapon without earplugs? Have you ever seen a person shot, on the ground rolling and screaming like a stuck pig? Do you anticipate that you will see an elbow, a hand, an exposed leg?

It is not a touchy question at all. Without sarcasm, I would want some one on my team that can shoot so well, so calmly, and so relaxed that he is able to ask himself that question under stress and be effective. I can't be that person. I haven't met that person in my life either, not in 40 years of active shooting.
 
Thx. mvpel.

As evidenced by my short posting history here I'm not one who attempts to be impertinent in this learning process of self defense. I've never posted some kind of "eat lead and die" diatribe on this or any other message board. I take this very seriously and I'm here to get some solid ideas and learn the right way from some of the knowledgeable folks who post here. Maybe that's what Phil meant. That's not the way I read it but hey.....communication via the internet frequently leaves much to be desired. Thanks again for the interpretive help.

U.F.O.
 
IHMO, you NEVER, EVER, EVER, shoot to kill or wound or ANYTHING AT ALL EVER, other than to :

"STOP THE IMMEDIATE THREAT TO YOUR LIFE OR ANOTHERS"

Shoot for any other reason and I hope you look good in orange.......
 
Shoot to make them stop...

As any CCW class will tell you only shoot to stop the immediate threat to your life or your loved ones. You shouldn't even be shooting threats to people you don't know since you have no idea if the person being shot was the perpetrator to begin with.

Civilians shoot only to stop the threat. That could mean you shoot miss all your bullets and if the guy starts running you let him go and stop shooting. You don't keep shooting until you wound or kill him.

The Army will tell you to shoot to kill. If someone shoots at a soldier that soldier will shoot back even if the enemy has run out of bullets, dropped his gun, or starts running. Kill the bastard to prevent him from coming back with friends or another weapon.

Cops will shoot to wound. If a guy shoots at a cop and starts running with gun in hand most cops I know will shoot him until he drops but not to kill him. To prevent a madman with a gun who already popped shots at the cop free to roam the neighboorhood.

So unless you're in a police or military capacity then you just shoot until the threat stops. And that doesn't mean you have to hit the guy to make him stop.
 
almost all the issues in new mexico quickly resolve themselves with the sight of a gun, but if i ever had to if it came down to me or the BG, or worse yet the fiance or the bad guy, the bad guy would die if i had to tear his throat out with my teeth :D
 
You know, it just doesn't require that much thought or consideration. JUST SHOOT! What do you care if the person is killed or wounded so long as the person stops doing whatever it was that threatened your life or the lives of your loved ones?

Come on, is there really all that much consideration that needs to go into shooting if you find your spouse, child, or parent in a situation where a couple of folks are beating your downed loved one with baseball bats, raping one of your loved ones, or has them held at gun/knife point as they attempt a robbery?

Besides, what you are attempting to shoot, that is to wound or to kill, is quite possibly NOT going to be the result you are attempting. Maybe you shoot to kill by attempting a head shot and the round glances off because it came in at the wrong angle to penetrate the skull. Maybe you shoot to wound, hit the guy in the leg, and he bleeds out because you hit the femoral artery. What does it matter so long as the threat ceased being a threat?

If you want to put mental power into rectifying the situation, concentrate on more salient issues such as whether or not you need to administer life-sizing first aid or if you need to immediately transport your wounded loved one to the hospital (as opposed to waiting on an ambulance) or if you need to move off to a safer location as you wait for the cops.

Terminal ballistics will do what they do and you won't have all that much direct control over them and for the situationit does not matter so long as the threat stopped.
 
I shoot the way I train.
#1 I shoot to save my life.
#2 I shoot to stop a threat.
#3 I shoot to stop that threat in the most expeditious way possible.

I aim for center mass to maximize my chances of hitting a moving target under stress, in such a way that the threat to my life is removed quickly and effectively.

Just as the threat to my life is out of my hands, the threat to the BG's life is out of my hands. If he dies, his death is the result of his attack, not my response.
 
My CHL instructor put it this way. Shoot to stop. You shoot as many times as necessary at center mass to stop the threat. You stop shooting when the bad guy stops attacking. If the bad guy happens to die as a result of being stopped, that's his problem.
 
Thats ease to answer

I would shoot to stop, to end the threat to my life, and there would have to first be a threat to my life for me to shoot.
But in saying that, the shots would be with trainging, kill zones and only kill zones, that will stop an asalant faster than trying to wound.
Offended,,, no
its a good question and one we all have to answer. If your not willing to take a life in protecting your own or your loved ones, do not have a gun. There is to much chance of the asalant taking it away from you and killing you and your house hold.
Which would you rather live with, the death of some one in the act of killing you or a loved one, or living with the death of a loved one becouse you did nothing.
Its an easy one for me to answer and live with.
I would spend the remainder of my life in jail if it saved the life of the woman I call my wife.
 
I don't think there is such a thing as 'shooting to wound' and I will not seek to address legal tests as these vary from state to state and I am not an American Attorney (I'm an Australian one ). The only 'reasonably safe' justification regarding use of deadly force these days is if your life, or that of someone else is threatened, and killing them is therefore the lesser of two evils.

Other than for this extreme position I would never use a gun for self defence. Even pulling a gun on someone is likely to invite a lawsuit for nervous shock / nightmares etc from some opportunistic crook.
 
I agree with Lawyer Daggit and several others who have posted, that unless
you are convinced without a doubt that either your life, or someone else's
life is in immediate danger, DON'T shoot.
I've been through the CHL course in Texas three times, and I came out of
all three classes without any doubt that the instant I pulled out a pistol in
any kind of confrontation, I was going to (at the very least) have to pay
out a LARGE sum of money to an attorney to keep me out of jail, possibly
have to pay a judgement in a civil suit, or possibly go to prison. Not any
of those options are very appealing to me.
I have yet to draw my firearm, thank God, but I carry it every day. I have
a responsibility, in my opinion, to my wife and my family, to defend my life
against the Bad Guys, and I will continue to do so.
If it ever comes down to a "shoot-out", I guess I will rely on 'Range-Training',
Marine Corps training, and whatever common sense I can muster in the heat
of the moment.
Two tours in Viet Nam taught me that a whole lot of knowledge goes right
out the window when the lead starts whizzing around your ears. It is
just a heck of a lot easier to use your senses to avoid a gunfight than it
is to try to shoot your way through one, or to justify yourself after the fact.
 
Well I think shoot to stop answers the question completely, but to add my two cents; Even in situations where non-lethal force is applied to apprehending a perp (ie: stun guns, tasers, baton, restraints, ect.) people become injured and even die.
The warped situation is departments and governments pay settlements to the injured perps or survivors even if no wrong doing in the arrest is proven. So even if you know your training, your justified, and its the best course of action, we all as taxpayers get to foot the bill for these actions warranted or not one way or another.
Shoot to stop and hope this very action of intent diffuses the situation.

Will Rodgers often said: "He never met a man he didn't like."
I have to wonder how can someone be so lucky as to go through life never meeting a lawyer. :D
 
Shoot to Kill...Shoot to wound?.....Come on now...If you are attacked and you have to draw your weapon. Most people are not trained to react fast enough to think about whether or not to kill or wound. Most people in that situation will shoot to HIT...or whatever it takes to stop the threat.
 
We shoot to stop.
Period.
If after two rounds the BG drops his gun and surrenders does not mean that we finish him off a la Bernie Goetz.
Shooting to stop the attack may, in fact, occur with the mere drawing of the firearm.
SHOOT TO STOP.
End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top