Shoot to kill? Your opinions on self defense...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am young (22) and I have a CCW, and I have one opinion if I have to use my pistol in deadly force.

Shoot to stop.

This means I shoot the sorry bastard who is trying to seriously hurt/kill me or anyone around me in the head a few times, and that will STOP him. Point made, I NEURTALIZED him officer :D Didn't mean to kill him! :p

"Shoot first, ask questions later, and thank GOD you are alive!!!"
 
Welcome to TFL Shy Man. Make yourself comfortable and enjoy the site. There seemes to be something here for nearly everyone.

May I ask where you are in Asia?

Sam
 
You don't "shoot to kill", or "shoot to wound". You shoot to stop. You have no right to be judge, jury & executioner. Whether an attacker dies from his wound(s) is not the concern of the moment. What is important is that the attacker stop what he is doing immediately. Also, in a combat situation no one is good enough to shoot for the so-called non vital areas.

wahuwa
 
Shoot to disable? Shoot to kill? Just show the gun?

None of the above.

I'll shoot to stop. I don't care whether he lives or dies.

If I pull a gun in self defense, it's because someone represents a grave threat, and I will shoot until he no longer represents a threat.

So I point it at center mass and pull the trigger again and again until the threat ends.

Which means he has about half-a-second to turn and run. If he
does, I won't chase him down. Or he can freeze, and then follow my directions exactly. But if he acts in such a way that I judge that he remains a threat, in that half second between my drawing the gun and bringing it on target, I'm going to shoot.

And I'm going to keep shooting until he is lying on the ground unconscious.

If he lives after that, fine. I'm not looking for justice, and I'm not seeking revenge.

But eliminating the threat comes first. And if his actions are such that they justify deadly force on my part, well, those actions were his decision. not mine.
 
I shoot to live, but I guess that's the same as shooting to kill. If I am gonna shoot someone, I am gonna be prepared to take their life so that I may go home that evening.
 
I disagree with the "shoot to stop" crowd. IMO that is basically a response to the legal issues surrounding self defense when using lethal force. Self defense happens in the real world with people that will do what they can to prey on you and others and still survive.

The older I get the less I like Ayoob's advice, at least the stuff he publishes, because his primary goal there is to teach you to survive the legal battle (or avoid being sued himself). Which is of lesser importance than surviving the actual event.

In the real world you may have a good reason for doing something like shooting to maim. Say you went prone behind a car (to avoid incoming fire) and could ID Goblin's foot, shooting the foot would be perfectly reasonable. Have read at least one report of a cop doing just that.

I would strongly suggest getting Walt Rauch's book "Real World Survival! What Has Worked For Me." and Jim Cirillo's "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights"

The first 3 chapters in Walt Rauch's book covers what your asking about very well.

Another thing never mentioned in print, at least not anywhere I have looked, is that if your protecting your family at the mall or in the parking lot against multiple goblins you might need to be more proactive in your actions than most "experts" would recommend. If your loading a child into a car seat with another kid already in the car on the other side and two or more Goblins approach how do you handle it within the letter of the law without giving the goblins a decisive advantage? I am not saying you should just start shooting when strangers walk up to your car, but you might (reasonably) end up displaying a weapon to make a point.
 
I'll take the "shoot to stop" option.

The phrase "center of mass" actually refers to the middle of the triangle formed by the BG's suprasternal notch (thats the indentation where the collar bones meet the sternum at the lower end of the neck) and nipples (these external features correspond to the location of the heart, lungs and spine, which offer good chances of rapidly disabling the BG).

Real BGs may not offer such a large target area, and so it may be necessary to translate this into "shoot at the center of the best target area presented by the BG". If all you can see is a foot and a piece of leg, by all means shoot him there (it may be the best target you will have an option of shooting at).

Read the part about the thief in the night (i.e. a person who must be assumed to have lethal intent) and the householder not being culpable for his demise.
 
Shoot to stop

I'm not worried about the legal ramifications of self-defense. I figure you'll probably be sued by the bad guys family whether you were justified or not.

I believe if the situation is desperate enought to require gunfire we should not "shoot to kill" or "shoot to wound". The reasons for this are quite simple. First, it is not our function to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Therefore, we should not be placed in the position of making a conscious, deliberate decision to kill anyone. At the same time, it is negligent in the extreme to attempt any sort of "shooting to wound" under combat conditions. Remember we only shoot as a last resort to halt a lethal atack, and this highly charged situation will be complicated by stress, possible injuries or fatigue from a fight, by poor light or bad weather, and by other factors. under these conditions, NO ONE is good enough to shoot for the extremities or so-called non-vital areas. To attempt such a shot under these conditions almost always results in a clean miss, which not only recklessly endangers everyone downrange, it reduces your chances of survival.

Therefore, if forced to shoot at a human being, you should "shoot to stop". The goal is to render the attacker physically incapable of further hostile action as quickly as possible, in order to save your life or that of an innocent person. Whether the attacker recovers from his wounds or dies is not the question of the moment; the sole over-riding concern is that he immediately STOP what he is doing. For this reason, any shot fired at a human being should be directed with the intention of striking a vital area, with the intention of disrupting vital bodily functions and quickly rendering the attacker incapable of pressing his attack further. Shoot no more than necessary to stop the attacker's aggressive actions, but continue to fire until he is no longer able to effectively fight back, continuing to endanger your life or that of others.

Just my .02,

wahuwa
 
Okay, dealing with a crisis situation is IMHO mainly a question of mindset and proper reflexes [or skills/techniques if you prefer]. We are not judging, jurying, or executing...we are TRYING to survive and/or protect innocents.

I disagree with the idea of shooting to stop because gunfire, especially from handguns, is not very likely to stop someone. If you tell yourself your shooting to stop what will you do under stress when you keep shooting and goblin doesn't stop? If you have trained programed yourself to shoot center of mass till they stop you might run into problems.

I do like Ayoob's case files, and if you read them or Jim Cirillo's book you will find many cases of people taking solid center of mass hits with no seeming effect.

I have a personal friend who is a retired cop that has seen the elephant and like Cirillo he mentions the dismay [not sure of correct word here] that one feels when your shooting at a goblin and HITTTING them and the bullets don't seem to have any effect.

I think you should think shoot to kill or as Walt Rauch puts it shoot to destroy. Because there is an important distinction to one's mindset. As a practical matter you shouldn't use restraint once you reach the decision to use deadly force. The reason your resorting to deadly force is because nothing else will work in this situation.

I don't know if I am being clear enough to get this point across to those who don't know it already. If you talk to people who have seen the elephant more than once, you will notice how their perspective is clearly different from most of the "experts" who haven't. Or if you can find case studies were the same person has had at least two seperate deadly encounters [see "The Ayoob Files: The Book" for a couple of examples] you can see how the experiance changes the way they deal with goblins.
 
Mace???

Have you considered Mace as a first line of defense? You can shoot straight to the eyes without having to worry about *killing* anybody, then if this fails you can use your gun; You will have less trouble proving your self defense/innocence in court; you gave the BG a chance, but he was not longer a person but an animal coming on to you and your family.
 
There you are going about your lawful, peaceful business when a number of Goblins approach. You asses the situation and believe they plan to harm you and/or those with you. You have a lawful concealed weapon on you and you draw it with every intention of stopping the threat. Upon realizing that they now confront dangerous prey the Goblins immediately, before you can fire, break off and remove their threat.

The question is "Did you illeagally BRANDISH your firearm??" or should you still fire rounds?
 
Glamdring,

Whether the attacker lives or dies is not the concern.
As for being an "expert" I don't claim to be anywhere near one. My training & understanding of the use of deadly force comes from Tom Givens, head instructor of Rangemaster, who is ranked second (second to the chief firearms instructor for the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va.) in the world by the International Defensive Pistol Association.

regards,
wahuwa
 
DPSproles said: "I am a Christian and have conflicting feelings about this. Do I struggle with defending my family or myself? NOT AT ALL! Do I struggle with killing the guy that is intending harm to my wife, son and daughter...NOT AT ALL? DO I struggle with killing him if I can stop him instead of killing him? KINDA'"

Wahuwa: You say "Whether the attacker lives or dies is not the concern". Which is both true and false. As a practical matter we don't care if the goblin lives or dies as long we can "stop" him. But as a question of mindset you do have to be prepared to kill if your going to use a gun or other lethal weapon.

In the original post it is clear that if he knows it is goblins life or his life, or his families lives the decision to use lethal force is simple and clear cut. But if he isn't 100% positive that it is this life or that life he is worried that he will make the wrong decision.

So the question is about the moral/ethical problem of killing someone where you might have had an alternative. But to survive you can't afford to dither during the event. You have to decide for yourself what the decision point for using lethal force will be and be prepared to live with the consequinces. The way I resolve it is to try everything I can to avoid having to use lethal force [seek tactical high ground, using voice and words, etc] but once the trigger point is reached it is all or nothing.

I don't like the "shoot to stop" phrase because I think it encourages one to delude themself about the consequence(s) of using deadly force. When you use a gun on a living target your trying to kill it. Remember one of the basic rules of gun safety "Don't let your gun muzzle cover anything your not willing to destroy"? To me "shooting to stop" is akin to "shooting to wound". With most people there is a certain natural reluctance to kill another person and when dealing with goblins that can cost lives of the goodguys. I think you need to be mentally prepared to kill when you pull your gun. Saying something like I will "Shoot to stop" can lead to self delusion or plain misunderstanding about the reality of using firearms for self defense. Especially with someone that has never hunted or shot anything but paper with their gun, like a lot of shall issue CCW people or LEO.

What I was trying to say in connection to people that have "faced the elephant" was that the people who live thru it tend to move the trigger point for lethal action a bit closer. Or in other words they won't risk themselves, or their loved ones, as much just to avoid using lethal force on a goblin. They have learned the hard way what misplaced compassion can cost.
 
"Whether the attacker recovers from his wounds or dies is not the question of the moment; the sole over-riding concern is that he immediately STOP what he is doing."

Exactly so.

I don't care whether he lives or dies, or rather, he's created a situation where such concerns are no longer relevent.

Given the choice between shooting him someplace that will drop him right now, and let him live, or shooting him someplace that will certainly kill him, but may let him function for twenty or thirty seconds, I will choose the former.

I will do what I judge is most likely to render him incapable of continuing whatever it was that he was doing that made my shooting him reasonable and proper, in the fastest, and most reliable way.

Whether that kills him or not is really beside the point.
 
Mace! When I was working as military cop a friend of mine, another cop, and one who had a screw loose or two, came up and hosed me down with Mace. It teeeed me off so I hose him and the inside of his car down with my Mace. Neither of us was incapacitated in the least. Neither of us will ever use Mace on a BG ever.

Another friend of mine is SWAT and his partner, now dead, unloaded every one of the slugs in his 12 ga into a BGs chest. The BG lasted long enough to kill the cop with the empty shotgun and then ran off and died over 50 yards away with a chest full of slugs and pulp. Heart was blown out. BG was on PCP and other drugs, a BIG Biker, fighter.

So, yes, you are correct, center of mass is not always enough. NOW, my cop friend who lost his partner, says his mind-set is only to use center of head shots and if he needs to anchor them with a couple to the chest first so they don't bob the head around he will. His ideas changed and his mind-set. He carries a 10mm Delta Elite with the original Norma rounds as his backup and a 12 gauge instead of a pistol otherwise.
 
i say shoot to kill. if you are going to use a firearm you must be prepared to use deadly force. your life and your families life are much more important than the thug who has threatened you. if i used my weapon it would be to end the situation pronto!

save your life first. sort the legal issues out later.
 
I too believe that the threat of deadly force releases me to use deadly force to stop that threat. I train to respond as quickly as I can with the standard failure to stop drill.

really, though, the only reason I decided to weigh in here was to relate part of a conversation I had with a good friend who leans towards the anti side. he said, "How could you kill someone over the money in your wallet?"

I said, "You just don't get it; it has nothing to do with the money. That's a completely misguided way of looking at it; it makes it look like I'm putting a dollar amount on a human life.

"I don't care if he's pulling a weapon over money or if he wants me to change the date on my watch. The fact of the matter is that I'm being threatened with deadly force and all the rules are off. It's not 1950 anymore. There's no guarantee they'll just leave with whatever they can get. They will still shoot. And I haven't worked my @ss off my entire life to have it ended by some piece of ****, not if I can do something about it. You're looking at it from the point of view of hindsight. Look at it from the beginning of the situation. You don't, you can't know what's going to happen. But you do know there's something you can do to end it in your favor."

I guess I should stop there.

molon labe,

-alex.
 
DPS,

You said, "ASSUMING: you are legally carrying a CCW and that the BG is showing a viable threat to your life...."

Viable threat? If you mean imminent threat as in charging you with a knife, then it's you or him. If you mean he's pointing a firearm at you in a progressing shooting posture, it's him or you.

If you mean he's displaying the potential to kill you but hasn't taken action to immediately kill you, there are some issues to consider. It's not advisable to shoot armed LEOs just because they are looking mean at you ....

That brings us to this little prerequisite before you shoot. It's a really good idea to have otherwise ascertained the deadly intent of the BG. Just approaching you with a weapon isn't good enough. If he's far enough away for you to draw and point YOUR weapon without getting blown away by him first, can you take cover first? If it's a LEO, you will die upon going for YOUR weapon. If not, the BG will PROBABLY miss if you quickly move laterally to cover.

There's training that's more important than shooting well. It's behavioral training -- call it defensive living analogous to defensive driving. Stay out of the situations where you would have to resort to your LAST option, which is shooting. Once you go there, your life will never be the same. If you must go there, do so with a clear mind, and shoot to kill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top