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

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the legal standpoint, I shoot to stop. That means center of the chest, and if that doesn't stop the perp, then the head. All I'm trying to do is stop the attack. If I draw the gun and he runs away, great. If I have to shoot and he dies, so be it.

Shooting to kill would mean that if he stops the attack, you keep shooting. That's called murder round these parts, often resulting in life without parole.

If you haven't already, I suggest that you read Andrew Branca's The Law of Self Defense, and Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme.

Regarding the religious issues, I believe that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" was mistranslated. It is my understanding that the original was closer to "thou shalt not murder." There's a very big difference there. Defending yourself or your loved ones from a deadly attack is not murder, even if the perp dies.

M1911
 
Many years ago, I was faced with a situation in which I had to decide in a split second whether or not to shoot 2 assailants. Through my thought process, my only concern was survival. The thread is regarding self defense. You are defending from aggression threatening you. Shoot to end the aggression.
 
Glamdring, I might be mistaken, but I think you're mis-reading the meaning of "stop" as it's being used.

Col. Jeff was once asked if he shot to kill or shot to wound. He said "neither"; he shot to stop. Further conversation indicated he meant that he would shoot for the center of mass and if necessary would keep shooting until the Bad Guy stopped his aggression.

Seems to me that if you shoot and miss, but the BG turns away, he has stopped his aggression. If you shoot and hit and he falls down, he has stopped his aggression; at the immediate moment it is immaterial if he is DRT or dying or if he will recover from a wound.

Stipulating that your only intent is to survive a gratuitous deadly-force attack, your obvious task is to stop that attack. If killing is necessary to stop the attack, sobeit.

FWIW, Art
 
shoot to what? jeez you know I'd like to shoot to orgasim,,,what are you nuts,,shoot to indian burn? are you that good,,,I jumped to page 3 cause,,gee, shoot to get on the good side of someone? Only if you kill the rekcuf that tried to kill them,,pull and shoot to kill,,it isn't a toy or a vibrator...
 
maybe I was nutz,,but I'am profiecient enough and confident as a result that I've been able to use enough force to terminate the incidents,,,I'm a fool for doing so,,why jeorpordize my life put myself in a better position (for the perp) to possibly die? stupid on many levels,,if you have to pull the firearm,,,,,,,,,,tough **** do it,,though as I've just expressed I try in the moment to do only what I gotta do,,hopefully not to my demise ,,but I'm good
 
shoot to kill??

I think that this is a tough question but one that you really can't know the answer to until the time comes. however on an intellectual level you can guess. I think that in my case I would keep shooting untill I was SURE the threat was gone.
 
Military.....shoot to kill.

Non military (defensive).......shoot to STOP the threat.

Same shot placement. Difference being how the shooter's mental attitude is presented to those who will be judging the justification of killing the perp.

Don't even tell your brother or wife/husband that if in a lethal situation you would shoot to kill.. He/she may well be called to testify. If you have historically stated that you would shoot to stop, it may well be the little thing that tips the scales in your favor. If you have been known to say that you would shoot to kill, you may be protrayed as a killer just lookin for an excuse.

Best stopper probably blow out an upper vertebra, with an insurance shot or two. Should stop em.

I think Art and I are on the same wavelength. I also think some of the shoot to kill advocates haven't read the earlier pages of this post.

Sam
 
If you were a fantastic shot, could place your rounds exactly where you wanted them to go, and have them have exactly the effect you wanted them to have, if someone were to attack you, given the choice between:

a. Shooting him someplace that would be guaranteed to kill him, but would leave him mobile for up to thirty seconds, or

b. Shooting him someplace that would immediately render him unconscious, but from which he would eventually recover,

which would you choose?

The obvious answer is 'b'.

You want him to stop, now.

Whether he lives or dies is secondary.

You shoot in such a way as to eliminate the threat as quickly as possible - and that's shooting center mass.

People shot in the chest often survive. It may well be that people shot in the head or shot in the gut would be more likely to die. Doesn't matter. People shot in the chest are most likely to stop - and that is all that matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top