Shoot to Kill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David Scott

New member
In another thread, a comment was made along the lines of "I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to neutralize the threat. Death is a byproduct of that".

I'd like to start off a discussion of the whole shoot to kill issue with what Drill Sergeant Hunter told me back in '73. "A wounded enemy can still fight. The only guaranteed way to stop an aggressor is to kill him dead."

Non-gunnie friends have sometimes commented on newspaper stories of shootings with things like, "Did they have to kill him? Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg or something?" That's when I quote Sgt. Hunter, but some people who learned guns from Hollywood still think the average good guy can shoot the bad guy's pistol out of his hand.

IMHO, if things get to such an extreme that you have to draw a handgun in self defense, the only acceptable outcome is a dead aggressor. I wonder about one thing, though. If the BG is seriously hit, down and bleeding, but not dead yet, are you legally justified in putting him out of your misery?

I ask this because I once read a news story about a robber who was shot twice, once in a lung and once in the liver. He was on the floor, but apparently he held out just long enough to reach his fallen weapon and blow off the shopkeeper's foot.
 
Death is an unfortunate by-product of threat neutralization in many instances.

The difference between that and what SGT Hunter told you is that as a soldier, you are not likely to be sitting in a court of law, defending your use of force, and neither will your opponent. This is where the semantic distinction becomes important.

I normally would call a spade just that, but attorney's make their living by picking apart your words. If they can demonstrate that you were out to kill the dearly departed member of his client's family, then you will likely lose your case. Read some of Mas Ayoob's columns on shootings for better info than I can give you.

------------------
Panzerführer

Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die Säue.

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't.
 
David....in our non military self defence world full of courts, lawyers and other scavengers; the safer terminology is "Shoot to stop". Of course the ultimate stop is a good cns shut down.

If you state to the inquisitors that you shot to wound, it may be assumed that you did not need to shoot at all or you would have shot to kill. Degree of threat etc.

If you state that you shot to kill, then you "have a killer mentality"

If you shoot to "STOP" then you show yourself in a good light to the peers that will be passing judgement on your judgement.

If the guy is down but still an immediate threat, you haven't stopped him YET.

Your mileage will vary from state to state regarding your obligations. Figure that you will be in legal doodoo however it happens and make the best of it. Best to not give any more than name rank and serial number untill you have spoken to a lawyer.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
At the risk of injecting Hollywood into this discussion, I always considered the advice that the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) gave to Butch Cassidy, after Paul Newman's character confessed that he had never shot anyone, to be good; at least (speaking for myself) for amateurs. Sundance advised him to "aim for the middle; you're bound to hit something." It might even make for a pretty good defense...
 
The distinction here is legally important and, in my mind, ethically important as well (not intended as a flame to anyone).

The idea of shooting to neutralize the threat is appropriate since the victim of the engagement can take nothing more of value away in the situation than his own life. He is not trying to kill the goblin, exactly, he is trying to stay alive.

You pop him until he is face down on the ground and not moving and keep your weapon pointed at him at all times. Dead or not, the point here is that he doesn't move. Intentionally killing him really never comes in to play. He may look dead, but be merely unconcious from shock, blood loss etc. The point is that you not set out to kill, but set out to prevent yourself from being killed or harmed. I know it doesn't sound like much of a distinction, but it is.

In my case, any butt-nugget that forces me into a situation where I have to shoot him will probably be dead...I intend to place rounds center mass until he stops twitching :D
 
Texas Dept of Public Safety implemented and controls the CHL program in Texas. They teach the instructors to teach the students that use of deadly force is a last resort and used only to stop and/or neutralize the threat of serious bodily injury or death. (These terms are all "official" or "legal" terms used only as defined in Texas Penal Code Chapter 9.)

DPS and the State Attorney General are good enough sources for me. Your state may have different rules. (God bless Texas!)
-----

I believe they are trying to show that should you continue to shoot after the threat is neutralized (down, seriously hurt, running away or in any way unable to maintain the "threat") you can then be charged with a capital crime.

We're neither James Bond nor Wyatt Earp. We don't have a "license to kill" at will. It is a defense issue - and defense issue only.

Those people who can not differentiate between defense and killing need to learn before they can be trusted in public with a firearm.
 
There are some useful points being made here. However, if we're looking at legal ramifications of a self-defense shooting, it would seem that a follow-up shot on a down-but-not-dead assailant would be highly inadvisable outside a military context. Those of you who remember the Bernie Goetz trial may recall all the trouble he bought for himself with his comment, "You don't look so bad, here's another."

You shoot to stop. If stopping is fatal, then that's tough. But if it's not, you're going to have a hard time on the witness stand when the lawyer ask you why you shot his client when he was lying on the floor bleeding, wounded, and helpless.
 
Scenario #1:

ADA: Mr. Edwards, you shot the victim twice in the chest, once in the abdomen, and once in the head -- this is known as a "Mozambique," isn't it? Anyway, after shooting the victim twice in the chest with your .45 calibre automatic, all but killing him, you still shot him in belly, and in the face, disfiguring him so badly that his mother couldn't identify the body -- why did you do that?

Me: Tactical doctrine indicates that two rounds to the center of mass, followed by a single round to the lower torso, and then the head if the first three rounds have no apparent affect, has the highest percentage chance of ending the engagement with fewest rounds fired (minimal colateral damage) and greatest safety to the intended victim, which was me.

...

"... we the members of the jury find the defendant liable for the death of ..."

Scenario #2:

ADA: Mr. Edwards, you shot the defendent seven times in the chest and abdomen...

Me: Uh, yeah... I was scared to death! I didn't realize at the time how many times I pulled the trigger, I just kept shooting until he fell down.

ADA: But, Mr. Edwards, you emptied your .45 calibre automatic -- and then your reloaded!

Me: Well, yeah... the slide locked back, and I just automatically performed a stoppage drill -- ejected the magazine, loaded a fresh one, and released the slide.

ADA: And you did this so you could shoot the victim again!

Me: No, I did it because that's what I was trained to do. And, besides, the man that attacked me was already incapacitated... I had no reason to shoot him again.

ADA: Incapacitated?!? HE WAS DEAD!

Me: And I'm sorry about that, really I am -- but I tried to walk away, and I asked him not to press the situation, but then he pulled a knife and came towards me -- I had no choice. I was so scared, and it happened so fast, that I didn't even realize that I'd drawn my weapon until after I'd already fired.

...

"... we the jury find the defendant acted justifiably in using deadly force, and is not liable for the death of ..."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sedwards:
Scenario #1:

ADA: Mr. Edwards, you shot the victim twice in the chest, once in the abdomen, and once in the head -- this is known as a "Mozambique," isn't it? Anyway, after shooting the victim twice in the chest with your .45 calibre automatic, all but killing him, you still shot him in belly, and in the face, disfiguring him so badly that his mother couldn't identify the body -- why did you do that?

Me: Tactical doctrine indicates that two rounds to the center of mass, followed by a single round to the lower torso, and then the head if the first three rounds have no apparent affect, has the highest percentage chance of ending the engagement with fewest rounds fired (minimal colateral damage) and greatest safety to the intended victim, which was me.

...

"... we the members of the jury find the defendant liable for the death of ..."

Scenario #2:

ADA: Mr. Edwards, you shot the defendent seven times in the chest and abdomen...

Me: Uh, yeah... I was scared to death! I didn't realize at the time how many times I pulled the trigger, I just kept shooting until he fell down.

ADA: But, Mr. Edwards, you emptied your .45 calibre automatic -- and then your reloaded!

Me: Well, yeah... the slide locked back, and I just automatically performed a stoppage drill -- ejected the magazine, loaded a fresh one, and released the slide.

ADA: And you did this so you could shoot the victim again!

Me: No, I did it because that's what I was trained to do. And, besides, the man that attacked me was already incapacitated... I had no reason to shoot him again.

ADA: Incapacitated?!? HE WAS DEAD!

Me: And I'm sorry about that, really I am -- but I tried to walk away, and I asked him not to press the situation, but then he pulled a knife and came towards me -- I had no choice. I was so scared, and it happened so fast, that I didn't even realize that I'd drawn my weapon until after I'd already fired.

...

"... we the jury find the defendant acted justifiably in using deadly force, and is not liable for the death of ..."
[/quote]


Sedwards, your description is excellent.

But why can you do both? Shoot the 'Mozambique' technique and just keep your mouth shut about it. When the idiot ADA asks, you reply just as you did in the second scenario.

I'd love to see them try to prove how good a shot i am!!! :D

The best advice i've ever been give (and it was free), tell them nothing but Name,Rank and Serial Number, until you speak with a competent lawyer.




------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Shoot to:

-Stop the attack
-Repel the attack
-Incapacitate the attacker
-Neutralize the attacker
-Maim (perhaps)

But not kill. Make a habit to use these phrases often, so that in the heat of the critical moment of defense, a witness doesn't hear you shout "I'm gonna kill you."

The verbal phrase to a VTA which I practice (and have had to use once) is this:

"GET AWAY FROM ME. I'M ARMED. IF YOU THREATEN ME, I'LL SHOOT YOU." Say this loudly and authoritatively over and over until the VTA retreats or you have to shoot, so that witnesses can hear that you tried to avoid the attack. Walk backwards if possible while you are saying these words.

Forget about "winging" somebody. The law well recognizes that an injured person can still kill you, so you're justified in shooting COM/Vitals/CNS, provided that the criteria for deadly force are met. It is just an unfortunate fact that the human body is constructed in such a way thst the exact same targets that are likely to incapacitate are ALSO those areas that are most likely to KILL a VTA when hit, not to mention that COM is much easier to hit, as a larger target when TSHTF, which is another justification for shooting there. Hey, if the human body had a biological "spot" that would immediately or very quickly incapacitate without a high liklihood of serious injury or death, then by all means we would shoot for that spot - but the fact remains there is no such spot, so among the two "evils", being killed by the VTA, or defending oneself by shooting to incapacitate, which is likely to kill, the latter is certainly the lesser.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited July 21, 2000).]
 
Abdomen shot following two to center mass of the chest is a tactical error IMO.

If two center-mass to the chest do not STOP the BG there is a good possibility he is wearing body armor. That is the reason to follow with one to center mass of the head. A third shot into a ballistic vest is simply a waist of time.



------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”
 
And ladies and gentlemen is why I have the business card to a Fire-arms-law lawyer taped to my CCP.
My instructor did a very good job of describing the personal little hell you'll go though after defending your self. And calling your lawyer is the highest priority of "securing the scene" after a DUOF.
1)Call 911
2)Secure all weapons, esp. any used by the criminal. Snag any witness before they bolt.
3) Call your lawyer.
4) Call your family and tell them you won't be home for dinner.
5) Shut up.

Nice thing is is that Utah is a very defensive use friendly state, and so are the Cops. I saw one shoot go down where a taxi cab driver (and CCP holder) fired 5 shots at a man stealing his taxi after wrestling with him, that resulted in a tire hit and accident a block down the road. All on a crowded street in front of a Dance Club. The head cop on the scene called it a "obvious use of his second amendment rights." I thought it was a bad shoot. Taxi cab driver walked, Car thief didn't. Looking back, the Sergant must of been very pro-gun and realized what a fieldday the press would've had with that.
 
People use firearms for the purpose of effectively defending themselves and others from aggression. Might their defense result in the death of another? Of course.

You "shoot to neutralize/stop the threat" because your objective is to neutralize/stop the threat. If death results, it is merely a bye-product of your intention to halt the aggressor's activity.

You "shoot to kill" because your objective is to kill.

There is a significant destinction between the two.
 
Not to mention, any shooting is a use of deadly force, whether or not you shot in the leg or a cns shot.

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
 
I'd like to start off a discussion of the whole shoot to kill issue with what Drill Sergeant Hunter told me back in '73. "A wounded enemy can still fight. The only guaranteed way to stop an aggressor is to kill him dead."

That was for war. You operate in a time of general peace. Your ONLY goal in shooting someone is to STOP him long enough for you to get you and yours safely away.

IMHO, if things get to such an extreme that you have to draw a handgun in self defense, the only acceptable outcome is a dead aggressor.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

The only acceptable outcome in shooting an aggressor is to make him stop being aggressive long enough for you to leave intact. If, once the threat ceases, you shoot again you are a MURDERER and should be thrown in a cage for a long time to consider the evil you did, and to prevent you from doing it to anyone else.

I wonder about one thing, though. If the BG is seriously hit, down and bleeding, but not dead yet, are you legally justified in putting him out of your misery?

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

We use guns to PROTECT life, NOT with the intent to take it! Much as we refer to bad guys as "goblins", "scum", whatever, the guy bleeding to death on the ground there is a HUMAN BEING. Once YOU are safe, it is YOUR moral responsibility to (within reason) care for him and see to it that he survives.

The criteria for shooting an assailant is:

1. Does he have the ABILITY to inflict death or grave bodily harm to an innocent?
2. Does he have the OPPORTUNITY to inflict death or grave bodily harm to an innocent?
3. Is he behaving in a way that puts an innocent in JEOPARDY death or grave bodily harm?

If the answer to ALL THREE is YES, then hit him hard repeatedly until the answer to at least one is NO.

Two "yes" answers is not enough. Right now I am capable of two "yes" answers, but an absolute "no" to the third one deems me harmless.

Your example of the injured perp shooting someone in the foot shows that though injured, one may remain dangerous. Nobody bothered to remove his weapon from his reach. Duh! Stop the assailant, disarm him, and then provide aid to the injured.

Again: the purpose of carrying and using deadly weapons is to PRESERVE LIFE; the ONLY time we exercise deadly force is because someone's gonna die and it's up to you to adjust who. Once the threat to an innocent life is gone, you MUST stop - lest one of us in turn has to stop you.
 
A problem with the "shoot to kill" mentality is that it IS a mentality: if you have to shoot a perp, and he is then lying there harmless, you will likely still be operating in automatic mode, and the "shoot to kill" mindset will direct you to do exactly that to a (now) HARMLESS individual. "Shoot to stop" lets you stop the attack; "shoot to kill" takes you one step farther and over the moral/legal/ethical/social line that will result in the unnecessary death of a citizen and the rest of us putting you in a cage.
 
Carl is well trained in these issues and on the money.

There are cases where firing against someone is not a threat causes serious criminal charges against you. I would be frank and say if you shot to put someone out of their misery, I would vote to convict you.

This is an honest post and asks a gutsy set of questions. However, it convinces me that if you are serious in carrying and using a weapon, you need to study the local laws and philosophical issues.
 
Well said, ct. We carry weapons in the interest of preserving life. Putting someone 'out of their misery' is known as 'executing'. Shoot to stop vs. shoot to kill...a subtle difference? It's the whole ball of wax.

It's what separates you from the animal.

- gabe
 
Dennis wrote, "Those people who can not differentiate between defense and killing need to learn before they can be trusted in public with a firearm."

Maybe. I think I know what you meant. However, I am not sure that is what you wrote.

Say you recognize that the rapist in your daughters room that you just shot you had seen on the 11'oclock news last night for the rape and viscious murders of 7 other young women.

The suspect isn't dead yet.

You shoot him as he moves to grab the bedsheet to stuff in his wound to stop his bleeding.

Would it be morally wrong to do justice to this person and shoot again to finish the job?

Is it morally right to let a known rapist/murderer live?

Officer, he moved after I said, "Don't move."

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Though at this time I tend to feel its morally wrong to let this cancer on society contine to live in it.

Sprig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top