You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shoot to Kill?
- Thread starter David Scott
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.[/quote]
He's suspected of rape and murder. And we all know that the Media and Law Enforcement make mistakes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Would it be morally wrong to do justice to this person and shoot again to finish the job?[/quote]
Yes. It would. Everyone has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Even--especially--the critters.
LawDog
He's suspected of rape and murder. And we all know that the Media and Law Enforcement make mistakes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Would it be morally wrong to do justice to this person and shoot again to finish the job?[/quote]
Yes. It would. Everyone has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Even--especially--the critters.
LawDog
Let's be honest. The shoot to kll/shoot to stop debate is a legal gynmastic maneuver that does not exist outside the courtroom. In the courtroom, it is very real.
Firing a bullet at an attacker is exercising lethal force. Lethal force is force that may be reasonably expected to cause death or crippling injury. It is by definition attempting to kill. There is NO way to fire at an attacker and not be trying to kill them.
Where the issue comes into play is discerning the intent of the shooter. Was the shooter acting to lawfully preserve innocent life by ending an imminent or actually occuring attack? Or did the shooter fire after the attack had occurred and there was no longer an imminent threat? The difference is between shooting an armed robber in act of committing a robbery or shooting the robber after he has made it to the car and is driving away. The former is shooting to stop. The latter is shooting to kill. Just my opinion.
Firing a bullet at an attacker is exercising lethal force. Lethal force is force that may be reasonably expected to cause death or crippling injury. It is by definition attempting to kill. There is NO way to fire at an attacker and not be trying to kill them.
Where the issue comes into play is discerning the intent of the shooter. Was the shooter acting to lawfully preserve innocent life by ending an imminent or actually occuring attack? Or did the shooter fire after the attack had occurred and there was no longer an imminent threat? The difference is between shooting an armed robber in act of committing a robbery or shooting the robber after he has made it to the car and is driving away. The former is shooting to stop. The latter is shooting to kill. Just my opinion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LawDog:
He's suspected of rape and murder. And we all know that the Media and Law Enforcement make mistakes.
LawDog
[/quote]
Well, you KNOW he is a rapist. I threw in the other information to sugest its extremely probable this isn't his first time, and its usually followed up by murder.
Is it morally wrong to let this guy live?
I have a very hard time with this. How could I live with myself if this guy gets out of jail 5 years later, and slaughters another mans daughter?
Sprig
He's suspected of rape and murder. And we all know that the Media and Law Enforcement make mistakes.
LawDog
[/quote]
Well, you KNOW he is a rapist. I threw in the other information to sugest its extremely probable this isn't his first time, and its usually followed up by murder.
Is it morally wrong to let this guy live?
I have a very hard time with this. How could I live with myself if this guy gets out of jail 5 years later, and slaughters another mans daughter?
Sprig
Franklin W. Dixon
New member
The only thing I would add to Mr. Donath's post is to clarify one point...If you're not at home, or a friends/family members home...you're "out and about," in other words, shoot to stop em long enough to make it to safety, sure, but don't go too far away, either, unless you're still in danger.
Get to the nearest phone and report it yourself if possible.
Last thing you need is to be stopped on your way home after some passer-by reported someone of your description, and driving your car, had just gunned someone down and fled. Remember, the cops have all the power when this stuff goes down, some have common sense, some don't.
A lot of people recommend securing the gun, locking the action open, and standing there with your hands on your head.
Then again, how do you know you're not still in danger?
Every situation has similarities, but they can all be different, too. That's why being in condition yellow as a general rule is mandatory. Also why you need to work out in advance what you need to do and look for, and try to keep your wits about you as best you can.
------------------
Those who would appease a tiger do so with the hope
that it will eat them last. Winston Churchill
Get to the nearest phone and report it yourself if possible.
Last thing you need is to be stopped on your way home after some passer-by reported someone of your description, and driving your car, had just gunned someone down and fled. Remember, the cops have all the power when this stuff goes down, some have common sense, some don't.
A lot of people recommend securing the gun, locking the action open, and standing there with your hands on your head.
Then again, how do you know you're not still in danger?
Every situation has similarities, but they can all be different, too. That's why being in condition yellow as a general rule is mandatory. Also why you need to work out in advance what you need to do and look for, and try to keep your wits about you as best you can.
------------------
Those who would appease a tiger do so with the hope
that it will eat them last. Winston Churchill
Shooting to STOP an attack is self defence.
ANY other kind of shooting is murder and should (and will) be punished as such.
Anybody who does not understand that represents a danger to society if the person has access to a weapon.
Furthermore, anybody who thinks that he is any form superior to society is gravely mistaken. NOBODY has the right to "execute" anybody, NOBODY has the right to "judge" somebody guilty and execute him. The whole society of the western world stands on the foundation that no single human being is allowed to combine judicative, executive and legislative. That is the key idea behind the whole concept of democracy. All the other stuff (ie "Freedom", "Liberty", "Human Rights", etc) are secondary, not in importance, but in the sence that they are all CONSEQUENCES of the first principle. If nobody combines the three powers then nobody has the power to take away freedom, liberty or violate the human rights without consulting at least 2 other people (the two that hold the other powers).
Somebody who does not understand that either and actively proposes "lynch justice" (because that is what that rapist example is) is an equal threat to society as the rapist himself. The rapist violates a law, the lyncher violates the foundation of society.
cheers
Helge
ANY other kind of shooting is murder and should (and will) be punished as such.
Anybody who does not understand that represents a danger to society if the person has access to a weapon.
Furthermore, anybody who thinks that he is any form superior to society is gravely mistaken. NOBODY has the right to "execute" anybody, NOBODY has the right to "judge" somebody guilty and execute him. The whole society of the western world stands on the foundation that no single human being is allowed to combine judicative, executive and legislative. That is the key idea behind the whole concept of democracy. All the other stuff (ie "Freedom", "Liberty", "Human Rights", etc) are secondary, not in importance, but in the sence that they are all CONSEQUENCES of the first principle. If nobody combines the three powers then nobody has the power to take away freedom, liberty or violate the human rights without consulting at least 2 other people (the two that hold the other powers).
Somebody who does not understand that either and actively proposes "lynch justice" (because that is what that rapist example is) is an equal threat to society as the rapist himself. The rapist violates a law, the lyncher violates the foundation of society.
cheers
Helge
Franklin W. Dixon
New member
Gee, Helge, you taught me something. I didn't realize a rapist was someone who "violated a law."
I always thought a rapist was someone who violated a woman.
You're quite the abstract thinker.
I always thought a rapist was someone who violated a woman.
You're quite the abstract thinker.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Shooting to STOP an attack is self defence.
ANY other kind of shooting is murder and should (and will) be punished as such.
NOBODY has the right to "execute" anybody, NOBODY has the right to "judge" somebody guilty and execute him.
Helge[/quote]
Helge, please remind me of that if someone lets a murderer live who later kills all your children.
See, Mr. Helge, you don't really believe in freedom. You believe that society must work out everyones problems.
I believe as a free man that I have the right to decide certain things for myself.
I believe in a creator. What society thinks comes secondmost in *MY* decisions.
I do not know that I would feel any honor if I let a KNOWN criminal walk among society to later kill others. This seems immoral to me.
I am open to adjust my thoughts on this matter. However, try as I might, I have yet to convice myself otherwise.
Sprig
Shooting to STOP an attack is self defence.
ANY other kind of shooting is murder and should (and will) be punished as such.
NOBODY has the right to "execute" anybody, NOBODY has the right to "judge" somebody guilty and execute him.
Helge[/quote]
Helge, please remind me of that if someone lets a murderer live who later kills all your children.
See, Mr. Helge, you don't really believe in freedom. You believe that society must work out everyones problems.
I believe as a free man that I have the right to decide certain things for myself.
I believe in a creator. What society thinks comes secondmost in *MY* decisions.
I do not know that I would feel any honor if I let a KNOWN criminal walk among society to later kill others. This seems immoral to me.
I am open to adjust my thoughts on this matter. However, try as I might, I have yet to convice myself otherwise.
Sprig
Please, stop that stupid "what if he kills your children later" nonsense. with absolute equal ease (and statistic probability) I can tell you stuff like "what if he didn't committ the first crime and you kill an innocent", or "what if he later changes and becomes the saviour of many other people", etc. Please, this is a discussion about fundamental social issue. Dumping in emotionally focus examples like that are annoying and sadly not relevant to the discussion at all.
You believe in the creator? Well... kill and go to hell. "Do not kill". simple as that. And PLEASE don't come with nonsense like "oh, they meant "murder" not "kill". Read the bible in hebrew, ancient greek and latin and you will notice that ALL version very very clearly write "kill".
But that's not the point either, you trouble to deal with eternal damnation of your soul.
The point is, that civilised societies DO grant certain rights to seperate people. Otherwise we would all be running through the wood and bashing each other with clubs. In order for society to function you give the architect the right to construct buildings. Furthermore, you don't try to make architecture yourself, since you are not trained for it and are much better off having the architect do the job for your. In exchange you hand him value generated from YOUR "speciality". And with the same attitude you have to give the policemen the right to arrest and the judge the right to judge. They are trained for it, they have the required knowledge, insight and skills. You don't.
cheers
Helge
You believe in the creator? Well... kill and go to hell. "Do not kill". simple as that. And PLEASE don't come with nonsense like "oh, they meant "murder" not "kill". Read the bible in hebrew, ancient greek and latin and you will notice that ALL version very very clearly write "kill".
But that's not the point either, you trouble to deal with eternal damnation of your soul.
The point is, that civilised societies DO grant certain rights to seperate people. Otherwise we would all be running through the wood and bashing each other with clubs. In order for society to function you give the architect the right to construct buildings. Furthermore, you don't try to make architecture yourself, since you are not trained for it and are much better off having the architect do the job for your. In exchange you hand him value generated from YOUR "speciality". And with the same attitude you have to give the policemen the right to arrest and the judge the right to judge. They are trained for it, they have the required knowledge, insight and skills. You don't.
cheers
Helge
oberkommando
New member
1 It's not a democracy but a republic, and a lynching doesn't always mean some one will be killed. At least as far as CPC or is that KPC is concerned, sec. too many to list. Though by popular definition the subject is killed.
In this forum comments have been made along the lines of "I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to neutralize the threat. Death is a byproduct of that". In addition I have read other statements such as: Stop the attack, repel the attack, incapitate the attacker, and neutralize the attack. Still others see a problem with "shoot to kill."
To me the best place to start is with the U.S. Supreme Court and after that the state courts. The only time I have seen the term "neutralize the threat" used by the Supreme Court has been when discussing law enforcement officers being faced with a "Terry -vs- Ohio" situation. No where have I seen the Supreme Court use or apply the term to individuals.
In that the Courts are going to have the last say it seems to me that is the best place to look for guidence on this issue. Using terms such as, neutralize the threat, repel the attacker, stop the threat, and etc. to me is unwise because the judge instructing the jury is not going to use those terms unless your state is different than most. In Florida these terms are never used in instructing the jury on what they are to consider in reaching a verdict. I haven't researched any state except Florida but in Florida the relevant law is:
F.S. Chapter 776.012 titled, Use of force in defense of person, reads, "A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
F.S. Chapter 782.02. titled, Justifiable use of deadly force, reads, "The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be."
F.S. 776.06 titled deadly force, reads. "Deadly force" means force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to: (1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exist to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and (2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding."
F.S. Chapter 776.08 titled, forcible felonies reads. "Forcible felony means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
Part of jury instructions on self-defense reads as follows:
--------
"An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
The use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself while resisting:
1. another's attempt to murder him, or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon him, or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon any dwelling house occupied by him, or
4. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) in any dwelling house occupied by him.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."
---------
The terminology used by law enforcement officers and similarily trained persons is not going to be used in instructing the grand jury or the jury before whom that case may ultimately be presented therefore it seems to me the best place to start is with the jury instructions.
It would be appreciated if those with differing views would cite some court cases for review.
To me the best place to start is with the U.S. Supreme Court and after that the state courts. The only time I have seen the term "neutralize the threat" used by the Supreme Court has been when discussing law enforcement officers being faced with a "Terry -vs- Ohio" situation. No where have I seen the Supreme Court use or apply the term to individuals.
In that the Courts are going to have the last say it seems to me that is the best place to look for guidence on this issue. Using terms such as, neutralize the threat, repel the attacker, stop the threat, and etc. to me is unwise because the judge instructing the jury is not going to use those terms unless your state is different than most. In Florida these terms are never used in instructing the jury on what they are to consider in reaching a verdict. I haven't researched any state except Florida but in Florida the relevant law is:
F.S. Chapter 776.012 titled, Use of force in defense of person, reads, "A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
F.S. Chapter 782.02. titled, Justifiable use of deadly force, reads, "The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be."
F.S. 776.06 titled deadly force, reads. "Deadly force" means force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to: (1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exist to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and (2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding."
F.S. Chapter 776.08 titled, forcible felonies reads. "Forcible felony means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
Part of jury instructions on self-defense reads as follows:
--------
"An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
The use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself while resisting:
1. another's attempt to murder him, or
2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon him, or
3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon any dwelling house occupied by him, or
4. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) in any dwelling house occupied by him.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."
---------
The terminology used by law enforcement officers and similarily trained persons is not going to be used in instructing the grand jury or the jury before whom that case may ultimately be presented therefore it seems to me the best place to start is with the jury instructions.
It would be appreciated if those with differing views would cite some court cases for review.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Otherwise we would all be running through the wood and bashing each other with clubs.[/quote]
This, I think, speaks volumes about Helge's view of basic human nature. If there were no police, no laws, no punishment for bashing people with clubs, would *you* do this?
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Except for Hamilton County until August 11th.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited July 24, 2000).]
Otherwise we would all be running through the wood and bashing each other with clubs.[/quote]
This, I think, speaks volumes about Helge's view of basic human nature. If there were no police, no laws, no punishment for bashing people with clubs, would *you* do this?
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Except for Hamilton County until August 11th.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited July 24, 2000).]
David Scott
New member
Roybean:
Thanks for the excellent exposition, especially since you based it on Florida (where I live). The only thing I think you missed is the "stand in the shoes" rule that says you can use deadly force to defend another person from those same violent crimes (though you better be damned sure of the situation before interfering).
What I got out of this discussion is that "shoot to kill" is a semantics issue. In practice, if you are in circumstances that require you to shoot a malefactor, you will probably be shooting for center of mass if visible, head shot if not -- in other words, you shoot at the places most likely to "stop the threat", which happen to be the most likely places to kill the aggressor.
The point is well taken that, if ever in court, the only defensible position is that every shot you fired was necessary to end the threat. Lots of instructors teach the technique of double tap, evaluate and follow up with cranio-ocular if necessary. I believe you can justify a double tap by pointing out that a handgun is not that reliable for one shot stops, that the central nervous system automatically blocks off input from trauma to defend the brain, and that a quick second shot will take effect before the CNS can react, increasing the chance of stopping the threat. This is why it's taught to LEOs. Defending the follow up head shot hinges on proving that the threat was still active. If you have a witness to the fact that he was still attacking, great.
Since bad guys often act when there are no witnesses around, it would either be your word against a dead bad guy or yours against any of his accomplices that you did not kill. If there was one bad guy, and he's dead, there seems no grounds to challenge your account provided you used the minimum shots and did not "spray and pray". If there are surviving bad guys, that in itself is evidence that you did not kill unless necessary. If the surviving bad guys call you a liar, most juries will take the point that they ARE bad guys and probably upset with you, enough to try to make you look bad in court.
Thanks for the excellent exposition, especially since you based it on Florida (where I live). The only thing I think you missed is the "stand in the shoes" rule that says you can use deadly force to defend another person from those same violent crimes (though you better be damned sure of the situation before interfering).
What I got out of this discussion is that "shoot to kill" is a semantics issue. In practice, if you are in circumstances that require you to shoot a malefactor, you will probably be shooting for center of mass if visible, head shot if not -- in other words, you shoot at the places most likely to "stop the threat", which happen to be the most likely places to kill the aggressor.
The point is well taken that, if ever in court, the only defensible position is that every shot you fired was necessary to end the threat. Lots of instructors teach the technique of double tap, evaluate and follow up with cranio-ocular if necessary. I believe you can justify a double tap by pointing out that a handgun is not that reliable for one shot stops, that the central nervous system automatically blocks off input from trauma to defend the brain, and that a quick second shot will take effect before the CNS can react, increasing the chance of stopping the threat. This is why it's taught to LEOs. Defending the follow up head shot hinges on proving that the threat was still active. If you have a witness to the fact that he was still attacking, great.
Since bad guys often act when there are no witnesses around, it would either be your word against a dead bad guy or yours against any of his accomplices that you did not kill. If there was one bad guy, and he's dead, there seems no grounds to challenge your account provided you used the minimum shots and did not "spray and pray". If there are surviving bad guys, that in itself is evidence that you did not kill unless necessary. If the surviving bad guys call you a liar, most juries will take the point that they ARE bad guys and probably upset with you, enough to try to make you look bad in court.
David
I didn't discuss the "stand in the shoes" rule because I didnt' want to take the time (right or wrong). However you are so right in what you are saying. Generally speaking and of course in our hypo's we never know all the facts and just one fact can change a situation from one of self-defense to murder. For the benefit of others if another person is justified in using deadly force then you would be justified in "standing in their shoes" and using it the same as they would but as you say, you had better be damned sure of the situation and be on the "right" side.
____
Although difficult to do I always like to use the terminology that would be used if I were standing before the judge and/or jury. I think the jury instructions used in Florida are fairly well straight forward and when before a jury one must realize they come from a variety of backgrounds and are instructed to apply the facts to the law given by the judge and when you can frame the facts to fall into the same language (terminology) as the instructions I think your much better off.
I didn't discuss the "stand in the shoes" rule because I didnt' want to take the time (right or wrong). However you are so right in what you are saying. Generally speaking and of course in our hypo's we never know all the facts and just one fact can change a situation from one of self-defense to murder. For the benefit of others if another person is justified in using deadly force then you would be justified in "standing in their shoes" and using it the same as they would but as you say, you had better be damned sure of the situation and be on the "right" side.
____
Although difficult to do I always like to use the terminology that would be used if I were standing before the judge and/or jury. I think the jury instructions used in Florida are fairly well straight forward and when before a jury one must realize they come from a variety of backgrounds and are instructed to apply the facts to the law given by the judge and when you can frame the facts to fall into the same language (terminology) as the instructions I think your much better off.
Quoth Futo:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"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.[/quote]
I'm not going to tell the guy I'm armed. I try to stay out of trouble, I try to weasel my way out of it if at all possible, but if there's no option save deadly force I don't want my attacker to be prepared for it.
I'm going to use the most decisive force available in the most sudden manner possible.
Ie no brandishing, no warning shots, no verbal warning. If the situation is so bad that I feel the need to draw my weapon, it will be for the express purpose of ending the engagement right then and there.
---
Quoth Scott:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.[/quote]
Most 2nd chance vests (those I might expect a "normal person" to wear underneath "normal" clothing) are truncated near the lower abdomen. If the attacker is wearing "full" body armor (down to the groin) then... well, I suspect that his full-auto Ak-47 would be strong incentive for me to review my escape options once again.
In other words: If the perp is armored that well, he's probably also armed significantly better than me, and I screwed up *ROYALLY* by not identifying that fact sooner.
The rational behind the single round to the torso and *then* a single round to the head is that the torso is usually easier to hit... and even if you hit armor, odds are the guy won't be dodging your next round as efficiently as if he had two good legs under him.
YMMV.
---
Re: "Putting the perp out of our misery"
IMO, probably not a good idea (LEOs are pretty good at interpretting splatter patterns and determining bullet trajectories). Hit the target multiple times *on its way down* but once it's down, additional rounds would likely be considered excessive (except under extraordinary circumstances, eg it somehow managed to keep hold of it's weapon and cocked the hammer).
All the more reason to practice shot placement under rapid fire.
---
Re: The law in your state
(IANAL, YMMV)
Some states allow the use of deadly force in defense of life *or* property... some don't.
In MD, you're allowed to use deadly force only if you believe that you, or someone else (even a total stranger) is in imminent danger of death.
You cannot "seek out" imminent danger -- ie if you (or the intended victim) have any avenue of escape, deadly force isn't necessarily a legitimate response.
Also, MD doesn't recognize imminent domain, ie just the fact that the perp is in your house is not reason to believe that your life (or someone else's) is in danger.
And, even if the perp is hostile, if you do not retreat *within your home* (ie run upstairs to your bedroom) then you're still not "within your Rights" to use deadly force.
What this means (at least, according to the law in the state of MD) is that anyone can bust into your house and, *as long as they don't threaten you,* you can't shoot 'em.
However...
The law states that you're allowed to use lethal force if you *believe* that you or someone else is in mortal danger. So... if you *believe* that the guy is coming upstairs for the sole purpose of murdering you and your family in their sleep, then you are well within your Rights to rearrange one or more of his vital organs with a 12ga.
'Course... the wrongfull death suit is something else entirely... and, odds are, you're gonna lose... but it's better to be safe than sorry. (?)
---
Quote David Scott:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The point is well taken that, if ever in court, the only defensible position is that every shot you fired was necessary to end the threat.[/quote]
... and there's the rub.
Too many courts in too many jurisdictions consider any shot fired to be unnecessary. After all, he just wanted your wallet. Or your car. Or your TV and VCR.
When is it "worth it?" Would you give up your wallet because you only had a couple of bucks, but stand and fight if you'd just pulled $500 out of the bank?
Would you stand and defend your brand-new Corvette, but let the guy take your '73 Rambler?
How many times has a case hinged on how much the guy got away with -- "... shot the clerk, and got away with $23 ..." What's important here -- that he only got $23, or that he shot the clerk? Would the shooting be justifiable of the perp got away with $2300? Or would $23,000 be more appropriate?
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a question of how much I have in my wallet, or how old my car is, or whether or not I have another TV and VCR. The only thing that matters is that it's mine, not yours.
And, most importantly, your Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness ends as soon as you try to deprive me of those rights.
So instead of asking me if I'd kill somebody for $2, ask the guy that's trying to take it from me if he's willing to die for it.
He's already made his decision... he's trying to take it from me, so he must have figured that his life was worth whatever he could get.
Well, I've made my decision, too.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"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.[/quote]
I'm not going to tell the guy I'm armed. I try to stay out of trouble, I try to weasel my way out of it if at all possible, but if there's no option save deadly force I don't want my attacker to be prepared for it.
I'm going to use the most decisive force available in the most sudden manner possible.
Ie no brandishing, no warning shots, no verbal warning. If the situation is so bad that I feel the need to draw my weapon, it will be for the express purpose of ending the engagement right then and there.
---
Quoth Scott:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.[/quote]
Most 2nd chance vests (those I might expect a "normal person" to wear underneath "normal" clothing) are truncated near the lower abdomen. If the attacker is wearing "full" body armor (down to the groin) then... well, I suspect that his full-auto Ak-47 would be strong incentive for me to review my escape options once again.
In other words: If the perp is armored that well, he's probably also armed significantly better than me, and I screwed up *ROYALLY* by not identifying that fact sooner.
The rational behind the single round to the torso and *then* a single round to the head is that the torso is usually easier to hit... and even if you hit armor, odds are the guy won't be dodging your next round as efficiently as if he had two good legs under him.
YMMV.
---
Re: "Putting the perp out of our misery"
IMO, probably not a good idea (LEOs are pretty good at interpretting splatter patterns and determining bullet trajectories). Hit the target multiple times *on its way down* but once it's down, additional rounds would likely be considered excessive (except under extraordinary circumstances, eg it somehow managed to keep hold of it's weapon and cocked the hammer).
All the more reason to practice shot placement under rapid fire.
---
Re: The law in your state
(IANAL, YMMV)
Some states allow the use of deadly force in defense of life *or* property... some don't.
In MD, you're allowed to use deadly force only if you believe that you, or someone else (even a total stranger) is in imminent danger of death.
You cannot "seek out" imminent danger -- ie if you (or the intended victim) have any avenue of escape, deadly force isn't necessarily a legitimate response.
Also, MD doesn't recognize imminent domain, ie just the fact that the perp is in your house is not reason to believe that your life (or someone else's) is in danger.
And, even if the perp is hostile, if you do not retreat *within your home* (ie run upstairs to your bedroom) then you're still not "within your Rights" to use deadly force.
What this means (at least, according to the law in the state of MD) is that anyone can bust into your house and, *as long as they don't threaten you,* you can't shoot 'em.
However...
The law states that you're allowed to use lethal force if you *believe* that you or someone else is in mortal danger. So... if you *believe* that the guy is coming upstairs for the sole purpose of murdering you and your family in their sleep, then you are well within your Rights to rearrange one or more of his vital organs with a 12ga.
'Course... the wrongfull death suit is something else entirely... and, odds are, you're gonna lose... but it's better to be safe than sorry. (?)
---
Quote David Scott:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The point is well taken that, if ever in court, the only defensible position is that every shot you fired was necessary to end the threat.[/quote]
... and there's the rub.
Too many courts in too many jurisdictions consider any shot fired to be unnecessary. After all, he just wanted your wallet. Or your car. Or your TV and VCR.
When is it "worth it?" Would you give up your wallet because you only had a couple of bucks, but stand and fight if you'd just pulled $500 out of the bank?
Would you stand and defend your brand-new Corvette, but let the guy take your '73 Rambler?
How many times has a case hinged on how much the guy got away with -- "... shot the clerk, and got away with $23 ..." What's important here -- that he only got $23, or that he shot the clerk? Would the shooting be justifiable of the perp got away with $2300? Or would $23,000 be more appropriate?
As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a question of how much I have in my wallet, or how old my car is, or whether or not I have another TV and VCR. The only thing that matters is that it's mine, not yours.
And, most importantly, your Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness ends as soon as you try to deprive me of those rights.
So instead of asking me if I'd kill somebody for $2, ask the guy that's trying to take it from me if he's willing to die for it.
He's already made his decision... he's trying to take it from me, so he must have figured that his life was worth whatever he could get.
Well, I've made my decision, too.
David Scott
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roybean:
I didn't discuss the "stand in the shoes" rule because I didnt' want to take the time (right or wrong). However you are so right in what you are saying. Generally speaking and of course in our hypo's we never know all the facts and just one fact can change a situation from one of self-defense to murder. For the benefit of others if another person is justified in using deadly force then you would be justified in "standing in their shoes" and using it the same as they would but as you say, you had better be damned sure of the situation and be on the "right" side. [/quote]
For the benefit of those interested, the "stand in the shoes" rule permits you to defend others as you would yourself. A good example:
You're in a 7-11 when two guys hold it up with guns. If all they do is take the money, you would let them go, but one of the guys grabs the pretty young lady behind the counter and says to his partner, "Hey, she's cute! Let's take her with us and have some fun (snigger snigger)". If they take her hostage, the odds are she'll wind up gang-raped and dead in a ditch, so you're justified in defending her. Kidnapping is one of the "violent felonies" specifically mentioned on the Florida official CHL website.
No-shoot example: You see three guys in a parking lot wrestling one other guy to the ground. Weapons are visible. You do nothing because you have no idea whether the three guys are holdup men, or plain clothes cops busting a felon, or what. Back off and call LEOs.
I didn't discuss the "stand in the shoes" rule because I didnt' want to take the time (right or wrong). However you are so right in what you are saying. Generally speaking and of course in our hypo's we never know all the facts and just one fact can change a situation from one of self-defense to murder. For the benefit of others if another person is justified in using deadly force then you would be justified in "standing in their shoes" and using it the same as they would but as you say, you had better be damned sure of the situation and be on the "right" side. [/quote]
For the benefit of those interested, the "stand in the shoes" rule permits you to defend others as you would yourself. A good example:
You're in a 7-11 when two guys hold it up with guns. If all they do is take the money, you would let them go, but one of the guys grabs the pretty young lady behind the counter and says to his partner, "Hey, she's cute! Let's take her with us and have some fun (snigger snigger)". If they take her hostage, the odds are she'll wind up gang-raped and dead in a ditch, so you're justified in defending her. Kidnapping is one of the "violent felonies" specifically mentioned on the Florida official CHL website.
No-shoot example: You see three guys in a parking lot wrestling one other guy to the ground. Weapons are visible. You do nothing because you have no idea whether the three guys are holdup men, or plain clothes cops busting a felon, or what. Back off and call LEOs.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
And another thread hits the magical 100K cut-off point.
Thanks to all for some very interesting reading.
Feel free to start a part 2.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Except for Hamilton County until August 11th.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
Thanks to all for some very interesting reading.
Feel free to start a part 2.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Except for Hamilton County until August 11th.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
- Status
- Not open for further replies.