Shoot to stop?

J

jar

New member
A friend recently attended one of the mandatory firearm safety classes. The instructor told all of the students that they should always shoot COM. That a CNS or other shot would be see as an intent to kill instead of intent to stop shot in a court of law.

I don't know about you folks, but if I think that shooting with the ntent to stop sounds like the right mental attitude to get yourself killed.

What do all of you think? Would you shoot to stop?
 
Of Course

I would shoot to stop. That's what it says in the laws:rolleyes: . That being settled, under stress I doubt that my aim would be that good and a shot or two;) might drift a little high. Sorry 'bout that:D .
 
I always shoot to stop.

My personal definition of deadly force: That force which is necessary to stop a person using force against me (or others) in such a manner that it doesn't matter wether he dies, or not, as a result of my defensive reaction...

The definition is backed up by lots of traing and research and allows, if not expects, CNS shots. CNS = immediate stoppage of all activity by the bad guy. The COM is simply preferable because it is a bigger, easier to identify and to hit, target.


Wonder what kind of failure to stop drills your friend's instructor teaches? :rolleyes:
 
Instructor ddidn't know what the hell he was talking about. Every time you pull the trigger you are using deadly force. "shooting to stop" is the latest method of trying to get away from the idiocy of the "shoot to wound" crowd. In the military, we (me) teach, shoot and keep on shooting until the dude is down and stopped doing what he was doing that made you resort to deadly force in the first place.
 
CNS = Central Nervous System. Means a shot to the head, turning off the brain and shutting down all motor function. Probably going to die as a result too... Shrug.
 
shot to stop

my understanding of the law is ... you shoot to stop

not shoot to wound, kill, or scare....if you kill, wound or scare your have done what the law says you stopped the perp...

in your statement to the law if you say killl or wound you could be in trouble for the stament you have just made... if you say "I was only doing what the law says ..Use of deadly force to stop
unlawful agression or unlawful deadly force..
 
Hopefully your friend misunderstood the instructor.

Legal terminological word game but you always shoot to STOP and quit only after they have STOPPED being a threat.

CNS = Central Nervous System. Brain and spinal chord.

A really good center of mass shot will also get some spine.

Head shots tough to place properly for immediate effect.

If STOPPING causes death, so be it.

Sam
 
I took a class too, and the instructor said to shoot COM (center of mass) and to not automatically shoot for the CNS (central nervous system). The rationale here is that if you always practice 2 COM shots, and 1 CNS shot, during a shoot, you will automatically do so. If the COM shots were successful, your CNS shot would be over the bad guy on their way down to the ground, and you could be shooting at air/background.

I guess that instead of saying 'Never take a CNS shot', I would say that do your normal COM shots and evaluate if you need to take a CNS shot TO STOP THE ATTACK.

Its always to stop the attack, never to kill, injure, maim, scare, intimidate, etc.
 
"Would you shoot to stop?"

I would shoot to stop.

The fact that shooting to stop would likely result in the death of someone is ancillary.
 
shoot to stop

I was trained as a corrections officer to put 3 shots to the body and 3 to the head. that should stop any aggreshive behavior
 
Shoot to stop

You shoot to stop the person from completing the action that they are attempting, said action being harmful to you or to another person. Period. Thats it.*

Now, it just so happens that the most effective stop is the one that results in the most blood and guts emerging from the yawning chasm you created in his body. *shrug* That, however, is a fortuitious coincidence.

As for CNS shots, the mozambique drill is a stop technique, no? Two to COM didn't work. Its is time to utilize other options.

Mike

* states where you are allowed to use deadly force to defend property will differ from this. Still, in order to minimize civil lawsuits, its probably best to articulate the danger to yourself, as opposed to the danger of theft of your property.
 
My big concern is the stop to evaluate the results instructions that so many firearms instructors are giving these days. I realize that it's the PC thing to do, but it also stands a great chance of getting you killed during the evaluation. :(
 
If you draw your weapon and fire at someone, it means that person is doing something that requires you to stop his actions immediately by use of deadly force. Once you have made the decision to shoot, you fire until the threat has been neutralized. You have already decided that you are justified in killing the individual, so do it in the best manner you know how with the least risk to yourself.

IMHO, the average person is not going to have the skill to place CNS shots in most self-defense situations. Once the adrenaline, high blood pressure, rapid pulse, tunnel vision, etcs. kicks in, drawing a handgun and placing a perfect headshot at a moving target is very difficult. It takes a great deal of practice to be able to do that and even LEO's, for the most part, do not have that level of skill.

The goal is to stay alive. To achieve that, you shoot the bad guy as many times as you can, in the head if you can, in the chest if you can, in the arm or leg if you can. The logic of COM shots is that even if you are a little off, you will hit something.
 
Shoot to stop = shoot to stop the heartbeat, brainwaves, and breathing of the one needing to be shot...

that said, I agree with the "2 to COM, and see if anything else is needed" aaproach... if I have done MY part, than the .40 S&W 165 Grainers will do theirs, and no 3rd shot should be needed... but the Beretta will b e aimed at the CNS area, in case it's necessary...
 
shoot to kill...

that is the only way to truly stop someone. you never know how many shots it may take to stop a particular individual. some go down in one shot, others take 5, 6, 10 and still have fight left in them.

if you are in a situation (especially in your home) shoot until the bg is no longer a threat (ie lying in a pool of his own blood).

jmho,

stinger
 
No, it is not.

If you are shooting to kill, you might as well walk up to your attacker and execute him after your opening volley drops him to the ground.

You are shooting to stop. No more, no less. If your shots happen to kill him, that is of no importance. If they don't kill him, then bully for him. Keep yelling at him to lay there and keep his hands motionless and in sight until help arrives. Then secure him.

If he gets back up or refuses to comply by doing something that could be articulated as a threatening action, shoot him again.

Also, the amount of time it takes you to adjust your POA from a fairly-refined hold on his COM to a very-refined hold on his head is probably about all the time I would take to evaluate whether or not he is still a threat. If he's still upright and threatening, shoot him.

Mike
 
Stop is the operative word.

Kill should not be used before, during or after a shoot. Whether amongst friends or on the stand. You shoot to stop.

Regardless of the results, the difference in wordage can make a big difference to a judge and jury. Criminal and and otherwise.

Sam
 
Okay I will refine what i said. If the guy is on the ground with only his hand twitching, I will not shoot him in the head to kill him.

However, my initial shot will be to someplace that is a vital area. I am not going to shoot at the trigger hand or foot. The perp may have a gun himself which he hasn't revealed yet.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top