Shoot to stop?

This instructor has the right action, but the wrong theory. As Hkmp5sd said above, the reason for a COM shot is because it is the biggest target that contains the most vital organs. But a COM shot is a CNS shot, since the spinal cord runs the length of the torso. Head shots should be reserved since the head is a hard target to hit under stress.

I shoot to stop the threat to my life. If the attacker dies, so be it.
 
I think the instructor didn't quite grasp the concept of lethal force. At least here in Texas, use of a firearm on or at another person is considered lethal force. Regardless of where you intended to shoot somebody or did shoot somebody, it is lethal force. It could always be argued that your intent was to kill if you use lethal force. The real issue then becomes whether you were justified in using lethal force. If you were justified, where you shoot the person is not an issue - front, back, chest, head, or every fricken' part of the guy until he finally stops!!!

You always shoot to stop, but by doing so, you are employing lethal force whether it is COM or CNS. "Shoot to stop" is a politically correct term to use. CNS damage provides one of the best manners to derive the quickest stop possible, but that does not mean CNS is always the best target. The ideal CNS shots are above the shoulders because a CNS below the shoulders still leaves the arms working. CNS shots can be horribly hard to make correctly in most cases. A simple head shot will not necessarily mean the brain is hit. You have to hit the brain, brain stem, or spinal cord. Hitting the brain case (cranium) may or may not produce a desired result as bullets have been known to ricochet off peoples' heads. A shot to the face may be painful, disfiguring, and may cause a temporary stoppage, but many facial shots result in not damage to immediately crucial, vital, or necessary organs or blood vessels. You might do as well with a shot to the arm as a shot to the face. CNS means brain, brain stem, or spinal cord only, not "head."

Shooting somebody in the head or the brain shows no more intent to kill than shooting them in the chest. That being said, COM shots, specifically Center of Chest (not the entire torso that COM suggests and would place bullets just below the rib cage in a largely non-vital area) are meant to give you the biggest target of vital organs such that if you don't hit dead center, you still hit organs of significances or major blood vessels.
 
COM vs. CNS

We teach our students to draw and immediatly fire either a controlled pair or hammer (dependant on the distance from the hostile), return to the high ready position, scan the area for additional threats and if the original hostile continues to advance in an aggressive manner, fire 1 - 2 rounds to the head (CNS).

The theory behind this technique, is that if he failed to stop or at minimum reconsider his current actions with two rounds to the COM, he is either high on some serious drugs, wearing body armor, or mentally disabled to the point of not reacting, and if any of these are the case, you are left with very little alteranative but to fire to the CNS in the hopes of stopping the threat.

Disclaimer: All of the above statement is made based on the assumption, that the shooter was justified in their use of deadly force in the first place.

Brian S. Williams
Williams Associates Protective Services, LLC.

www.wa-protective.com

Knowledge - Integrity - Discretion - Honor::cool:
 
Last edited:
I think when most people refer to "shooting to kill" that them mean "shooting to kill, NOW," not crawl off and die sometime later shooting to kill, but good point.

By the same merit, not all shoot to stop shots stop people now either. People have been shot in the head and survived and continued fighting for considerable amounts of time, even with brain case penetration. People shot in the pelvis, groin, legs, and feet still manage to run around for a while even though the shots should have "stopped" them or at least stopped their ability to get around.

The goal is always to stop the threat, but one of the most assured ways of the threat being stopped is to have the threat be dead. As people have found in the past, such as in the FBI shootout, stopped people sometimes have a nasty habit of being able to wake up and try to continue the battle or at least try to flee. That came as a shock to FBI agents in Miami to see a guy obviously shot in the head climb out of the car and go to the other vehicle. He was shot in the head with NO BRAIN penetration. He was stunned temporarily was all.

Just how well do you want the person stopped?
 
The NRA requires that an instructor say shoot to stop and shoot COM. If it was an NRA class this is why. In my NRA classes I don't comment on a CNS(re head shots) being used as intent to kill. We do talk about the hit miss probabilities under stress, and the tendancy to hit high in a defensive shooting.

In VA anyway you had better say you were shooting to stop. If you say warning shot, trying to wound, or shooting to kill you will possibly be going to jail/prison. If you don't go to jail/prison, the civil suit may make you wish you were in jail/prison.
 
I don't have handguns. I have shotguns. I don't see how shooting to stop with a shotgun is not shooting to kill.

Michael
 
Stop Means Stop The Threat (or Attack)

Generally, once you have determined that your very life is in jeopardy and escape is impossible (or the attempt to do so may enhance or increase the risk) a person advancing toward you can be said to have been stopped if their direction of movement is reversed by the multiple impact of jacketed hollowpoint bullets upon their chest and head area.

Likewise, (as above) a person in the vertical position may be said to have been "stopped" once they are permanently in the horizontal position.

What is with all the silly word games?

If someone is trying to kill you (or so you think) then YOU KILL THEM! End of story... If you thought wrong you go to jail, if you didn't you don't. Simple.

When do you shoot? And soon as you think you might get dead if you don't.

Where do you shoot? At the Bad Guy's chest and head.

How fast do you shoot? As fast as you possibly can.

How much do you shoot? As much as you got!

When do you stop? When you're out of bullets, or when the Grim Reaper taps you on the shoulder and says, "I'll take care of the rest of this mess."

If the BG is like three-quarters of the way down is it okay to take an extra second or two and line up a headshot? YES!
 
I don't have handguns. I have shotguns. I don't see how shooting to stop with a shotgun is not shooting to kill.
Click to expand...

As has been said before, its is very similar, but not identical. The difference lies in your intent and how 'far' you will go once the threat is neutralized. It is not a difference in what tool is used, or how it is used. As in, it is not a difference in where you aim, or whether you use a shotgun or a handgun or a frying pan.

Generally, once you have determined that your very life is in jeopardy and escape is impossible (or the attempt to do so may enhance or increase the risk) a person advancing toward you can be said to have been stopped if their direction of movement is reversed by the multiple impact of jacketed hollowpoint bullets upon their chest and head area.
Click to expand...
Yup. Or if you shoot and miss and they surrender, or if you hit them and they take of running.

Likewise, (as above) a person in the vertical position may be said to have been "stopped" once they are permanently in the horizontal position.
Click to expand...
That is one possible form of a stop, yes.
What is with all the silly word games?
Click to expand...
The difference between going to jail or not going to jail, among other things.

It is not a 'silly word game.' There is a very real difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill, but it is not a difference in technique. Thats why its called 'deadly force.' The force you are using to effect a stop of aggressive action has a real possibility of also causing death. But death is a by-product. It is an unfortunate and unintended side-effect. The fact that no one here (yourself included) will shed a tear about the fate of the deceased is not really an issue.

If someone is trying to kill you (or so you think) then YOU KILL THEM! End of story... If you thought wrong you go to jail, if you didn't you don't. Simple.
Click to expand...
Or you're right, and you go to jail anyway becuase you fail to grasp this concept. Try telling a cop, a DA or a jury that you felt that he was a threat so you killed him. Hopefully your lawyer will rein you in.
When do you shoot? And soon as you think you might get dead if you don't.

Where do you shoot? At the Bad Guy's chest and head.

How fast do you shoot? As fast as you possibly can.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
How much do you shoot? As much as you got!
Click to expand...
Really? Lessee. My Browning HP is 17+1 with SA mags. If I have two spares ready to go, I am justified in shooting my assailant 52 times? This is absurd, and you know it.
When do you stop? When you're out of bullets, or when the Grim Reaper taps you on the shoulder and says, "I'll take care of the rest of this mess."
Click to expand...
Query: is it legal to walk up to an obviously incapacitated subject (he dropped his gun, he is writhing on the ground, quite possibly bleeding out and fading in and out of consciousness) and cap him in the head, execution style? If you answer "yes," please consult an attorney right now, before you do something to harm the RKBA movement. If you answer "no," then answer "why not?"

Your answer will likely be "because he is not a threat," and it is a correct answer...which supports the idea that you shoot to stop, not kill.

If the BG is like three-quarters of the way down is it okay to take an extra second or two and line up a headshot? YES!
Click to expand...
Is he still a threat? Yes or no? If he is still a credible threat, and you can articulate this, yes. Cap him. If he is not, you better either assume a position of cover and maintain your aim on him, or you better lie your arse off when the cops show up.

Mike
 
Definitely shoot to stop. Deadly force is justified when you are in danger of death or grave bodily injury. Your goal is to stop the threat. That threat could be stopped in several ways.

If I draw my gun and the perp decides to be elsewhere, rapidly, I let him leave. I am no longer threatened so I am no longer justified to use deadly force.

If I draw my gun, shoot at the perp but miss, and he runs away, I stop shooting.

If I draw my gun, shoot at the perp and hit him, and he gives up, then I stop shooting.

If I draw my gun, shoot at the perp and he falls to the ground, immobile, then I stop shooting.

If the perp gives up, whether still on his feet or prone, I DON'T walk up to him and shoot him in the head. That would be shooting to kill. It would also be murder.

Shooting the perp COM or CNS may well kill him. If that's what it takes to stop the threat, so be it. But my goal is not to kill him. My goal is to stop his attack. That is not just a word game. There's a true moral and ethical difference. As others have pointed out, around 80% of people shot with a handgun survive.

M1911
 
Okay... Okay...

52 hits is probably a few much... ;)

The case law on civilians and deadly force is all over the map. All you can really say is It Depends (on a zillion things). Its helps a lot if you live in a State supportive of the basic human right of self defense too. But one major factor will be the precise details that caused you to believe you were in fear for your life.

A 5'2" woman can shoot a 6'7" unarmed BG (rapist) and get away with it...

If the BG is clearly a BG, I mean you can prove it, then how many times you shoot him is far less relevant.

Morals and ethics are fine and dandy but completely useless in a gunfight. I'm going to draw fast, shoot faster, and not stop shooting until it stops moving.
 
I shoot to stop with no intention to kill. But, i am not so sure if my bullet will caused death to an assailant or to a BG.

I won't feel worry nor getting nervous of legal impediments after the death of my assailant because I prefer to be alive rather than being dead. But again, I have no intention of killing anyone if I shoot a BG. My intention is always to stop him in harming me farther or causing my death.

That is why I am so careful as to when I will use my pistol for self defense. If I could, I will not use it but instead using other forms of stopping an agressor. My gun is just my last resort.

I remember, last year my brother in law a Policeman shot two holduppers, one is dead instantly, and the other just lied on the pavement still breathing, he wants to pump bullets on him but then many onlookers already so he can't do that. The BG survivce and file a case against the police with the help of human rights advocates. But they lost the case also later on.

What I am saying, no matter how justifiable to shoot a BG still we are charged of a crime of wounding or causing a death by our action, but after court hearing the truth will come out. These are all part of having pistols or guns on our possession if ever used for self defense or whatever.:cool:
 
52 hits is probably a few much...maybe, maybe not

I have a training tape that talks about a BG in a police shootout taking 49 non-instantly fatal hits from 9mm's and not giving up the fight until hit with a 12-gauge slug that finally lowered his blood pressure to zero.


Did someone mention the need for high-capacity mags?
 
To read the newpaper, it was "overkill", and I did miss your 52 by three shots! :) Given the accuracy of the majority of LEO's that I know, I wonder how many shots fired it took to get those 49 hits. We had an incident a few years ago where an officer unloaded two magazines at a van and you guessed it, not one single hit on the van, much less the guy he was actually aiming at.
 
I don't believe it...

NO way. Maybe wearing body armor... Otherwise I don't believe it.

Nobody intends to kill someone.

But we're trained and practiced to draw fast, shoot faster, and not stop shooting until we think the threat is no more.

Well, real world guys. The Einstein-like ability we have to think with absolute critical accuracy goes away once we start shooting. We're gonna put a couple of extra rounds in the BG not because we're mean people but because we're in a defend our life mode and cannot be bothered with checking the accuracy and efficacy of each shot one at a time.

Consequently some BGs are gonna get dead.

But, and again not like TV, most BGs experience an instant attitude adjustment when the first bullet impacts their chest. (The other two and the spare eyehole are because the BG fails to externalize that attitude adjustment at a speed faster than the cycle rate of a semi-automatic handgun.)

Don't waste your time shooting at moving vehicles. If you're really really really a good shot then shot for a tire, otherwise don't waste the ammo.

49 hits!? Naaaa... Sounds like the ME did the LEOs a favor... ;)
 
Don't shoot unless DEADLY force is JUSTIFIED

Then....

Shoot until they fall down and don't get up again.

(Sometimes they fall down and then get back up...sometimes more than once)

Shoot them while they are down if they are still a danger.

But don't have the SHOOT TO KILL mindset if it means you might, in the heat of the moment, walk over and put a couple rounds in their head after they lose consciousness.

That will probably look bad in civil and maybe even criminal court.

Just like Hockey Dad, you can defend yourself, but if you kill the bad guy, then the "reasonable man" standard applies.

Screaming die Mot**^))&_)_R is probably a bad idea as well!



Did you go too far???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top