Shoot to wound legality?

F

Foxy

New member
I am in an argument with another gentleman on another forum. He maintains that shooting-to-wound is ok; once you are justified in using deadly force on someone, you can shoot them in the toe if you feel like. Something typical is:
I am beyond that, I am saying that use of deadly force is a given, at that point I can shoot the assailant in the toe if I want to. I can do whatever I choose to end the threat and once its ended I must cease and desist immediately. But no where does the law say I have to intend to kill.
Click to expand...

Here's some other snippets:

Foxy, I as always appreciate your input but respectfully speaking, youre utterly incorrect. Bob and I are in complete agreement on what is required to shoot, but I defy you to find me one law that says if you shoot, your intent must be to kill. You do and I will buy you a beer.

There are all sorts of urban legends about people advising people to "make sure you kill the other guy" etc. Its all crap. You are more likely to face jailtime by excessive use of force. If you choose to attempt to wound someone ONCE the right to shoot has been satisified, thats up to you.

I call bs. Show me a law or retract.
Click to expand...

I posted the Arizona Revised statutes defining what is deadly force, and the law that defines when one is justified in using deadly force. He responds:

My hand could be an instrument of deadly force or it could make mashed potatoes. A gun can be a deadly weapon but by no means is it always a deadly weapon. It is more often a deterrant than an actual weapon of violence. It can also be used to stop someone without killing them. By using a deadly weapon you are realizing that death COULD well be an outcome, but no where does the law state AFAIK that must be your intent. Thats the only reason I had any exception to Bobs statement at all.

All of the law you posted, I agree with completely and have said repeatedly above. I am more than versed in what must be met to use deadly force. Death however does not have to be your intent to use deadly force, it is merely a POSSIBLE outcome which you need to know going in. The point is to make sure there is no other alternative.

I reiterate, once you have satisfied the right to shoot, there is no law AFAIK that governs how or where you can shoot your target or with what intent.

The problem is you are making a jump that isnt there.
Click to expand...

I try to restate my case and how I see what the law says. It plainly states - 'deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself.' If you feel that merely wounding someone is sufficient to stop them, then you shouldn't have used a deadly weapon.

You are a combo of confused and mistaken. You are confusing when you can use deadly force with your intent AFTER use of deadly force has been shown acceptable under the law. They are two seperate events. Youre backtracking to undermine the legality of use of deadly force, after I am assuming that as a given. Thats not the issue.

I gave you a clear example. Videotaped robbery, shooter chooses to shoot armed assailant in the toe. The video proves the threat(leveled gun at him) and if you believe hes breaking the law by choosing to wound(regardless of outcome) at that point, youre just mistaken. Once he has the right to shoot, he can make his own call as to how aggressive that will. You dont erase obvious and clear threat JUST because the guy chooses to wound. I agree its not a good idea, but its not even remotely illegal.

And again use of deadly force does not mean you intend to kill, it means death is a real possibility. Your interpretation of the definition is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the length of this post, but I'm stuck. I don't want this guy to get in a shooting and tell the jury "Let me off because I spared his life; I was only shooting to wound."

Does anyone have any links to laws or cases where this is clarified?

Thanks in advance.
 
Foxy, I think you are confusing issues. Are you really talking about legalities? If so, the other guy is correct. Legally, if lethal force is justified, then lethal force can be used, but you don't have to try to kill the person and the law doesn't govern specifically how it is to be applied, only what conditions that must be met before it is used.

There is no reason for you to worry about what happens to the other guy should he get into a shooting. That is between him and his lawyer. His lawyer probably won't let him speak to a jury.

As a general rule, the notion of shooting to wound seems pretty stupid because you are obviously in a situation where you are so endangered (or another is) that you must use lethal force. You simply shoot to stop and if the person end up dead, then they are dead. No biggie. The point is they are stopped. Wounded people don't always stop. Of course, there may be people you don't want to kill, but for whom you must use lethal force in hopes of creating enough wounding to stop the person without killing them. For example, say Uncle Jack has done a poor job monitoring is insulin and now is in the middle of a diabetic dellusion and is shooting up the neighborhood with his bird gun. You love Uncle Jack and know he has a medical problem causing the rampage, but when you try to speak with him, he shoots at you as well and is now advancing on you. What do you do? Do you kill Uncle Jack? If you are good enough, you might be able to shoot him in the lower legs, effectively stopped his progress until he is rendered unconscious via blood loss or the blood sugar issue and then medical help can be administered to him.
 
I don't see anything legally wrong with shooting someone with the intent to not kill them when you're in fear for your life. The only thing that admitting that you were trying to stop them by wounding them instead of trying to stop them by shooting them in their center of mass, which is more likely to result in a hit and more likely to result in death will do for you is to make it harder for you to convince the prosecutor and maybe even the judge or juror that you were in fear for your life.

Actually though, I don't really think its' legal to shoot someone with the intent to kill them unless you're on a government-sanctioned firing squad, OR with the intent to wound them. What would you say if the prosecutor asked you:

"Why did you shoot him?"

Would you say:
A. I shot him because I wanted to injure him.
B. I shot him because I wanted to kill him.
C. I shot him because I didn't want him to kill me.

It's legal to used deadly force with the intent to stop someone from doing something. It's NOT legal in my opinion, except for the fireing squad example, to shoot someone because you want to kill or injure them as your ultimate goal. In other words, the fact that someone winds up dead or injured because you shot them has nothing to do with why you shot them or your intent in shooting them.
 
Shooting to wound is still using lethal force. Firing a warning shot to scare the attacker is still using lethal force. If justified in using lethal force, one must shoot to neutralize the attacker. If that means shooting for the pelvis, however controversial this is, then shoot for the pelvis. Here you are shooting with the intention of wounding, where the chance of survival for the attacker is pretty good. If the BG needs to be stopped RIGHT NOW, shoot for the head. It will be pretty hard to convince anybody that you were shooting to wound with a head shot, but this was the only choice you had available at the time to end the situation with no other serious injuries, and it will be justified.

So, shooting to wound is not illegal. Whereas, shooting to kill in a certain situation will also not be illegal. In both situations, you were shooting to neutralize the attacker, where one had a high probability of survival, the other has almost zero. This was the BG's choice, you merely had to act on it.
 
One should never shoot to wound or shoot to kill, only shoot to stop when other options are exhausted, if your opponent is wounded or dead is irrelevant as long as you were justified in using a firearm.
 
Guns and knives are always considered deadly weapons simply because they can readily apply deadly force. As knightkrawler said, it doesn’t matter how that force is actually used...it’s still considered deadly force.

The only allowable intent is the intent to defend life.

Being justified to shoot does not give you free reign to shoot as you please. The police will use all the events of the shooting to determine whether it was justified or not. It would be foolhardy to take a course that could possibly lead to questioning your use of deadly force.

I would guess that you’d have a very hard time convincing a jury that your life was in imminent danger, when you had time enough to aim and shoot at a toe (which one would presume remained stationary long enough for you to take aim and shoot.)
 
Rich, the candy bar issue didn't work in the situation I read about of a diabetic having a severe reality and gun issue. The disoriented guy was stopped by the police with 12 ga. bean bags as I recall. He never actually fired his rifle, but made numerous threats. The police were made aware of the situation and basically took him down as a mental case and not as some felon.

Shooting to wound is not tortue if you are shooting to stop in a situation where lethal force is justified.

FrankDrebin, it is most certainly legal to shoot with the intent to kill by a civilian if you are justified to use lethal force. More correctly is that your intent to kill or not really isn't relevant. As noted by graystar, the overall intent is to defend life, and defense of life is what gives you the right to use lethal force (in most states, anyway). As noted, you would have a hard time convincing folks that shooting your attacker in the head wasn't an attempt to kill by you, but a shot to the brain can be a very quick stop and a stop is what you wanted.
 
Why couldn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand? I done seen it on TV!

Why couldn't you just shoot him in the arm? Or the leg? I done seen it on TV!
 
One: There are, in some jurisdictions, the crime of 'maiming'. Look up the definition.

Two: I was trained, in a law enforcement curriculum, that dead people give lousy testimony.
 
FrankDrebin, it is most certainly legal to shoot with the intent to kill by a civilian if you are justified to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

No way. Or...show me the federal case law that says it's OK for a civilian (or cop) to use deadly force with the intent to inflict death, as opposed to deadly force with the intent to stop the aggressive action of an attacker, or in some cases, escape of a fleeing felon. If you're justified in using lethal force, you're shooting to stop someone's aggressive action or in some cases, escape, whether you intentionally shoot them in the leg, or right through teh back of the head. Show me one person who has ever been advised by their lawyer to say on the stand "I shot him because I wanted to kill him because he was escaping" or "I wanted to kill him because he was coming toward me with a knife" vs. "I shot him because I didn't want him to kill me", or I shot him to prevent his escape." I've never heard of anyone who even thought of saying on the stand: "I shot him in order to kill him to prevent his escape". There's a reason why you haven't heard that from either a cop or a victim.
 
Last edited:
Wow, this is a year old and I never replied to Frank.

Frank, since there are laws that allow for the use of lethal force, the person using lethal force can do so with the intent to kill. You challenged me by asking me to tell you what laws say you can shoot to cause death. Generally speaking, laws don't directly grant a lot of permission, but do denote what activities are illegal. Show me the laws that say it is illegal to shoot to kill where lethal force is justified.

What is your basis for saying that it is not legal to shoot to kill when lethal force is justified?

If lethal force is justified, intent isn't a salient issue. Intent to kill will not make a justified use of lethal force invalid or illegal. Similarly, shooting to stop will not make a use of lethal force justified in a circumstance where lethal force isn't justified.

As for showing you where people were advised to say they shot to kill instead of shooting to stop during some sort of testimony, obviously their attorneys will not advise them to say they shot to kill if the matter of justification is being decided. Lawyers will tell their clients to not say a lot of things when matters are under consideration.
 
Well if events are bad enough to require the use of deadly force to protect myself or another....I am probably going to aim center mass and shoot till he stops. I dont think shoot to wound is going to pop up in my head....

if he feels that he is a leet marksman capable of wounding someone...that is his decison.... not a wise one but his decision.


tell him to wear a Purple hat with leet marksman on it...so If I am ever in the same location and a deadly force incident occurs I will know its him and can take cover :eek:
 
Ed, there was a case where the NYPD shot a gun out of someones hand [with a rifle] just like on TV !!...... Shooting at the pelvis or legs can be fatal if you hit the femoral artery !!!
 
Don't believe what you see on TV

The perp in that incident was whacked out on drugs and wine. During the course of this job he waived his gun around a lot but never pointed it at any cops- until the point where he became really stupid.
An ESU cop fired a single round of 12 ga Slug from his 13.5" M37, aiming for CM.
The slug struckthe perp in the forearm, traveling up the arm and chest.
He is a friend, and i was working that day. He did not aim to hit the gun - he aimed to stop the problem.

Guns- as well as hands and arms- are often stuck in gunfights.
CM is not a B27 target. We are aiming for the high chest- between the nipples. That portion of the body is sometimes occluded by guns and limbs if he is firing at you. That is life.

Don't believe the hype on the electronic/ print media any more then you believe a lot of the nonsense on the errornet.
You can use deadly physical force against someone under certain circumstances. Those circumstances may vary from jurisdiction to another, but it is DPF.
The result of causing insult to a body as the result of a penetrating wound always has the potential for causing death.
TV is not more reality, any more then a manufacturers claims about perfection are truth.
Deadly Physical Force is exactly that.
 
You draw a gun, you're employing lethal force.

Tell the jury and DA that you were "shooting just to wound", and you've just admitted that you didn't think that lethal force was justified. Never a good idea to essentially tell the jury that you didn't really *need* to pull that trigger, and even if you manage to not get convicted in criminal court, any lawyer worth his degree will take you to the cleaners in the civil trial based on that one statement alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top