Shot Placement vs Effective Threat Stoppage

A

Apone

New member
After reading multiple cases of firearm-inflicted damage necessary to stop a determined attacker, I opine that the following question be given due consideration: With criteria met for acting in self defense or defense of another, a person wielding a firearm should shoot to incapacitate or “stop the threat”, but never “shoot to kill” out of fear of prosecution, yet is it feasible to shoot to effectively “stop the threat” without “shooting to kill”, in that one who shoots for maximum effect of threat stoppage will be aiming for an area inherently vital to the attacker and in effect will be “shooting to kill?”

With regard to those who have personal experience, or through a second or farther removed party, of self defense or LOD shootings in which incapacitation was achieved through targeting an other than vital area, the FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness report by the Department of Justice compiled by Special Agent Urey W. Patrick in 1989 makes a strong argument that immediate incapacitation of an assailant is only guaranteed by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. If a shooter is aiming to deliver a shot to the brain or upper spinal cord for the sole purpose of immediate incapacitation, then in effect that shooter did aim to kill as the likelihood of surviving gunshot trauma to said areas is very slim thereby rendering the statement many of us are prepared to give of shooting to incapacitate, or shooting to “stop the threat”, irrelevant.

I have only recently uncovered the paths leading to, what is to me, this paradox and I was curious as to how others have reconciled the apparent contradiction. Thank you.

-Jonathan
 
There is no paradox, it's all about intent.

It's not about WHAT you do, it's about WHY you do it.

You choose a point of aim because you read/were instructed/were told that the point of aim you used was your best chance for incapacitating the attacker rapidly.

You don't choose a point of aim because you want to make sure the attacker will die.

What you say, even when you think you're off the record, can come back to haunt you. If you don't believe it, do a bit of research on a man named Mark Fuhrman.

The point is that it's unwise to talk about how you're going to kill anyone who breaks into your house, or how you're going to shoot to kill if you are ever attacked. There's simply no point in allowing your own words to call your motives into question when you can state (correctly) that if you are forced to use a firearm you will shoot to stop the attack.
 
It's pretty easy, when you think about it. Shoot for the biggest part of the target you can see. Most likely, that will be the center mass of his body. Sometimes that will be his head. Can't be helped. Of course, if you have reason to believe the bad guy is wearing body armor, then the equation changes and you need to aim for unprotected parts of his body.

As long as you are legally entitled to use deadly force to protect yourself, the lives of others, or (at least in Texas) your or others' property, you are under no legal obligation to try to be a marksman and only "shoot to wound", whatever that is.
 
I dont see it as a paradox, I see it as a reference to the lawfull use of force being measured.
 
Last edited:
What you say, even when you think you're off the record, can come back to haunt you. If you don't believe it, do a bit of research on a man named Mark Fuhrman.
Click to expand...

It was just a question.
 
There is no paradox, it's all about intent.

It's not about WHAT you do, it's about WHY you do it.
Click to expand...

Dude, I read that all wrong the first time....I gotcha.

The point is that it's unwise to talk about how you're going to kill anyone who breaks into your house, or how you're going to shoot to kill if you are ever attacked. There's simply no point in allowing your own words to call your motives into question when you can state (correctly) that if you are forced to use a firearm you will shoot to stop the attack.
Click to expand...

I don't think I was quite saying that or asking people to disclose that type of information, only I see shooting for effective incapacitation and shooting to stop the threat as having definitive implications, though not necessarily to the point of trapping yourself within your own words. If you don't feel comfortable furthering your responses in this thread, I understand, though somewhat disappointed as I enjoyed your initial reply.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I was quite saying that or asking people to disclose that type of information, only I see shooting for effective incapacitation and shooting to stop the threat as having definitive implications, though not necessarily to the point of trapping yourself within your own words.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply you were.

I read your question as being a query as to why people attempt to differentiate between shooting to kill vs shooting to end the threat/stop the attack when the tactics seem to be similar, if not identical.

The reason experts often make the distinction between the two isn't because the point of aim or tactics are different but because it's inadvisable for a defender to make it sound as if the goal of his actions were the death of the attacker vs the cessation of the attack.

Or, put more simply, saying it the right way makes you sound like a defender, saying it the wrong way makes you sound like a killer. Since you ARE a defender, why choose your words in such a way that they make you sound like something you're not?
 
Personally, there won't be anybody ever knowing whether I shot to kill, shot to stop, shot to maim, or shot to warn. It may be known in the legal system that I took the shot, but I won't be making any proclamations pertaining to intentions, POA, or anything else.
 
JohnKSa,
Quote "The point is that it's unwise to talk about how you're going to kill anyone who breaks into your house, or how you're going to shoot to kill if you are ever attacked. There's simply no point in allowing your own words to call your motives into question when you can state (correctly) that if you are forced to use a firearm you will shoot to stop the attack."

With this in mind, has there ever been a case of a prosecutor ever using someones post from this forum or other gun forums that you know of?
 
If you have cause to shoot someone, you have cause to kill him. After seeing what my sister had to go through after her car jacker survived bing shot I can state unequivically that if you kill your assailant your life will be easier than if he survives.

Two to the chest and one to the head.
 
With this in mind, has there ever been a case of a prosecutor ever using someones post from this forum or other gun forums that you know of?
Click to expand...
Don't know about that specifically; however, the use of computer forensics in criminal investigations is quite commonplace and I for one operate on the assumption that anything I do, and anything I might say online will be available to anyone who chooses to look for it. There is no anonymity, no privacy on the internet, regardless of what anyone might tell you.
 
In a justified shooting, you have the legal right to employ lethal force. Thus, if your attacker presents enough of a threat that lethal force is justified, the fact that you fired 1 round between the eyes versus two through the sternum is moot. You were justified in shooting.

In self-defense, one shoots until the immediate threat ceases to exist as a threat. If you shoot after the threat has ceased, it is manslaughter in legalese. But if you shoot one time and the perp dies it will because your marksmanship was good or his luck had run out.

While I don't know of anyone prosecuted with statements made in electronic media, it wouldn't suprise me to see one in the near future. Look at some of the news stories about whackjob mall/school shooters and what police found on their websites.

But I do know that prosecutors have interviewed a person's neighbors and co-workers and have come up with little "nuggets" from someone's "friend" with loose lips. Having a friend testify he heard you say last year that you'd "make sure that anyone breaking into your home would be carried out in a body bag" will not endear them to you. It is from such flippant statements that prosecutors can hang a manslaughter or 2nd degree murder charge.
 
The only "intent" you should have when forced to use deadly force is to eliminate the existing threat. Once the threat is eliminated and no longer poses a potential to threaten your life or cause serious bodily harm you have no legal authority to do anything. In between you have to do what you have to do to eliminate the threat. Killing should never be the goal; only doing what is neccessary to stop the threat.
 
"Stoppage" means "to plug up."

Shoot center of mass. That's where the target is. If you're legally justified in shooting, you're justified in shooting at the target -- right down the middle.

This is not a game of legerdemain. This is about life/death, his and yours.
 
In the aftermath of a SD shooting it could be advisable to be attempting CPR on the incapacitated BG.

I know there is considerable angst over attempting to save someone who was trying to kill you a few moments before but the law will see it in a decidedly positive light.


Afterall, your intent is NOT to kill and IS to minimize your losses. You shoot the BG to minimize your losses, you attempt to save him for the same reason. If attempting to save the life of the BG will lead to less likelihood of your being prosecuted or worse, it only makes sense to do so.
 
I firmly believe that shooting to stop is more than a legal term. It truly is the goal. People survive gunshots of all types, even head shots, even though they go down immediately. People die from gunshot wounds of all types but before they die, they take others with them in the last few seconds or minutes they have. Immediate incapacitation is the only thing that matters.
 
CPR is probably not going to make it. People die from gunshot wounds as a result of blood loss, organ trauma, shock. CPR addresses breathing and heart-beat. If the heart has a big, ragged hole in it, it's not going to beat. Lungs with holes in them tend to collapse.

You "shoot to stop the threat" -- but you shoot center of mass, because that's the shot placement that is most likely to succeed, in both stopping the threat and in putting the bullet on the target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top