Always shoot to kill?

[DHJenkins]

The time & shots wasted trying to maim could allow your attacker the time he needs to close the distance to you or fire his own weapon.

You should shoot with the express purpose of neutralizing their ability to threaten you. The most effective, permanent way of doing that is to aim for an area of the body that will cause an immediate shut down, or as close to it as possible.

You can call it what you like, the idea is the same no matter what.

 

[bellyup039]

In my training, the phrase is

"Shoot to stop the action."

Ok with that said. I mostly agree with everything here.

EXCEPT.. Carry a big gun. Do not carry, 22, 25, 380's. they are just plain too small.
Here is my reason:

Bad guy approaches to do you imminent harm. You have no recourse to retreat safely and must use your firearm to protect yourself or someone else.
So you draw your handgun and fire to "stop the action". One round goes off and the bad guy keeps coming. (You had a 22 pistol) So, You shoot again. Guess what you hit him twice in center mass (his chest) ( which I forgot to tell you is a thick black biker jacket, containing his metal pipe that he smokes his dope out of in the inside pocket ) and guess what, nothing happens. Bad guy continues to get mad, and still comes at you. So, you continue to fire rapidly hoping that your gun will stop his action. (Maybee it will, Maybee it won't.)
Ok so now the bad guy gets hit in the eye by a panic shot by you and he finnally goes down.

Great! It's over. No not quite.
The police arrive, and question you with your attorney, and the big question is; "Why did you shoot him 6 time?"
Your answer after carefull discussion with your attorney, ( you both know you were ok in shooting the bad guy) is; "The badguy kept coming at me."
(Good luck in the civil trial with 12 people of average ignorance and intelligence sittting in the jury box with that one.) Some one in the jury box is thinking, Hmmm, I think they wanted to kill that poor robber in the biker jacket.

Now, same seniro with a 45 acp.

Bad guy approaches to do you imminent harm. You have no recourse to retreat safely and must use your firearm to protect yourself or someone else.
So you draw your handgun and fire to "stop the action". One round goes off and the bad guy goes down the metal pipe that he smokes his dope out of in the inside pocket fragments and assist's you in stopping his action.

The police arrive and bla bla bla with attorney, the question appears.
" Why did you only shoot him one time?"
Answer, "Because it stopped his action."

I think I would rather go against 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty with the latter, in a civil trial for a wrongfull death suit than the first. Wouldn't you?

 

[rocky branch]

Friend of mine was shot dead by a wounded NVA.
Hesitate and you die or somebody you are with does.
An armed advisary is a threat as long as he is armed and alive.
I caught an AK round in one lung and both legs.
I went down but still could use my CAR.
I cannot imagine wounding an armed individual as a defensive move.
My only response today would be "It was me or him."

 

[wishn4more]

Joe Horn

Joe was interviewed yesterday on Glenn Beck. You'll remember him as the guy who phoned 911 to say he was going next door to stop some thugs from robbing his friend and neighbor's house.
Joe said that he shot them because quote "I wanted to live. If they got to me, they would have killed me."
When you put it in terms of protecting self, loved ones or as legally allowed, the phrase "shoot to kill" HAS NO PLACE. It's a stupid Hollywood phrase...
Stop the threat. If the threat expires, it has surely stopped.

PS. BellyUp... I've been seated on a couple of juries, because I believe in the right to trial by jury. I'm active in a lot of areas, including church administration, youth sports and Scouting. I believe in doing the right thing, because it's the right thing. Not smart enough to get out of jury duty? MS in Electrical Engineering (my dumb friends are surgeons and lawyers): I design electronics for a living, specifically flight control systems for satellites. Yeah, "space ships"...
I'll tell you one thing, I am the guy you want on your jury if you want a fair chance.

 

[ijosef]

However, the best answer is "I'm sorry officer, but I'm feeling unwell, and I need to go to the hospital to get checked out. I'll be glad to answer questions later, as soon as my attorney can be present and I've had a chance to speak with him."

This is great advice. Never talk to the police without an attorney if they try to question you, even if you're 100% innocent.

 

[cbrgator]

"If you ever have to shoot someone in self defense, shoot to kill. If they're dead they can't testify that it wasn't self defense."

I have been advised of this as well.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Just remember guys and girls.
NEVER tell them you 'shot' to kill... OK?

It's always:
I was in fear of my life...
(or something similar)

 

[mljdeckard]

I challenge anyone to show where posts from this forum, or any forum LIKE this one have been admitted in court. These posts hold no implied understanding of veracity or weight of authenticity. They are inadmissable AT LEAST under the "Best Evidence" and "Hearsay" rules. Something someone wrote on the internet under protection of anonmity holds no probative value.

If you aren't sure deadly force is necessary, you shouldn't draw. If you ARE sure deadly force is necessary, why would you use something LESS than deadly force? This opens you up to the legal scrutiny that you weren't really sure your life was in mortal danger at all.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

A friend was in jail for assaulting a mutual friend.

He opened his mouth to a cellmate and talked about how well the assault felt.

The Gaurd over heard the converstation which was quite.. damning to the assaulter standing trial but since the Gaurd was not spoken to directly face to face, the entire hearsay was tossed.

 

[PathinAZ]

I was trained to always shoot to kill. Although, I don't say it that way! I shoot to make sure that I can live!!

I have to listen to her cause shes my wife..

 

[Frank Ettin]

...They are inadmissable AT LEAST under the "Best Evidence" and "Hearsay" rules. Something someone wrote on the internet under protection of anonmity holds no probative value....

I see that you identified yourself in your profile as a pre-law student. I'm a lawyer (retired after practicing for over 30 years). One should not assume that something he says in a public place, like on the Internet, can not be admitted as evidence in a matter in which he is a party. Out of court statements by a party come under one of the most common exceptions to the hearsay rule. And it may or may not be probative of something material. The bottom line is that maybe it wouldn't be admitted; but then again, maybe it would. And even if it is not admissible, a post may be discoverable; and something said therein could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In any case, we are not having a private conversation. This is a public forum. Personally, I wouldn't count on anonymity or possible inadmissibility of anything I post here. It's not worth it.

 

[Coronach]

I am a LEO. IANAL. However, we are trained in the legal aspects of the use of force, up to and including deadly force. With regards to deadly force, the same law applies to us as applies to everyone else, we simply find ourselves in positions and situations where we are called upon to use it more often. However, the same general rule applies.

You shoot to stop the action of the aggressor. Your intent is not to kill him. Your intent is to get him to cease his threatening actions, willingly if possible, by force if necessary. The fact that the most effective stopping shots involve shots to center of mass or the head is not your problem, it is EMS' problem.

Do you need to be aware that the force you are using is potentially deadly? Of course. You need to be willing to use force that is likely to result in death. You need to be willing to kill. However, it is not your intent.

Your intent is to get the bad guy to stop his threatening actions. If you achieve this by pulling your gun, aiming it at him, and telling him to stop, wonderful. If you achieve that by shooting at him and missing, but scare him off, wonderful. If you get that by hitting him and wounding him so badly that he surrenders, wonderful. If you get that by wounding him so badly that he cannot continue his attack, wonderful. If you get that by killing him right there at the scene, so be it.

Where you will get into trouble is when you stop him, and you start/continue to shoot him (let's assume that ambiguity about whether or not he stopped does not exist, for the sake of argument). Where you will also get into trouble is in what you say afterwards. "He attacked me. I shot him. I would like to speak with a lawyer," are good words to have on hand.

A final caveat, KNOW the law where you are. Texas law is a favorite for internet lawyers and constitutional philosophers to spew. It only applies if you're in Texas. KNOW what you can and can't do where you are. Comply with the law, because while it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, it's WAY better to be no-billed by the Grand Jury.

Mike

Mike

 

[coloradokevin]

Coronach,

You took the words right out of my mouth! I'm also an LEO, and find myself providing this explanation to people far too often!

 

[RompinRed]

Shoot to Kill

colorado and Coronach! Thank you! lol...finally someone with a tad of sense!!!

I never ever want to have to draw, let alone shoot. But, given circumstances may require me to do so.

Do I want to kill someone? NO. I would rather draw and hope the idiot runs off. If they don't, then I would take my next step.

If I do have to shoot, it's not going to be to maim though! To "stop "the aggressor, in the way that I was trained, is to double tap center mass then one for the head.

Is that overkill? Or perhaps precaution?

How many stories have we heard of some numbnuts on PCP or other intoxicants being filled with a clip of .9mm's from the police, yet still get up and come at them?

This is my firm belief: If I have to draw and shoot...what I am shooting at will not survive!

 

[bellyup039]

wishn4more,

PS. BellyUp... I've been seated on a couple of juries, because I believe in the right to trial by jury. I'm active in a lot of areas, including church administration, youth sports and Scouting. I believe in doing the right thing, because it's the right thing. Not smart enough to get out of jury duty? MS in Electrical Engineering (my dumb friends are surgeons and lawyers): I design electronics for a living, specifically flight control systems for satellites. Yeah, "space ships"...
I'll tell you one thing, I am the guy you want on your jury if you want a fair chance.

Thank you for your response. I was hoping someone would catch that part.
It shows that you ARE paying attention.

I too was on a civil jury trial and it lasted 5 days. I learned alot, I was in college at the time for Administration of Poilce, and my instructors told me that I would learn more in the Jury than I would in school. I actually enjoyed the experience, and I took my duty with the highest of honor.

(My phrase that people arn't smart enought to get out of jury duty, came from a TV show.) It had nothing more than a "smart a$$" remark. Because you and I and most of us all know, people do not want to miss work to go to jury duty, and they make up crap to get out of it.

YES, I want you on my jury! And for that attitude, I thank you for your jury service, both in the past and future.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

mljdeckard: "They are inadmissable AT LEAST under the "Best Evidence" and "Hearsay" rules. Something someone wrote on the internet under protection of anonmity holds no probative value."

Fiddletown discussed the party exception to the hearsay exclusion above; I love it when pro se litigants shout "Objection! Hearsay!" from across the room, when it's their own statements being introduced against them. When I say "Party exception" and the Judge says "Overruled," the litigant without exception resembles a deer in the headlights. Funny.

On the other hand, while internet statements may be admissible against the author, there is always the potential defense that the author was joking, lying, experimenting or conducting research for a fiction or nonfiction book or article. On that basis, assuming a little supporting evidence, the inflammatory statements may be explained away.

 

[runrabbitrun]

You shoot to stop the action of the aggressor. Your intent is not to kill him. Your intent is to get him to cease his threatening actions, willingly if possible, by force if necessary.

This was my point too and glad some LE peeps responded.

I know what I was told by many LEOs if I was to have to kill someone in self defense.
My statement to investigators better be:
I was in fear for my life.

Your words can be your worse enemy if your not careful.
That is why I was told and if I recall, this is just about the same line LE also uses in court.
(If they are found defending themselves against a recent shoot.)

I bet you not one LEO after a shoot, tells reporters and investigators.
"I shot that SOB to kill."

To make that statement will surly get them some time off,
if not an indictment for a bad shoot/kill.


So the rule of thumb I believe is:
1) Shoot to STOP the threat.
2) In interviews about the shoot when asked, your statement should be.
I was in fear for my life.
(or a similar statement)
3) NEVER say you intended to KILL the attacker.

This is the same type of universal rule as: 'The gun is always loaded'
and may keep you out of trouble.

 

[PathinAZ]

EXCEPT.. Carry a big gun. Do not carry, 22, 25, 380's. they are just plain too small.
Here is my reason:

lol, thats one reason I went from my Colt 1991-a1 as my primary carry to my new baby, a Ruger SuperRedhawk Alaskan .454. It has about twice the punch(ftlbs) as a 44 mag. ((the rounds I carry are Hornady 300 gr 454, 1650fps(loose a little with the 2.5in barrel) and about 1900 ftlbs))

 

[cjw3cma]

How do you practice at the range? Do you shoot for the center of the target or is anywhere alright? Practice makes perect they say.

So if and when you make the decision to draw and fire, your practice will guide how and where you shoot. If your double tap happens to hit center mass and the BG doesn't live................

 

[Frank Ettin]

...while internet statements may be admissible against the author, there is always the potential defense that the author was joking, lying, experimenting or conducting research for a fiction or nonfiction book or article. On that basis, assuming a little supporting evidence, the inflammatory statements may be explained away.

True enough, although I've always felt that the less one has to explain the better off he'll be. And while in a criminal case, the explanation only has to be good enough to create doubt, there's always the possibility of a civil action as well (at least in some states).

So it may not be the end of the world if one posts something he may later regret, it's not a bad idea to exercise some discretion and judgment.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Fiddletown:

And while in a criminal case, the explanation only has to be good enough to create doubt, there's always the possibility of a civil action as well (at least in some states).

At least in some states, if there is a criminal trial and the actor is aquitted, civil proceedings appear to be barred or in some cases hindered. The question in my mind is whether there can be a successful civil suit in the event that the actor is not actually tried for a crime. According to my lay reading of the law in Missouri, the answer is "yes."

Here's the law in my state: if a person uses deadly force under circumstances specified as lawful self defense under the applicable sections of the statute, he "is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability". And, "The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense...".

It would appear to me that such would not be the case unless there had been a trial and aquittal in criminal court. It would appear to me that there could be a civil trial even if no criminal charges were filed. It seems that one's defense is the same, but that the burden of proof for the plaintiff would be one of the preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt.

Comments?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Kleanbore,

First, as you see I wrote, "...there's always the possibility of a civil action as well (at least in some states). "(emphasis added). So I recognize that there may be circumstances in which a civil case may not be viable.

I also have not doubt that there are circumstances in which a civil case might be pursued even in absence of a criminal prosecution.

I'm not going to speculate specifically on the situation in Missouri. You've quoted one small portion of a particular statute. How that provision may be applied will be determined by case law and, perhaps, by other statutes that may be applicable to a particular case.

 

[irishsquid]

If you're in a situation where you're actually debating with yourself whether or not deadly force is appropriate, it most likely ain't.

When the situation arises, you most likely won't have time to think about it. You'll have to deal with it and live with the consequences.

Taking a human life, even that of some degenerate thug, is an awesome responsibility and should not be regarded lightly. It's something you'll have to live with the rest of your life. In the end, you, and only you, will know if it was really necessary. Be prepared to live with that decision.

 

[woad_yurt]

A side note about TN....

I just looked up TN's law and it frees the shooter from civil liability if it was a good self defense shoot. The shootee or his/her family may not sue. We TNers have no obligation to retreat, either. Common sense raises its head every now and then, it seems.

I threw this in here in case any TN folks were wondering, it's called the "Stand Your Ground" law. TCA 39-11-611

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Arkansas says this.

The right of an individual to defend himself or herself an the life of a person or property in teh individulal's home against harm, injury or loss by a person UNLAWFULLY ENTERING or ATTEMPTING to enter or INTRUDE into the home is REAFFIRMED as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.

There is a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish a purpose described in (Previous paragraph) was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner. Unless the presumption is over come by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The Public policy as stated (in the first paragraph and the previous paragraph) will be strictly complied with by the court and a an approrpriate instruction of public policy shall be given to the jury sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection with THIS public policy.




That means Home Defense is lethal force in this state. BUT IF Home intruder turns to run and you shoot him in the back, you are the one breaking the law.



The section goes on to assert:

No Persons shall be civilly Liable for actions or omissions intended to protect themselves or others from personal injuries during the commission of a felony unless the action or omission consitutes a felony.

That means I can shoot invader dead and NOT be sued by the invader's family PROVIDED that I AM NOT CHARGED with a CRIME or a FELONY.

One other thing. Home defense shootings usually result in a decision to charge or not to charge a homeowner in criminal court with a Jury.

If the Homeowner is allowed to go free with no charges then no one can sue this homeowner.

IF I make a mistake and shoot intruder in back or something else and get charged with a crime... then I have no defense against a civil lawsuit once the criminal jury trial is finished.


There are so many things that can happen during a life or death situation with many different paths.

I have said before and I say it again. I shoot center mass until the bad guy stops trying. He might be hurt badly or run away. Fine. Even die.

I tell my spouse, center mass.

Our targets on the range is usually a center mass shadow of a person.

Not headshots, not heart shots, not fancy markmanship skill shots not overly excessive shooting like a emplaced minigun inside the bedroom doorway etc.

Just plain center mass ONCE the necessary actions are pushed far enough by the bad guy.

He can stand in the bedroom and scream, shout wave, rant and threatend to kill waving his weapon but we cannot shoot him. BUT if this person snaps and that first foot moves a step along with the body language communicating clear intent to sink knife or fire gun or swing bat whatever RIGHT THAT SECOND....

He's going to get blasted. Everything else afterwards will be determined by the Law as it's written and interperted by the LEO's Prosecutor and the Courts.

Hopefully we make right choice at right time. If such a choice has to be made.


Here is something else to think.

Home invader enters, by breaking through the front door of a home putting his life on the line.

Only no one is home.

We come back from the post office carrying a CCW and notice that the front door is open as we pull through the driveway.


Hmmmm..... Something to think about eh?