shoot center mass

[M2 Carbine]

I have a big problem with shooting anything that is alive,

Most decent people feel that way.

Personally I don't even like to kill Rattlesnakes on my place.
(heck I raised four baby Skunks in my barn because I didn't want them hurt )

But a criminal that's trying to hurt or steal from someone......I care less about them than those Rattlesnakes.




.

 

[David E]

We both win. He didn't die and I didn't kill him.

Presuming you didn't just piss him off and he pulled a gun/knife/club and killed you with it.

OR, it turns out exactly as say........here comes the lawsuit! You shot before an real theat actually existed and you lose everything in court to this slug.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Presuming you didn't just piss him off and he pulled a gun/knife/club and killed you with it.

OR, it turns out exactly as say........here comes the lawsuit! You shot before an real theat actually existed and you lose everything in court to this slug.

You can presume anything you want.
I can presume the guy was the son of a multi millionaire who was so grateful I didn't kill his son he buys me a new airplane.
Or presume the father was so upset I (needlessly?) killed his son he puts out a contract on me.


To answer your first part. Chances are I didn't fall asleep after I shot him in the leg, so then if need be, I would put a couple in him COM.

Second part. I'd deal with that if the time came.

You shot before an real theat actually existed

If the guy is close and coming at you with the apparent will and means to do you great bodily harm, a real threat does actually exist.
This still doesn't mean that you HAVE to kill him if you are CAPABLE of stopping him with a less deadly shot. (Not that it would bother me to shoot an attacker COM if that's what it takes).




.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If the guy is close and coming at you with the apparent will and means to do you great bodily harm, a real threat does actually exist. This still doesn't mean that you HAVE to kill him if you are CAPABLE of stopping him with a less deadly shot...

But how do you know what will stop him?

[1] People have continued to fight and even kill an opponent when suffering grievous, even mortal, wounds.

[2] No wound, except one causing significant damage to the upper spine or brain, is sure to quickly stop a fight. And such a wound will cause death or grave disability.

[3] The point is never to kill. It's to stop. But the reality is that wounds most likely to most quickly incapacitate an attacker by causing him to be physiologically unable to continue the fight also have the most potentially to ultimately be fatal.

[4] Less severe wounds may or may not stop an attacker. They will only stop an attacker if he chooses to stop after recognizing that he is wounded. They will not cause him to be physiologically incapable of continuing to fight. And such a wound may still be fatal (e. g., a shot to the leg which cuts the femoral artery).

[5] You might hit an attacker's leg, or otherwise cause him a minor wound, because you miss your COM shot. But are you good enough to reliably intentionally deliver a minor wound under stress?

[6] Bottom line is that if an attacker stops upon seeing your gun or after suffering a minor wound, that is a good result. But you can't count on his stopping.

...Chances are I didn't fall asleep after I shot him in the leg, so then if need be, I would put a couple in him COM....

If you still have enough time after taking the time to try to place a shot in your attacker's leg. And if you actually had managed to hit him in the leg under the stress of the encounter.

 

[LibShooter]

If I ever have to use my gun in a real self defense situation, I expect to be too distracted by terror and the warm, wet feeling in the front of my pants to worry about esoterica like winging a bad guy in his left elbow.

My only hope is to try to do what I practice, point the gun at the middle of the threat and squeeze the trigger.

The possible outcomes run from the best case scenario: I barely miss the guy, my bullet lands safely in a convenient hillside and the guy runs away in fear to sin no more...

To the worst case: me or a loved one dead on the street.

I don't plan to do anything to make the worst case scenario more likely.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes, but supposing you did not want the attacker to die, and for some reason you believe the attack will stop if a shot if fired. Any shot. A warning shot into the ground, or a shot in his foot. I'm just curious to see the argument, is all.

1. I couldn't care less if my assailant dies or not. I care that his attack stops. The ONLY means of reasonably assuring that outcome all entail a substantial risk of death. When you put me in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb, my SOLE concern is preserving MY safety. Yours is of UTTERLY no concern to me.
2. If someone has put me in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb, why on EARTH would I believe that anything BUT the immediate use of deadly force would suffice to end that threat? Why on EARTH would I take the risk?
3. Trying to avoid harm to someone engaged in an ongoing effort to maim or kill me is something I will NEVER do, nevermind risking my own life or that of a bystander to achieve. If you're trying to murder or maim me and I end up killing you, that's something I can definitely live with. Trying to protect YOU from your OWN bad choices by trying to wound you, and killing somebody's kid instead would haunt me for the rest of my life.

If you don't want to get shot, don't do things which would convince a reasonable person that you NEED to be shot. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

 

[Deanimator]

I have a big problem with shooting anything that is alive

I have a MUCH bigger problem with being maimed or murdered.

That's why you shouldn't unlawfully put me (or anyone else) in immediate, credible fear of life and limb. If you do that, you've got nobody to blame for negative consequences but yourself.

 

[M2 Carbine]

But how do you know what will stop him?

[6] Bottom line is that if an attacker stops upon seeing your gun or after suffering a minor wound, that is a good result. But you can't count on his stopping.

NO, I don't know if a shot in the leg will stop him. I also don't know if, for instance, three .380 bullets COM will stop him either.
We just do what we can with what we got and hope for the best.


The point I am trying to make is, it may not be necessary or even smart to shoot COM 100% of the time.
I am not a bleeding heart that especially cares if a attacker lives or dies but I don't want to have the mind set that the only solution in every case is shooting COM.

Just like I don't spend all my time practicing shooting close in because that's where most defense shootouts occur, I try to be prepared to operate "outside the box" if necessary.

Would I ever shoot an attacker in the leg? Probably not, but I am prepared to take whatever seems the best action at the time.


.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'll offer this, not as a solution...for I fall squarely in the COM camp...but as an option.

If you really think you are a good enough to be able to calmly place shots accurately under the stress of a life and death situation...

Place your shots in the pelvic girdle, that is usually a reliable stopper as it takes out the structure to stay erect...the problem, like shooting at the head, is that it moves quickly and a miss will likely miss completely

 

[mcdonl]

Place your shots in the pelvic girdle, that is usually a reliable stopper as it takes out the structure to stay erect...the problem, like shooting at the head, is that it moves quickly and a miss will likely miss completely

Also, the femoral artery goes through there and you can lose 3L of blood FAST in that area.

 

[Deanimator]

The point I am trying to make is, it may not be necessary or even smart to shoot COM 100% of the time.

The ONLY reasons I can think of where it would be necessary to shoot someone in OTHER than COM would be if they were wearing body armor, or if they were shooting at you from cover, you had no means to safely withdraw, and that was all that was exposed.

Apart from those VERY unlikely scenarios, I can't think of a reason to NOT shoot COM where shooting would be justified AT ALL.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...NO, I don't know if a shot in the leg will stop him. I also don't know if, for instance, three .380 bullets COM will stop him either....

True, but three (or four or five) hits COM, even with a .380 are more likely to more quickly incapacitate an attacker. The COM is also a surer target you'll be more likely to hit. And several .380 (or even larger caliber) bullets to the COM aren't guaranteed to be fatal either, (A hit to the leg that cuts the femoral artery is almost certain to be fatal.)

...The point I am trying to make is, it may not be necessary or even smart to shoot COM 100% of the time....

Perhaps not, but only if the COM doesn't present itself as a good target or you have reason to believe that the assailant is wearing body armor. And in that case, the best course of action would be to look for the available target that would, when hit, cause the quickest and most reliable incapacitation of the assailant. So if he's behind cover shooting at you and all that's available as a target is his head -- there's your target. (And also, if the situation is such that one may need to absolutely and reliably shut off the attacker immediately, one would have to look for a shot to the central nervous system; but such an exigent circumstance will be extremely rare.)

I'll offer this, not as a solution...for I fall squarely in the COM camp...but as an option.

If you really think you are a good enough to be able to calmly place shots accurately under the stress of a life and death situation...

Place your shots in the pelvic girdle, that is usually a reliable stopper as it takes out the structure to stay erect...the problem, like shooting at the head, is that it moves quickly and a miss will likely miss completely

I'm with 9mmepiphany, but a few things to remember about the pelvic girdle shot (in addition to it often being a moving target that's hard to hit) --

• To take out the support structure, you need to get a good, solid hit on the pelvis with a cartridge of consequence. The pelvis is a large and strong bone. A hit or two with a light, small caliber bullet from a lower powered cartridge, like a .380 ACP, might not reliably do the job, especially if the attacker is a large, strong person.
• While a good hit to the pelvis can immobilize the attacker, it doesn't necessarily incapacitate him. If he's armed with a gun, he can still shoot.
• A wound to the pelvic girdle can still be mortal if the femoral artery is cut (or from infection if the bowel is damaged).

 

[9mmepiphany]

While a good hit to the pelvis can immobilize the attacker, it doesn't necessarily incapacitate him. If he's armed with a gun, he can still shoot.

Thanks for bringing this up and it is a critical point.

While it might put your attacker on the group, they are certainly not out of the fight...they remain highly dangerous and if they want to continue the fight they certainly can. As a matter of fact, it will be even harder to stop them now, as they'll present a smaller target on the ground

 

[David E]

To answer your first part. Chances are I didn't fall asleep after I shot him in the leg, so then if need be, I would put a couple in him COM.

Not many of us are that lucky as to have such a cooperative badguy, giving you all the time you need to make your shots and assessments.

This still doesn't mean that you HAVE to kill him if you are CAPABLE of stopping him with a less deadly shot.

How much time do you suppose that would take?

How would that thought sequence go? "Hey, I'm facing a deadly threat here, he will kill me in one or two seconds, but I'm sure I can shoot his leg and that'll change his mind..." BANG!........"Ok, I hit the leg....he didn't like it.....he's, OH, CRAP!!!!"

NO, I don't know if a shot in the leg will stop him. I also don't know if, for instance, three .380 bullets COM will stop him either.

BINGO! We have a winner! No, you DON'T know what it'll take to stop a guy who is actively trying to kill you, so it's pure folly to waste time and ammo trying a predictably less effective tactic.

You may only get ONE shot. Me, I'm not going to waste it trying to be "nice" to the thug who is trying to kill me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So to review:

The only two ways to physiologically prevent the attacker from continuing to fight are --

[1] Inflict significant damage to the central nervous system -- principally the upper spine or brain.

[2] Cause significant loss of blood volume/pressure depriving the brain (and muscles) of sufficient oxygen to function properly.

Damage to a major skeletal structure can immobilize an attacker. But it doesn't necessarily incapacitate him.

A more minor wound could cause an attacker to choose to stop fighting. But that would be a matter of his choice -- not a physiological imperative.

 

[Sky]

I grew up and was told by some of my legal relatives that if you have to shoot someone then it is always better to finish the job you started. One voice at the hearing; yours.

It would have to be pretty serious with imminent threat to me or mine with no escape before I draw or shoot. My personal time/money is more valuable to me than getting tangled in some legal web. Especially when in my mind I was justified, but in the perps mind, he was just asking for a smoke when I shot him. He was just taking the gun/knife/bat/etc back to his brother and it fell out of his pocket/hand when I was mean and shot him!! etc! etc! Yes he had been arrested 20 times in the last 12 years but he found religion the last time he was in jail and was turning his life around but really needed a smoke and I was really really mean and shot him. His bottom lip quivers as he speaks.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I grew up and was told by some of my legal relatives that if you have to shoot someone then it is always better to finish the job you started. One voice at the hearing; yours. ...

We may be legally justified in using lethal force to stop a deadly attack. But once it stops, we are no longer justified in using force. It is never legally justified to "finish him off."

 

[Sky]

fiddletown you are correct and no argument from me. I think what they meant and what I grew up to believe was be prepare to empty the mag because one shot may not be enough to stop our meth head/PCP BG. Think the L.A. police department records will show( I do not have access but attended security classes given by them) that a drugged out BD can walk through bullets and some little skinny guy hopped up on dope can take 4 LEOs or more to subdue do to superman strength..Like I said I do not want to be put in that kind of situation; just hope I will respond appropriately.

 

[cleardiddion]

Honestly, from what I was taught, you should (when it comes down to it) shoot whatever target the bg presents when you can.

Generally, that means center mass but if it comes down to it you should go for hands, feet, whatever.

 

[winchester1886]

Just remember when you shoot and wound even if you have due cause you can be sued in a court of law.I personally know someone that shot a man that was shooting at him and was sued for his injuries.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just remember when you shoot and wound even if you have due cause you can be sued in a court of law....

and if the person dies, you can be sued by his family.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deanimator: Apart from those VERY unlikely scenarios [if they were wearing body armor, or if they were shooting at you from cover, you had no means to safely withdraw, and that was all that was exposed], I can't think of a reason to NOT shoot COM where shooting would be justified AT ALL.

Nor can I.

 

[Deanimator]

Just remember when you shoot and wound even if you have due cause you can be sued in a court of law.

and if the person dies, you can be sued by his family.

Fortunately in Ohio, if it's ruled a good shoot, NEITHER of those is true.

We don't think you should be able to profit from criminal acts, especially FAILED criminal acts.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just remember when you shoot and wound even if you have due cause you can be sued in a court of law.

and if the person dies, you can be sued by his family.

Fortunately in Ohio, if it's ruled a good shoot, NEITHER of those is true.

[1] Actually, a number of States have immunity laws, but --

[2] There isn't always an express "ruling" that it's a "good shoot."

[3] So one can still be sue. In that case he'd defend on the basis of the immunity law and still have to establish that it was a "good shoot."

[4] So immunity laws don't always prevent a law suit, just streamline defending one.

[5] Not everyone lives in a State with an immunity law.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes, the problem with the laws that give immunity to civil suit is, like fiddletown says, that it has to be a "good shoot".

The often used argument around shooting to wound is that if the shooter has time to decide that he is only going to shoot to wound then maybe it wasn't time to shoot at all.

How can you argue that you were in fear of your life yet not use every means to protect your life? It seems to back you into a corner you might not be able to get out of.

You shoot to stop an attack, no more no less. You use the best method to achieve that and that's been proven over the years to be a shot to center mass until the attacker stops.

It would seem a very difficult thing to explain to a Grand Jury how you felt your life was in immediate danger yet you had time to cautiously place bullets only in a kneecap or hand.