shoot center mass

[Kleanbore]

I wouldn't rely upon a lay interpretation of any law that involves the question of civil liability; too much hinges on legal principles and on judicial precedent.

Arizona law has a provision on civil immunity. See this.

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter [(Justification)].

Sounds pretty air tight, eh?

Well, consider Page 57 of this.

Although Arizona has a strong policy that justification can be used in criminal and civil cases, one must remember that it is far easier to "prove" a civil case than a criminal case. If Sam Shooter uses or threatens the use of deadly force, and the county prosecutor decides there is no criminal case or Sam is acquitted, the victim or the victim's family can still sue Sam in a civil case for damages. Pfeil v. Smith, 183 Ariz. 63, 900 P.2d 12 (App. 1995). Plaintiffs in such cases usually lose, especially in Arizona. Nonetheless, if one is required to use deadly force, he/she faces the potential of a civil lawsuit.

Seem inconsistent? Well, it certainly explains the following from Page 3:

A person should not assume to understand a criminal statute by merely reading it. Courts determine the meaning of criminal statutes, and they sometimes do so with bizarre results. If a criminal statute is too confusing, or if it conflicts with higher laws, such as the federal or state Constitution, the courts may decide that the statute is ineffective, partially unenforceable or wholly unenforceable. The legal principles used by the courts to interpret the meaning of criminal statutes have evolved over centuries, and scholars argue endlessly over how the laws should be interpreted. In other words, no one should assume that he/she understands the meaning of a criminal law by simply reading a statute and attaching his/her own meaning or dictionary definitions to it.

So, you do not live in Arizona? Do you really understand the legal principles as they apply in your jurisdiction? Well, I'm not willing to contend that I do.

 

[Deanimator]

I know the legal issues in Ohio well enough to not take a foolish chance by not defending myself from a deadly force attack for fear of being sued.

I've NEVER heard of somebody being sued (nevermind successfully) in anything like a clear cut self-defense situation. Where it's NOT clear cut, almost always, the shooter either helped to create the situation, or he did something ill-advised to call his own intent into doubt. Warning shots and shooting to wound are a couple of those ill-advised things you can do in a self-defense situation. I have no plan to engage in either.

Given the fact that most violent criminals have few liquid assets, the likelihood of any sane attorney taking a case he knows that he can neither win, nor collect a judgment from, on a contingent basis, is slim indeed.

 

[Rail Driver]

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

If it's not a "good shoot" then I doubt a shooter would be worrying about possible civil penalties while they sit out their 10 year felony bid in state prison. (or whatever penalties exists for the charge they happen to catch)

 

[Frank Ettin]

If it's not a "good shoot" then I doubt a shooter would be worrying about possible civil penalties...

Not necessarily. The problem is that not every "good shoot" is immediately and universally accepted as such. You might think it's a good shoot, and it might turn out to have been a good shoot, but if certain others disagree, the question will still have to be resolved in court.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deanimator: I know the legal issues in Ohio well enough to not take a foolish chance by not defending myself from a deadly force attack for fear of being sued.

If it is immediately necessary to use deadly force to defend oneself--that is , if one has no other reasonable means--the potential for a civil suit would be a very poor reason indeed for not doing so.

I've NEVER heard of somebody being sued (nevermind successfully) in anything like a clear cut self-defense situation.

Not to appear argumentative, but I have known numerous individuals over the years who have suggested a certain course of action and have countered contrary advice with a statement to the effect that they have never heard of--whatever it may be. Not a good strategy, as it not infrequently turns out.

I know a number of attorneys and police officers who have heard of such situations.

The fact is, the civil immunity statutes were codified because they were necessary to reduce the frequency of such suits and the severity of the awards or settlements.

However, their protection is not absolute.

When a shooting occurs outside of one's own home in the absence of witnesses other than the involved parties, it will most likely appear "clear cut" only to the shooter.

Where it's NOT clear cut, almost always, the shooter either helped to create the situation, or he did something ill-advised to call his own intent into doubt.

That is precisely the point that the plaintiff will try to establish.

Warning shots and shooting to wound are a couple of those ill-advised things you can do in a self-defense situation. I have no plan to engage in either.

I agree.

Given the fact that most violent criminals have few liquid assets, the likelihood of any sane attorney taking a case he knows that he can neither win, nor collect a judgment from, on a contingent basis, is slim indeed.

That is true in many tort situations of many kinds, but there does not seem to an absence of lawyers willing to take a chance when the reward is tempting and threshold is a predominance of the evidence.

The civil immunity statures have helped a lot in this regard. Where I live, the law specifies that the unsuccessful plaintiff will bear all legal expenses, including those of the defendant.

That has reduced the number of suits significantly. However, a local attorney with whom I discussed the subject today advises me to not count too much on the protection of that part of the law, and says that the worst case outcome may still involve losing everything even if one is acquitted in criminal court.

Of course, the real risk most likely has a lot more to do with a suit from one or more third parties, if the justification defense is effectively mounted.

 

[atlp99]

1. Center chest is the largest area to shoot with any likely hood of stopping an attacker. Good chance of stopping the threat and highest chance of making good hits.

2. Just because you have to draw does not mean you have to shoot, but you should only draw in a situation where you would be justified in firing.
For example, if you are being threatened by someone with a knife as they approach you and you draw in response to the threat and when seeing you draw the attacker turns tail and runs. You were justified in drawing and would have been justified in shooting if the attacker had not stopped/ retreated, but your justification ended when the attacker retreated.

The exceptions to shooting center mass is what some trainers call shooting "center of available mass". Basically shoot the largest available, if all you can see is a leg then shoot the leg. This is mostly applicable to an attacker behind cover/concealment.

The second exception to shooting center mass is failure to stop.
Weather it is due to body armor or other reasons, if center mass shots have no effect then transition to head shots or pelvis shots. Head shots are hard to make since it is a smaller target and moves around more than the chest/ center mass. The goal of shooting for the pelvis is to break the bones, with a broken pelvis a person can not stand or walk but can still shoot back, so they are not guaranteed to be out of the fight. Also handguns may not be powerful enough to break the pelvis.

 

[GLOOB]

I am unable to envision a realistic situation where:

1- I am able to calmly draw a bead on a "wound" target
AND
2- There is a credible threat requiring deadly force to stop

Plus I haven't figured out a good way to train for busting kneecaps on a running target, getting any motion for a chest-size target is hard enough.
__________________

Well, I just thought of one possible example that I read about on this forum, but can't find.

In this case, a police officer had pulled over a driver. The driver got out and attacked the officer. They were grappling on the ground, and the assailant was much larger and stronger. He was in control and was supposedly going for the police officer's gun. A nearby citizen with a CCW pulled his gun and aimed. He told to attacker to stop or he would shoot. The attacker reportedly remained completely focused on the police officer, and the CCW'er eventually shot and killed him. (IIRC, the guy was cutting through a funeral procession at the time he got pulled over, in case someone recalls that event).

This is a very specific case where a guy is attacking a cop and going for his gun, in a total rage, not aware of his surroundings. The CCW'er was able to take careful aim from close distance. Depending on how big these guys were, it might have looked a bit like this. See 5:50 on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8TgPtnWjE0

 

[JShirley]

I haven't seen it mentioned here, but in at least some states, deliberately shooting to wound is a crime.

 

[Deanimator]

Not to appear argumentative, but I have known numerous individuals over the years who have suggested a certain course of action and have countered contrary advice with a statement to the effect that they have never heard of--whatever it may be. Not a good strategy, as it not infrequently turns out.

I speak strictly of contemporary Ohio. I make no representations regarding other places or times. I'll stick with that judgment within those parameters.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...They were grappling on the ground,...A nearby citizen with a CCW pulled his gun and aimed. He told to attacker to stop or he would shoot. The attacker reportedly remained completely focused on the police officer, and the CCW'er eventually shot and killed him. ...This is a very specific case where a guy is attacking a cop and going for his gun, in a total rage, not aware of his surroundings. The CCW'er was able to take careful aim from close distance. Depending on how big these guys were, it might have looked a bit like this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8TgPtnWjE0

[1] It might have looked like a lot of things. But we have no idea what it actually looked like. We really have no reason to believe that the actual confrontation looked or transpired anything like the video you linked to of two hogs fighting.

[2] So what's your point? As you describe it, the cop and the crook were grappling on the ground together. The crook was a moving target and the officer was right there in contact. So the officer was at high risk of being shot if the citizen missed.

[3] The cop was fighting with a larger and stronger man, based on your description, who was after the officer's gun. If the crook got the gun, the officer could easily been killed.

[4] Therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with not shooting COM. This is about taking a very difficult and high risk shot that needed to be effective in order to reliably stop the fight as quickly as possible.

 

[GLOOB]

Ok, this was a real example. But now it's my hypothetical scenario. So now it will look like whatever I want it to look like. So it looks like two hogs laying in the mud, trying to kill each other, unaware of you.

What's wrong with firing a warning shot, carefully aimed nearly straight down, but angled slightly towards a safe direction, so a high speed ricochet is practically impossible? Yeah, I know I'm responsible for where each bullet goes. That counts the same even if you are trying to shoot someone's COM, btw, and it's a lot easier to hit the ground 2 feet away! The guy had time to warn, verbally, in this situation. But maybe the attacker isn't processing verbal information too well at the moment.

The report of a gunshot might have made one of the hogs break off, in the above video. It might have done the same thing to the wild animal in the hypothetical scenario.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....So now it will look like whatever I want it to look like. So it looks like two hogs laying in the mud, trying to kill each other, unaware of you.

What's wrong with firing a warning shot, carefully aimed nearly straight down, but angled slightly towards a safe direction, so a high speed ricochet is practically impossible?....

And how can you be sure that a high speed ricochet is practically impossible? Did you closely examine the bit of ground you were going to shoot at?

And you can keep constructing hypotheticals until you've assembled all the right factors to make your way of solving the problem the right way. So what?

Whatever situation you may be faced with, you will need to make decision about how to deal with your problem. You will probably need to make those decisions quickly. Whether you make a good choice or a poor choice will have a lot to do with what kind of training you've had and what you know and understand about such things as your capabilities under stress, the physiology of wounding, and the applicable law regarding the use of lethal force.

 

[Deanimator]

What's wrong with firing a warning shot, carefully aimed nearly straight down, but angled slightly towards a safe direction, so a high speed ricochet is practically impossible?

Once again, we return to the question of your PRIMARY goal.

Is it to protect yourself or is it to protect somebody with apparent intent to maim or murder you?

If you put me in reasonable, immediate fear of life and limb, your well-being is of NO concern to me. Certainly, I"m not going to divert my focus from defending MYSELF to trying NOT to hurt YOU.

In FAR too many instances of UNSUCCESSFUL self-defense I've seen, the victim lost sight of what SHOULD be their SOLE concern, namely to avoid being killed or seriously injured.

If your foremost concern is to AVOID harm to someone engaged in an unlawful deadly force attack against you, the obvious course of action is to NOT carry ANY kind of weapon, and either to flee, or submit completely. That's NOT my goal, and my plan is to use overwhelming deadly force against my assailant without ANY warning, AT ALL.

Armed robbery, rape and other violent crimes against persons are CHOICES. I've never let my mind wander and then suddenly realized I was mugging somebody or tearing off a screaming woman's clothing. If you CHOOSE to do those sorts of things, I'm loathe to second guess that CHOICE. Once you've made that CHOICE, I'm going to hold you to it. It could well be the last CHOICE you ever make. Like the Grail Knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", I advise you to choose wisely...

 

[Trebor]

This came up again not to long ago.

Here's the last thread on the topic:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6849948#post6849948

Here's my reply from that thread reposted here:

You aren't "shooting to kill". You are "shooting to stop".

The important thing is that the attacker is STOPPED, RIGHT NOW.

You have to realize that shooting an attacker, in itself, is deadly force and can only be justified when you honestly believe your life is in danger and you have no other choice but to use deadly force.

In order to "shoot to stop" you aim for center mass. By hitting the attacker in the chest, especially the upper chest, you have the best chance of causing enough significant damage, quickly enough, to stop him before he injures or kills you.

You also aim for center of mass because this gives you more margin of error if your shots do not hit exactly where aimed. If you aim for the middle of the chest, and the shot is off by a few inches, it will still hit the chest and be effective. If you aim for his arm or his leg, and miss, you very likely may miss entirely. This will not stop him.

Also, even attempting to "shoot to wound" is still using deadly force. There is no guarantee that a planned "wounding shot" will not actually kill the attacker. You could hit the femoral artery, or the similiar artery in the arm, and he could bleed to death from what was supposed to be a "wounding shot." You are still responsible for shooting him and causing his death.

One last thought: We say "shoot to stop" to reinforce the idea that you stop shooting as soon as the threat is ended. Once the bad guy is down, and is no longer a threat, you stop shooting.

(Obviously, if he is still trying to shoot you, or is still a threat for some other reason, you could keep shooting even if he is down).

But, if you think about it as "shooting to kill" if you follow that logic that means you would always continue to try to kill the bad guy once he is down and is not longer a threat. That's the kind of thing that can turn a legitimate self defense shooting into a murder charge.

So, "shoot to stop", and realize that it is using deadly force, and that a likely consequence is that the attacker may die.

Don't "shoot to wound" as you may not stop the attacker before he kills you, and even if you delibrately try to wound somebody it is still deadly force and you may still kill him,

And don't think of it as "shooting to kill" as that promotes the mindset that you always want to kill the the attacker, even if the attack his been stopped, and that can lead to serious legal problems.

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP: I have had it pounded into my head that if you shoot in self defense, you must "shoot to kill," so to speak. Technically, shoot to stop - while aiming for the center of the chest. Never fire a warning shot, never try to injure. It's been so ingrained, I almost can't remember having any doubt. Shoot center mass, don't stop until the threat is over.

But I faintly recall questioning this wisdom when I first heard it. And now I am starting to wonder, again.

The wisdom is that if a shot is needed, then your life must be in imminent danger. And to draw a weapon, a shot must be needed. But is a center mass shot the only way to stop an imminent threat?

Also, some states have revised gun laws that makes it legal to draw a weapon without firing in certain situations. E.g., drawing a weapon is not necessarily the crime of brandishing. Does this change things? Is there any exception to the "rule" of only firing center mass, never shoot to injure, never fire a warning shot?

Shoot to kill? NO! See Posts 21, 29, 42, 42, and 64.

"A shot must be needed"? NO! See Posts 3, 4, 7, 8, and 18.

Why center mass? See Posts 9, 36, and 64.

Exception to 'never shoot to injure'? See Posts 5. 6. 9. 14, 15, 17, and 39.

Warning shot? See Posts 9, 14, 24, 62, and 63.

I may have missed some , but I think that all of the questions have been adequately addressed.