Shoot to kill or to stop?

[Halo is for Kids]

"Shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop"
The terms are used interchangeably, like clip and magazine, but like clip and magazine they are two different animals. I would describe the difference as “implied intent.”

Shoot to stop:
I intended to stop the actions that threatened my life, by shooting the assailant.

Shoot to kill:
I intended to stop the actions that threatened my life, by killing the assailant.

If presented with a situation where I had to defend my life with lethal force, I would shoot to stop the assault as quickly as possible. That means shooting for center mass, which is likely to stop the assailant. It is also likely that the assailant would be killed, but that is not my intent. My intent is only to stop the attack, so I voted for shoot to stop.

I am interested to hear your opinions on the use of both terms. I do not support shooting to kill so I am particularly interested in the opinions of the “shoot to kill” advocates.
______________________________________________

From my post #47:
If someone says "I am shooting to kill", that implies that they will not stop until they have killed.

If someone says "I am shooting to wound", that implies that lethal force was not necessary.

If someone says "I am shooting to stop the threat", that implies that once the threat is gone they will not continue employing lethal force.

Examples of a stopped threat:
BG killed, BG wounded and gives up, BG drops weapon and retreats, etc…

I understand that it is a possibility that the aggressor will be killed if I use lethal force to stop them. I just want to be clear that killing them is not my objective. Stopping the action that justifies my use of lethal force is the objective.


BTW, ensuring the aggressor is dead for the sake of limiting civil suits against you is an unethical justification for shooting to kill.
___________________________________________

From my post #142:
I too, am surprised that this has been such an issue.

So far in the tread I've noticed that some have misunderstood the question entirely. Some have understood perfectly and reemphasized that their intent is to kill. Some have even said that their CCW class was told to ensure the absence of their attacker/victim in court.

Shooting to stop is not shooting to wound. It means you will use the force necessary to end the aggression toward you, no more. The term has nothing to do with your point of aim in a lethal force encounter.

Shooting to kill is just that, shooting with the intent to kill.
Some of you have said that you will shoot to kill until the attacker stops the attack, or can no longer carry on the attack. That would be shooting to stop the attack. You can’t shoot to kill and then claim success if your attacker is still alive.

 

[BRASSM]

Use sufficient force to neutralize the threat.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

Use sufficient force to neutralize the threat.

So shoot to stop then?

 

[jakemccoy]

I'd shoot to stop. However, if my life is truly threatened, I would really prefer to "shoot to stop forever". I would not want the scumbag to have the opportunity to benefit in any kind of way in the legal aftermath. I probably would have to deal with a jury slowly deliberating over what I had to decide in 0.5 seconds. Having the assailant show up in court as a sympathetic witness would get my blood boiling. A living assailant would be disadvantageous in a civil trial. Could you imagine having to pay millions of dollars for injuries suffered by an assailant who tried to kill you? Even if my insurance covered it, I'd be beyond pissed or a numb zombie at that point.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Definately shoot to "stop." I don't want to have to kill anyone, but if I am shooting them, then they are trying to do harm to me or mine and I couldn't give a rats a$$ less if they are dead after I quit pulling the trigger.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

believe it or not, i intentionally use the wrong word. i mean shoot to stop, but i usually say shoot to kill, as a reminder that ANYTIME i need to use that weapon to defend myself i may kill someone, and even if there are a major bad person, i still want to aways be consiouse of the life at stake.
it may not be PC, but its not ment as something to look good to a lawyer.
does that make any sence?

 

[Schmidlin]

i kind of meant what bazooka posted. If my family or myself are being harmed my first thing is to protect mine. If you end up dead then i will have to answer to a higher power and live with that.

 

[CryingWolf]

If I have to shoot I am shooting to stop the threat. I.E. I agree with BRASSM, use sufficient force to neutralize the threat.

Thanks Shooter, my wish is to never having to pull my weapon, but if I ever have to I don't need something like this to muddy my intentions in a court of law if I ever have to. My purest intent is just to protect myself and my love ones.

If I fire a shot and I miss, and the person who is attacking me runs away, good. If I fire one shot and wound him, and he decides to run away, also good. If I don't have to fire a shot and the mere sight of a gun makes the person leave, most definitely good.

These are still a win for the GG

Sorry if this seems out of context now! Just clearing up my statement

 

[Regolith]

Shoot to stop. My intent is to end the danger of my life, not to end another life. If I fire a shot and I miss, and the person who is attacking me runs away, good. If I fire one shot and wound him, and he decides to run away, also good. If I don't have to fire a shot and the mere sight of a gun makes the person leave, most definitely good. If I have to shoot and kill him to stop, so be it, though I would have preferred not to have to of done it.

 

[shooter429]

Please read Masaad Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme"

I think this is a must read for anybody considering self-defense with a firearm. You will also want to be aware of the language in the laws of your particular state and jurisdiction. Keep in mind that you're words and actions will show up in court, and they will need to appear "reasonable" to the average person.

I would advise against using the phrase "Shoot to kill" as it may not be necessary to kill a Perp to stop a violent attack. You do not want to say you had intended to kill somebody, even if as a result of the shooting the BG dies.

Shooter429

 

[doc2rn]

I will refrain from answerring at this time, as I was always taught that you shoot to neutralize the threat. If you are truly in danger and the threat against your family is significant, you do what you must to protect them. I dont like playing word games. Two different words, two different meanings, and you can believe if you are ever forced to do what must be done which one the media/AG will use against you.

 

[MKEITH]

I intend to shoot to stop. If I am in a situation that I have to pull and use my weapon, then either my life or the life of a loved one is in danger. At that point, all I am concerned with is stopping the threat. If the person posing the threat happens to die in the process, then that is something I will have to try to live and deal with after the fact.

 

[flashhole]

I seem to be in the minority....oh well....if the situation exists where I need to resort to using a firearm to defend my life and or family I will shoot to kill every time. I'm a physically fit 210 pound man and can deal with most any physical situation or threat without it coming to a lethal end. If I deemed the situation that desperate that a gun were needed to remedy it I would shoot to kill.

 

[curmudgeon and anarchist]

I'd sure hate to be attacked by a dead man. (Joke)

 

[axeman_g]

Kill... otherwise I might not shoot to stop. I always aim center mass while practicing or IPSC, so I intend to do the same if god forbid, I am ever threatened to that point. Center mass = kill.

 

[PumpAction]

shooter429,

I believe Massad Ayoob was referring to law enforcement specifically with regards to shoot-to-stop. On the pages following the shoot-to-stop discussion, there's a section called "Escalation for Civilians" which reads:

And if you weren't qualified to use killing force, woe unto you if you make a "shot-to-wound" that maims in this fashion. For one thing, ask your attorney how much more a crippled man can sue the causer for than can the family of the deceased.

The very fact that you did not "shoot to kill" can indicate that you did not consider the crisis a killing situation; it could be decided that your degree of response was more than you, even at the time, reasonably believed was necessary."

 

[skinewmexico]

As they told us in CHL class - shoot to elimante a threat.

 

[RTFM]

Reported post as quite low road in my opinion.
Time to retake THE HIGH ROAD, starting now.

 

[Im283]

Shoot to stop the threat.

If the DA asks why you shot him in the head the answer is simple. It is because I truly feared for my life and the two shots to the chest didn't stop him from attacking me.
The same if you asked why you shot 5 times. The answer is because 4 was not enough to stop the threat to my life and 6 would have been too many.

 

[average_shooter]

Here's the difference;

Shoot-to-kill means if you draw, you're shooting.
Shoot-to-stop includes drawing and not shooting.

An example, let's say someone comes up to you with a knife demanding money and threatening to kill you if you don't cooperate. So you draw and start with the verbal commands like you were taught in your CC class. "Stop! Police! Drop Your Weapon!" At this point the attacker freezes and complies.

Ask yourself, now that you've stopped the attack, are you still going to shoot him? If you shoot him it's virtually guaranteed that you will be charged with murder.

At any of the shooting games, if you draw, you shoot. Fine. Real life isn't a game.

 

[Constantine-p89]

i kind of meant what bazooka posted. If my family or myself are being harmed my first thing is to protect mine. If you end up dead then i will have to answer to a higher power and live with that.

That's exactly how i feel on the issue.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

"Shoot-to-kill means if you draw, you're shooting.
Shoot-to-stop includes drawing and not shooting."

i draw my version out longer,
"if you draw you are prepared to shoot,
if you have to shoot, shoot to kill" with the implication of kill being stop. once the bad guy is down and no longer a threat he no longer is on my rader. thats when you make sure your safe and call the cops.

 

[Agent 006 &7/8]

As I was told during my departmental training. Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot so they stop advancing, moving, breathing, bleeding, etc. What ever, you shoot to STOP!

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

"Shoot-to-kill means if you draw, you're shooting.
Shoot-to-stop includes drawing and not shooting."

...

No it doesn't. It says so in the title. "Shoot to stop." Not "Draw to intimidate."

In any situation where it is grave enough to shoot your gun it is grave enough to kill. If I draw my gun and the attack or whatever stops, then I won't pull the trigger. But once I pull the trigger I intend to stop him, permanently. How many people survive gunshots? Lots. How many criminals have guns? Lots. How many people who survive a gunshot could still pull the trigger? Lots.

If you're not prepared to shoot to kill, you're honestly not prepared to shoot at all. Legally, there is no escalation from shoot to wound to shoot to kill. It goes from "Drawing weapon to Shooting Weapon." If you shoot him and he dies, if it was legal it was legal. If you shoot him and he doesn't die, if it was illegal it was illegal. There isn't a "lesser" degree of shooting. In a self-defense situation you're either looking at Voluntary Manslaughter or Assault with a Deadly Weapon if it was found to be a bad shooting. The difference isn't that much, in the eyes of the law.

If a criminal shoots you, do you intend to stop? Or do you intend to shoot back some more? Don't think any less of him. If you make the decision to fire your weapon, you shoot to kill. Otherwise I'm not sure you're ready for the responsibility of carrying a firearm and defending yourself/others.

Sorry if its harsh, though that's how I feel without mincing my words.

 

[Macpherson]

I would shoot to slide lock. Whatever the resulting condition of my assailant is, I'm shooting to STOP the threat as soon as physically possible. I dont want to have to end anyone's life, but if I or a loved one is in fear for their life, I MUST end the attack before I am injured or killed, period. The method of force used is almost irrelevant, it's the motive for using it that matters.