When a headshot may be your best option...

[budney]

I don't know how the laws read where y'all are, but in tandem with Cosmoline's statements, where I live, the law doesn't care what my INTENT is.

Your intent can come into it when you're asked, "Why did you shoot him again after he dropped his gun and fell down?"

Recently, a boyfriend shot his girlfriend's stalking ex; the ex dropped his weapon, said, "You've killed me!" and fell down. The boyfriend then "shot him again to make sure he doesn't get up." I haven't heard whether charges were filed, but as several high-roaders observed at the time, they could have been.

There's an important mindset difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill. If you're shooting to kill, you're more likely to shoot one more time after the threat has actually ended. If you're confident you'll stop shooting the instant the threat is over, even if the bad guy is still walking and talking, then you're shooting to stop, not to kill.

--Len.

 

[budney]

I have read this thread a couple of times, and am struck by the nuances of "shoot to stop". Frankly I don't think it is a concept a jury is likely to understand well, without considerable explanation.

True. However, you can trust the prosecutor to do his darndest to get you to say on the stand, "I was trying to kill that SOB!" Once you've said the magic words, he will turn to the jury, raise an eyebrow and say, "Self-defense, huh? Withdrawn," and sit down smugly knowing that the jury now sees you as a killer, not an innocent victim.

--Len.

 

[cgraham]

While the law may not address intent, I believe the prosecutor and jury likely will consider intent to help determine if the homicide was justified. As your second post demonstrates, Budney, the prosecutor will attempt to turn the case against you based on intent.

That's why expressing your intent to "stop the threat" or "disable the attacker" is important. Both statements, however worded, express intent, and convey the same idea, but in different ways. Don't tell me you attempt to stop the threat without intent to do so.

Stopping shooting immediately the threat is stopped is problematic, unfortunately. Your plan may be to shoot 3 rapid shots, then assess; You may be uable to tell that the 1st shot stopped the threat, although a witness might. Hesitating to assess after each shot might be suicidal. I see this as another reason why your intent is important and has to be articulated.

It would be interesting to have a lawyer's view on the importance and clarity of expressing intent to disable, in determining whether a defensive shooting is justifiable.

C

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

From a tactical point of view?

I don't understand why people say you shoot to kill. From a tactical point of view isn't it better to shoot to stop than to kill or to wound? If I shatter someone's femur bone with bullets, he'll have a good chance of bleeding to death, but I most likely will die too because it'll take a while for him to bleed to death and in the mean time he will presume his deadly force on me. If someone attacks you, you don't intentionally tell yourself, "I'm going to shoot him in a place that will kill him," you instead shoot him in a place that you think will have quicker results and not stop until the threat stops. From a tactical standpoint, is the purpose of deadly force trying to make the other person die or is to "stop or prevent the illegal use of deadly force against yourself"? If I'm in a deadly situation and I'd be justified in using deadly force, I really could care less if the attacker live or dies or is just wounded, my first priority is to survive. 80% of those shot with handguns live and 70% of those shot with high-powered rifles die (30% live). In a lot of self-defense cases, the attacker lives and in a lot of cases the attacker dies. I don't care which way it turns out for the attacker, as long as my strategy is to live.

 

[Cosmoline]

While the law may not address intent, I believe the prosecutor and jury likely will consider intent to help determine if the homicide was justified.

That's a non sequitur. There is no element of intent in self defense. There never has been. It simply makes no sense. Intent comes into play when deciding what degree of homicide it was. But if it's shooting in self defense, it's TAKEN AS GRANTED that you intended to shoot him. I don't know why the devil you guys keep getting hung up on intent. Do not worry about it. Worry about whether you're facing an imminent and unlawful use of deadly force.

It would be interesting to have a lawyer's view on the importance and clarity of expressing intent to disable, in determining whether a defensive shooting is justifiable.

You have had one. I've been trying to explain, if you shoot someone in self defense it's presumed you intended to kill them. That's the whole point of DEADLY force. That's why they don't call it "stopping" force. Stopping force would be LTL--like a stun gun.

you can trust the prosecutor to do his darndest to get you to say on the stand, "I was trying to kill that SOB!" Once you've said the magic words, he will turn to the jury, raise an eyebrow and say, "Self-defense, huh? Withdrawn,"

This is nonsense. Where are you getting this from?

 

[Archangel]

There is no element of intent in self defense. There never has been. It simply makes no sense. Intent comes into play when deciding what degree of homicide it was.

You seem to be going by the assumption that everyone involved will agree that it is self defense.

Suppose you kill someone in self defense. It may be justifiable, but maybe the evidence at the scene isn't so clear cut. An overzealous DA decides to prosecute you for murder.

I found the following definition of first degree murder (emphasis mine):

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

Do you think that intent will or will not be a factor in the trial?

Do you think that your statements about "shooting to kill" will be helpful to your defense, considering that the prosecutor will be trying to prove that you intentionally killed another human being?


Leathal force is generally permitted when you are faced with an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave injury. When, faced with such a threat, we employ lethal force to stop that threat.

We shoot to stop. Not to stop the VCA. To stop the threat.

The reason you can't shoot him after he drops his gun is because he no longer presents an imminent deadly threat. It has nothing to do with whether you were shooting to kill in the first place.

If you were shooting to kill in the first place, you would keep shooting untill you had killed him. The fact that you would stop shooting when he drops the gun shows that you are in fact shooting to stop the threat.

Now, the target areas (COM, head) most likely to cause incapacitation, and therefore stop the threat, just so happen to corespond to a high probablility of the VCA expiring. Oh well. Too bad for him.

But saying that you are "shooting to kill" demonstrates that you had intent to kill, and that you were conscious of that intent before aiming and pulling the trigger. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that your murder 1 defense would go a lot better without that admission.


Thread hijack aside, sometimes a headshot may be the best, or only way, to stop the threat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you are shaken up enough to make a statement to the cops, saying that you "shot to stop the threat" isn't going to mean much if it goes to court as the statement will be presented as evidence via the officer's notes and the prosecuting lawyer will simply turn the statement around to note that if you really just wanted to "stop" the guy, then you would not have used a gun to shoot and kill him.

The crux of the matter is that just about any statement can be turned around to make a person look bad. It is what the lawyers do for a living, and vice versa, taking bad statements and making them look good.

The notion that somehow your statement is going to grant you some sort of immunity from prosecution is a bit naive. The notion that your statement in a self defense shooting is going to cause you to be convicted is a bit naive. Do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer handle things. You did the shooting to save your life and that was your specialty. It is your lawyer's specialty to help you with any potential legal consequences.

 

[Cosmoline]

Your intent can come into it when you're asked, "Why did you shoot him again after he dropped his gun and fell down?"

Regardless of intent you no longer have the ability to lawfully use deadly force once he is no longer presenting a threat of deadly force. Just don't do it.

Do you think that your statements about "shooting to kill" will be helpful to your defense, considering that the prosecutor will be trying to prove that you intentionally killed another human being?

I NEVER advised anyone to tell the officers they were shooting to kill. I advise anyone who's just shot someone to keep their mouths shut and get an attorney! My point is that this business of telling everyone you were "just shooting to stop" both misunderstands the law of self defense and can cause problems for you later on. Your intent will be presumed from your actions, you need say nothing about it. The critical elements will involve what the other fellow was doing and what level of threat he was posing when you shot him. There may also be questions about what you were doing prior to shooting. Unless you're going to claim it was an accidental shooting your intent to use deadly force and kill the fellow will be presumed from your actions. You drew, aimed and fired. That's intent to kill right there.

I get the feeling some of you think self defense operates by negating your intent. When it applies, it's a full justification to the INTENTIONAL use deadly force.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

It means intentionally or recklessly. That pretty much covers the chain of culpability and leaves only one possibility--you killed him BY MISTAKE out of negligence. Are you going to tell them you defended yourself by accident? It's a real stretch. But like I said, talk to an attorney and don't get in the habit of mouthing off some idiotic "shoot to stop" mantra you think will save you from a murder charge.

If you were shooting to kill in the first place, you would keep shooting untill you had killed him.

No, the law requires you match force with force. Your ability to lawfully use deadly force ends when the force you are matching is no longer at that level. Do not get hung up on intent. You don't understand it.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I think we've probably beaten this horse long enough. After this many posts, respondants begin to post without reading through the entire thread.

Closing this one. Not for any nefarious postings . . . but simply because we've wandered into too far into legal theory. We aren't lawyers, and this isn't Legal and Political.