BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I think we're all saying the same things. None of us expect we can shoot a man and also expect our rounds can't kill him.
When a headshot may be your best option...
- Thread starter JLStorm
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
You must presume that they WILL kill him. That's what deadly force is all about. Never shoot anyone you don't intend to kill. If you just want to stop them, ask them to stop or use LTL force.
It was the only option I had that had a chance of stopping him fast enough to keep him from killing me.
It was the only option I had that had a chance of stopping him fast enough to keep him from killing me.
Correct answer will depend on the circumstances, but it may very well be "Yes."
Actually, I didn't even expect it to stop him, it was just the only option that had a chance of stopping him fast enough to keep him from killing me.
Of course not, it is a lethal weapon, and I used lethal force. However, my end point was him stopping his attack.
Are you serious?
If the DA wants to worry me, he'll need better questions.
Cosmoline
Member
What about a taser? Pepper spray? Walking stick? Blow to the head? Did you try to reason with him? If your goal was merely to stop him, aren't there other ways you can stop people? Can't you stop someone quickly by telling them to stop? Waving your hands for them to stop? Couldn't you have fired at the ground or shot his leg if you merely wanted to stop him?
Oh yes, me boyo. If you decide to use euphemisms expect to be raked over the coals for it. If you go in claiming you only wanted to stop him, the question then becomes aren't there less extreme methods to simply stop a person.
The point here is don't get caught up on notions of subjective intent. You should be much less concerned with what your personal objective is than whether or not the person you're shooting at really poses an imminent and unlawful threat to your life. And when it comes to testifying, don't get cute. Indeed your counsel would likely advise you to keep your answers simple and straight-forward, sticking to the objective facts about the incident.
Last edited:
Im283
Member
In my carry permit class we were taught that you shoot only if in imminent fear for you life or the life of a loved one. There was no distinction made on the target you choose to end the threat.
the only time a target was discussed was if you are taking body shots and the threat continues that it would serve you to take a head shot to end the threat.
the only time a target was discussed was if you are taking body shots and the threat continues that it would serve you to take a head shot to end the threat.
budney
member
The difference is subtle but real: you are allowed to stop him, even if he dies in the process. You are not allowed to kill him.
One consequences of this is threat escalation. You try to avoid the confrontational situation entirely. Failing that, you try to defuse the conflict. Failing that, you draw, issue a verbal command, and fire. When the attack stops, you stop firing. Sometimes the situation proceeds too quickly to go through those steps in a gradual sequence, but you always follow the procedure of ending the confrontation with the minimum of force, and terminating your use of force when the confrontation ends.
If your intention is to kill, rather than stop, then you must shoot until your antagonist is dead. If you stop while he lives, you've failed to achieve your goal. If you don't really intend to make sure he's dead, then either your goal wasn't to kill after all, or else your methods are inconsistent with your objective.
Perhaps that's the clearest way to put it. If one shot kills the attacker, then you have both stopped the attack and killed the attacker. So assume that your first shot does not incapacitate the attacker. The question is, when will you stop shooting? If you answer, "When the attack ends," you're shooting to stop. If you answer, "When my attacker is dead," you're shooting to kill. It just so happens that a certain percentage of the time, the attack ends with the death of the attacker.
I think I can mention another point without digressing into religion: as an armed Christian, this distinction is very important. A hypothetical has come up in defending my decision to hoplophobe Christians. After the attack is over, would I call an ambulance for my attacker? Would I administer first-aid for gunshot wounds? Yes to both, if I can do so without endangering myself or others. If my intention was to kill the attacker, the last thing I'd do is render first-aid after the conflict is over. Note: I do not know first-aid for gunshot wounds, and one consequence of that conversation was that I have decided to learn what to do.
--Len.
Cosmoline
Member
Of course you are allowed to kill him, and that killing will be JUSTIFIED if you meet the criteria set out in the statute. It will not be a justified killing if you continue to shoot him after he's no longer a threat, which is the real point of "shooting to stop." It should really be called "shoot until HE stops." The issue has nothing to do with your personal intent.
budney
member
I think my previous post makes the point clear. When the attack stops, I stop shooting. If my intent were to kill, I would continue shooting until my attacker gave up the ghost, shuffled off his mortal coil, kicked the bucket, bought the farm, rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. I'd shoot until my attacker was an ex-person.
But I don't intend to do that. I intend to stop shooting when the attack stops. Or not to shoot at all, if the attack can be stopped without it. If he dies in the process, it's unfortunate; it's his fault; and it wasn't what I was attempting to accomplish.
--Len.
Budney gets it. What we are trying to "stop" is the immediate threat to our lives. It isn't a euphemism, it is technically precise. If I go for a head shot, jerk it low and left, hitting him in the right neck damaging the nerves going to his right hand, and causing him to drop the gun he was threatening me with, what do I do now? If I'm shooting to kill, I shoot him again, because he isn't dead yet. If I'm shooting to stop the immediate threat to my life, I don't shoot, because after he's dropped the gun, I can no longer articulate an immediate threat to my life.
Another way of looking at it would be this: If I wanted to kill someone, I'd poison my bullets to make damn sure they died.
Thing is, I don't want them to die - I simply want them to stop their actions, but by shooting them there is still the possibility - not 100% probability - that they will die.
Thing is, I don't want them to die - I simply want them to stop their actions, but by shooting them there is still the possibility - not 100% probability - that they will die.
Cosmoline
Member
Let me try it this way. An otherwise justified shooting is still justified EVEN IF you KNOW your shot will kill him.
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.
Yes. Good. That's 100% correct. But then you go on...
This has nothing to do with anything. Your subjective intent may have been to kill him. You may still hope he dies. Or you may hope he recovers. It doesn't matter. The justification of self defense does not depend on what intent is in your heart when you pull the trigger, and this is what gets people confused. You must stop shooting as soon as the threat ends or decreases to a non-deadly level, no matter what your intent is or was.
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.
Yes. Good. That's 100% correct. But then you go on...
This has nothing to do with anything. Your subjective intent may have been to kill him. You may still hope he dies. Or you may hope he recovers. It doesn't matter. The justification of self defense does not depend on what intent is in your heart when you pull the trigger, and this is what gets people confused. You must stop shooting as soon as the threat ends or decreases to a non-deadly level, no matter what your intent is or was.
budney
member
I think I see what you're saying. To you, "shoot to kill" is not a statement of intent, but a description of method--i.e., "shooting to kill" to you simply means "aiming for COM or head." OK, I get you.
Yes, those of us who "shoot to stop" will presumably do it by double-tapping COM or similar, and you call that "shooting to kill." We don't call it that because we're talking about our intent, not our method.
--Len.
budney
member
Tim, I agree. But at least the miscommunication is cleared up, I think.
--Len.
--Len.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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. I can use lethal for with whatever desire I so please so long as I/the situation meet the criteria for the use of lethal force and it is used correctly.
The law also does not penalize me if I want the bad guy to die and he lives.
I don't know of any laws that state you must use lethal force without the intent to kill, but if somebody knows of such a law, I would like to hear about it.
The law also does not penalize me if I want the bad guy to die and he lives.
I don't know of any laws that state you must use lethal force without the intent to kill, but if somebody knows of such a law, I would like to hear about it.
I don't think there are such laws, although I seem to recall a case in which an entirely justifiable shooting was prosecuted because the winner said something to the effect that he had "made his mind up to kill" his assailant.
Imagine an armed robber has you at gunpoint, and is threatening your life. Naturally, the law would consider it justified if you shot him.
If you had a button in front of you that would immediately cause a remotely operated gun to shoot him COM, and you pressed it instead of shooting him, the law would consider that justified.
If you had 2 buttons in front of you, and one caused him to get shot, and the other instantaneously disarmed him and restrained him for the police, I don't think the law would consider it justifiable if you chose to press the one that was likely to kill him.
Imagine an armed robber has you at gunpoint, and is threatening your life. Naturally, the law would consider it justified if you shot him.
If you had a button in front of you that would immediately cause a remotely operated gun to shoot him COM, and you pressed it instead of shooting him, the law would consider that justified.
If you had 2 buttons in front of you, and one caused him to get shot, and the other instantaneously disarmed him and restrained him for the police, I don't think the law would consider it justifiable if you chose to press the one that was likely to kill him.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yes, it would. The criminal laws do not say that you have to choose the least lethal option or that you have to choose a less lethal or non-lethal option over a lethal option.
In your scenario of buttons, both work 100%. In the real world, we are hard pressed to have firearms that work with 100% effectiveness and less lethal options in lethal confrontations can't be counted on to do better.
Contrary to popular belief, due process often does include prosecution. It sucks, but sometimes matters must be sorted out in court. Chances are the case you referred to is one where there were several other mitigating factors other than the simple utterance where the shooter had made up his mind to kill. If the shooter was justified in using lethal force, then it does not matter what he used or what his intent was as the use of lethal force demonstrates a willingness to kill or risk killing the opposition. That is why it is lethal force. That is why lethal force is NOT allowed in so many non-lethal situations.
In your scenario of buttons, both work 100%. In the real world, we are hard pressed to have firearms that work with 100% effectiveness and less lethal options in lethal confrontations can't be counted on to do better.
Contrary to popular belief, due process often does include prosecution. It sucks, but sometimes matters must be sorted out in court. Chances are the case you referred to is one where there were several other mitigating factors other than the simple utterance where the shooter had made up his mind to kill. If the shooter was justified in using lethal force, then it does not matter what he used or what his intent was as the use of lethal force demonstrates a willingness to kill or risk killing the opposition. That is why it is lethal force. That is why lethal force is NOT allowed in so many non-lethal situations.
No, in my scenario, one works 100% immediately, and is very unlikely to kill him. The other is likely to kill him, and may or may not incapacitate him immediately.
The law generally assumes that human life has value. Most courts use the reasonable man standard when determining whether or not lethal force can be justified. What is reasonable depends on the options available to you. Given the choice between the two buttons, if you choose the shoot button, passing up the 100% effective restraint button, I can easily see a jury concluding your intent was to kill the robber, and not to end the threat.
The reason this is seldom an issue in the real world is that you virtually never have a more reliable but less lethal method available to you.
The law generally assumes that human life has value. Most courts use the reasonable man standard when determining whether or not lethal force can be justified. What is reasonable depends on the options available to you. Given the choice between the two buttons, if you choose the shoot button, passing up the 100% effective restraint button, I can easily see a jury concluding your intent was to kill the robber, and not to end the threat.
The reason this is seldom an issue in the real world is that you virtually never have a more reliable but less lethal method available to you.
skinnyguy
Member
The simple answer is lawyers. If they can get you to say "I shot to kill", they make you out to be the bad guy, if you say "I wanted to stop the threat he posed", you are in defensive mode, and leaving all the guilt on the BG.
So, I hope it never happens, but if I'm ever in the situation, here is my likely explanation;
lawyer- Tell me why you shot the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Doe.
me- He was threatening myself and my daughter with a knife, and I believed our lives were in danger, and so I fired my weapon to stop that threat.
lawyer- Did you intend to kill him?
me- No sir, my intent was to stop the threat.
lawyer- You put 3 rounds into Mr Doe's chest with a 9mm caliber pistol loaded with 15 rounds of HOLLOW POINT AMMUNITION!! They punctured his heart, lung and broke some ribs and you say you didn't intend to kill him?
me- Sir, I stopped at 3 because the threat stopped, he stopped. The hollow points are to prevent overpenetration and to lessen the danger to others in the area. I knew that his death was a possibility, but that was NOT my intent.
lawyer- Why 15 rounds in the clip if you didn't intend to kill him?
me- Because the MAGAZINE doesn't hold 16 and it may have taken more than 3 to stop his threat, and he may have had friends. I didn't go out looking for this guy, he found me.
lawyer- Well why didn't you just shoot him in the head, that would have stopped him.
me- Several reasons. As I said, I wanted to stop the threat, not kill him, though that was a very real possibilty. Second, the head presents a poor target because the area available that is likely to stop him is quite small. Third, that poor target tends to move a lot, making a miss more likely, and misses can cause unintended damages.
Etc.
I'm absolutely positive the grilling will take much longer than that, and won't be near as nice, but that's the general idea. So yes, his death may be possible because of me shooting him, but he made that choice when he chose me or my family as a victim.
So, I hope it never happens, but if I'm ever in the situation, here is my likely explanation;
lawyer- Tell me why you shot the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Doe.
me- He was threatening myself and my daughter with a knife, and I believed our lives were in danger, and so I fired my weapon to stop that threat.
lawyer- Did you intend to kill him?
me- No sir, my intent was to stop the threat.
lawyer- You put 3 rounds into Mr Doe's chest with a 9mm caliber pistol loaded with 15 rounds of HOLLOW POINT AMMUNITION!! They punctured his heart, lung and broke some ribs and you say you didn't intend to kill him?
me- Sir, I stopped at 3 because the threat stopped, he stopped. The hollow points are to prevent overpenetration and to lessen the danger to others in the area. I knew that his death was a possibility, but that was NOT my intent.
lawyer- Why 15 rounds in the clip if you didn't intend to kill him?
me- Because the MAGAZINE doesn't hold 16 and it may have taken more than 3 to stop his threat, and he may have had friends. I didn't go out looking for this guy, he found me.
lawyer- Well why didn't you just shoot him in the head, that would have stopped him.
me- Several reasons. As I said, I wanted to stop the threat, not kill him, though that was a very real possibilty. Second, the head presents a poor target because the area available that is likely to stop him is quite small. Third, that poor target tends to move a lot, making a miss more likely, and misses can cause unintended damages.
Etc.
I'm absolutely positive the grilling will take much longer than that, and won't be near as nice, but that's the general idea. So yes, his death may be possible because of me shooting him, but he made that choice when he chose me or my family as a victim.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
So Tim, in the case you cited, was the person found guilty of murder because of the statement? Exactly what was the case? Right now, all we know is that you said there was one, but we know nothing of the specifics to which you refer.
BullfrogKen
If a thug has your wife by the hair in the kitchen and one of your big chef's knife in the other hand, your son is lying with his throat open on the kitchen floor - assuming you have ruled out "911" - what is your only moral, legal, rational, and logical option?
Let's say you are "a deer hunter". You have one gun in your house - now leveled on his face. Semantics aside, you are going to kill him. Sure, he might, like the odd one in ten thousand, "survive" with the entire top half of his head missing. But inside, as any rational person would know, he is going to die as a direct result of your actions. And you know you are going to have to kill him in the process. And it would be a justifiable homicide. A justifiable killing. This is usually still referred to as something like, "it was him or me", in this case "him or my wife".
"I was shooting to stop"? Maybe; if you risked shooting him through the pelvis; hoping he would fall, drop the knife, and now "stopped" - your wife is relased unharmed. Do you have a moral, legal obligation to do it that way, knowing that he would likely not be killed? No.
Now try and con a lawyer and jury that you did not know full well this man was going to die before the fact and you are going to find yourself in a trap. Because you have already laid your intent to "stop [only]" on the table, and now you are going to have to look a jury in the eyes and convince them you "did not know" that Jack DeCapitator was going to be killed by your bullet.
Sometimes shooting to "stop" is seemingly more appropriate. Same weapon; except a man closing on you, singular and personally, in the driveway from a distance of say 20 feet. A bullet through the pelvis is likely to "stop" him and not kill him. Was deadly force justified? Yes, we know a man with a large knife that far away, closing, with intent, is an imminent deadly threat. If he dies from shock and rapid blood loss it is still a justifiable homicide.
In such scenarios as the kitchen, one does not "want" to kill the man - as in; "he killed my son so ... " or "I didn't like him". Or "I like killing". Or "people like him should die". Rather "I had no choice but to kill him".
Acceptance merely indicates popularity; which does not of itself equal right or wrong. It is popular and is not likely to go away soon. So are a great many other things.
If a thug has your wife by the hair in the kitchen and one of your big chef's knife in the other hand, your son is lying with his throat open on the kitchen floor - assuming you have ruled out "911" - what is your only moral, legal, rational, and logical option?
Let's say you are "a deer hunter". You have one gun in your house - now leveled on his face. Semantics aside, you are going to kill him. Sure, he might, like the odd one in ten thousand, "survive" with the entire top half of his head missing. But inside, as any rational person would know, he is going to die as a direct result of your actions. And you know you are going to have to kill him in the process. And it would be a justifiable homicide. A justifiable killing. This is usually still referred to as something like, "it was him or me", in this case "him or my wife".
"I was shooting to stop"? Maybe; if you risked shooting him through the pelvis; hoping he would fall, drop the knife, and now "stopped" - your wife is relased unharmed. Do you have a moral, legal obligation to do it that way, knowing that he would likely not be killed? No.
Now try and con a lawyer and jury that you did not know full well this man was going to die before the fact and you are going to find yourself in a trap. Because you have already laid your intent to "stop [only]" on the table, and now you are going to have to look a jury in the eyes and convince them you "did not know" that Jack DeCapitator was going to be killed by your bullet.
Sometimes shooting to "stop" is seemingly more appropriate. Same weapon; except a man closing on you, singular and personally, in the driveway from a distance of say 20 feet. A bullet through the pelvis is likely to "stop" him and not kill him. Was deadly force justified? Yes, we know a man with a large knife that far away, closing, with intent, is an imminent deadly threat. If he dies from shock and rapid blood loss it is still a justifiable homicide.
In such scenarios as the kitchen, one does not "want" to kill the man - as in; "he killed my son so ... " or "I didn't like him". Or "I like killing". Or "people like him should die". Rather "I had no choice but to kill him".
Last edited:
First off, I've seen people shot in the face with deer rifles survive, so I don't know that my shot will kill him. I do believe shooting him in the ocular window gives the greatest likelihood of my wife surviving unhurt. The likelihood of his death is not a consideration for me. I am merely shooting to stop, and shooting him in the eye is the percentage shot.
I don't recall the specifics of the case. I was hoping someone might recognize the reference and chime in with more information. I mention it because it points out that your "intent," if it becomes known, may become an issue.DNS said:
boredelmo
member
I think it can be said that a shot to the heart is almost as and maybe even more effective than a shot to the head.
If thats true than youre looking at targets that are about the same size.
So if you miss the heart, you've got maybe a chance at hitting the lungs/stomach/other vital organs. Even if you do miss horribly, a shot to the arm is better than a shot that completely misses.
Aim small miss small right?
If thats true than youre looking at targets that are about the same size.
So if you miss the heart, you've got maybe a chance at hitting the lungs/stomach/other vital organs. Even if you do miss horribly, a shot to the arm is better than a shot that completely misses.
Aim small miss small right?
TCB in TN
Member
On the subject of training, I have found the best way to simulate the issues that are likely to be found in combat involve very strenuous physical exertion. To try and put off a head shot in a raging gun battle would seem to me to be a very lucky thing. While I have never been in a gun battle, I was in more than my share of physical altercations. Huge adrenalin dump, can't breathe, shaking to the point you can't be still. A couple of buddies and I used to train heavy during our shooting. We would drop and pop off 50 push ups, sprint a 100 yards, then pickup our weapons (either pistol or rifle) and try to make shots. It is not a pretty sight. Each of us were strong shooters, but the quality of shooting dropped off pretty fast when we began the running! Try it some time and I think it will be revealing.
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.
I think, in the event that the criteria are met for employment of deadly defensive force, it is better to explain one's action in terms of intent. Contrary to a couple of comments, I believe intent IS generally relevant to a successful defense of justified homicide or attempted homicide. What is important is what the intent is. You may happen to kill the BG, but it was not your intent; your intent was to disable the attacker). If you state your intent WAS to kill him, or your actions suggest it, you are in big trouble.
I would say that I employed deadly force as (hypothetically) the only available means of effectively defending against an attack, with the intent of disabling the attacker, to the point he was no longer a threat. My intent was NOT to kill, although I acknowledge that death is a possible outcome with COM shots (and very likely with a head shot). Indeed, I perhaps attempted to place my shots where they were most likely to disable, and thus, kill. (Under combat conditions, such accuracy is unlikely for most.
If I end up with a surviving agressor, obviously it was not my intent to kill (otherwise, I would have shot again). If the agressor dies, I have to show that it was inevitably a possible consequence of the defense forced upon me, and not intentional. Suppose I hit with 4 COM shots, I say I know that the probability of survival is about 75%, so my 4 shots are inconsistent with an intent to kill. If I use the whole magazine, it was because previous shots failed to disable the aggressor. Either survival, or the post-mortem or forensic evidence should help support that claim. Even with the hostage/wife/rifle example, it was my intention to save my wife, not to kill the perp: if he dies, it was an unavoidable consequence of my being forced by the perp to defend my wife.
Having said all that, there probably are some desperate circumstances where one might justifiably and necessarily say it WAS your intent to kill the assailant as the only effective means of stopping his attack. I can't think of a good example, but the point is that a convincing argument based on a him or me situation should not invalidate a succesful plea of justifiable homicide if the criteria for lethal defence exist, because you only have to show the homicide, intended or not, was justified.
This approach allows you to concede the possibility of killing the BG, without implying intent to do so.
Of course, any way you present your case, the prosecution will attempt to destroy it. I believe this approach avoids some of the pitfalls mentioned.
I think this post brings together several points others have made, and I hope it is a helpful viewpoint.
C
I think, in the event that the criteria are met for employment of deadly defensive force, it is better to explain one's action in terms of intent. Contrary to a couple of comments, I believe intent IS generally relevant to a successful defense of justified homicide or attempted homicide. What is important is what the intent is. You may happen to kill the BG, but it was not your intent; your intent was to disable the attacker). If you state your intent WAS to kill him, or your actions suggest it, you are in big trouble.
I would say that I employed deadly force as (hypothetically) the only available means of effectively defending against an attack, with the intent of disabling the attacker, to the point he was no longer a threat. My intent was NOT to kill, although I acknowledge that death is a possible outcome with COM shots (and very likely with a head shot). Indeed, I perhaps attempted to place my shots where they were most likely to disable, and thus, kill. (Under combat conditions, such accuracy is unlikely for most.
If I end up with a surviving agressor, obviously it was not my intent to kill (otherwise, I would have shot again). If the agressor dies, I have to show that it was inevitably a possible consequence of the defense forced upon me, and not intentional. Suppose I hit with 4 COM shots, I say I know that the probability of survival is about 75%, so my 4 shots are inconsistent with an intent to kill. If I use the whole magazine, it was because previous shots failed to disable the aggressor. Either survival, or the post-mortem or forensic evidence should help support that claim. Even with the hostage/wife/rifle example, it was my intention to save my wife, not to kill the perp: if he dies, it was an unavoidable consequence of my being forced by the perp to defend my wife.
Having said all that, there probably are some desperate circumstances where one might justifiably and necessarily say it WAS your intent to kill the assailant as the only effective means of stopping his attack. I can't think of a good example, but the point is that a convincing argument based on a him or me situation should not invalidate a succesful plea of justifiable homicide if the criteria for lethal defence exist, because you only have to show the homicide, intended or not, was justified.
This approach allows you to concede the possibility of killing the BG, without implying intent to do so.
Of course, any way you present your case, the prosecution will attempt to destroy it. I believe this approach avoids some of the pitfalls mentioned.
I think this post brings together several points others have made, and I hope it is a helpful viewpoint.
C
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
