Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[OldMarksman]

it is not legal to kill someone because of a threat in the future

I imagine from the context that the poster had at least some inkling of that and was simply, but most unwisely, musing about the hypothetical possibility of not getting caught.

However, my response may have been a little too subtle, and it's good to make that point crystal clear for anyone who might not yet have grasped that simple truth.

If you want to emote that you would do such - that goes elsewhere. If you state that on the Internet and get into a situation, it may come back to haunt you.

That's the second time that someone has had to state such a caution on this thread alone. See Post # 57.

Is there a way to make a warning to that effect come up every time somone sets out to post?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not that I know - we'll just shut it down and chastize folks from this point on who don't get the point.

The doctrine is well put out by many before. You shoot to stop the current threat of grievous bodily harm.

Is there more to be said - Discussing your inner self isn't really that useful and can be dangerous as we are now seeing.

[Ticman]

Interesting thread. I'll add this. BG has your loved one if front of him while holding a knife or gun to said loved ones head. You take aim and pop him right between the eyes.

In this case would your intent to be to stop or to kill? or both? My thinking is both, because without instant death you can't stop the BG before he kills your loved one.

What say you?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Ticman

...BG has your loved one if front of him while holding a knife or gun to said loved ones head. You take aim and pop him right between the eyes.

In this case would your intent to be to stop or to kill?...

Good God! The machination some folks are willing to go through to try to justify "shooting to kill."

[MLeake]

... even in your scenario, it's shooting to stop.

Granted, in some scenarios, the best bet (assuming one is a good enough shot) is a brain stem hit, to prevent flinching, etc.

Knife to throat may well be one of them.

Of course, teaching the loved one ahead of time the skill of grabbing the knife hand's wrist and base of the hand, and pulling/anchoring it below the collarbone to prevent the sliding of the knife (if only momentarily) would have come in handy prior to your scenario.

There are techniques to reduce the chance of a bad cut while the cavalry are arriving and responding. The one I mentioned is just one of them. (Yet another plug for MA training, at least at a basic level.)

Frankly, if a firearm wielding assailant gives me a good chance of a CNS hit on him, I'll take that. Intent is still to stop, but I want him stopped before he shoots, not after.

The only reason that wouldn't be my first choice in most cases is tactical - it's easier to miss the head than COM. Ethically, I don't see much difference between head and heart shots. (Read "much" as "any" in this case, but realize that prosecutors and juries may disagree.)

But again, I'd be shooting to stop, either way. A kill would be incidental.

It's just that bullet placement that facilitates a quick stop is also going to be in places that result in high odds of serious injury or fatality. The serious injury or fatality is incidental to the stop.

From a legal standpoint, don't shoot to kill; do shoot to quickly and effectively stop; as far as the mechanics go, at first they are pretty much identical.

The only difference is in what you do after the threat has (to a reasonable person's perception) ceased.

If the threat ceases, you cease firing. Otherwise, you're going past shooting to stop, and opening up some serious legal problems for yourself.

[Ticman]

MLeake,

I agree with you on this. The intent is to stop but the only way to stop instantly is to kill.

[Greg_TX]

Maybe this discussion can stand as another reason why a shotgun is the ideal home defense weapon - shooting to stop vs. kill is pretty much a moot point after a COM hit with buckshot.

[JohnKSa]

So, you are saying that a defender who wants to kill his attacker has no legal grounds to defend himself?

I'm saying that the law carefully prescribes the legal motive for using deadly force and that if you are acting out of any other motive then you are not acting legally.

Theoretical I know. Keep your thoughts to yourself, problem solved, but I'm talking theory here.

The key is which motive you are acting on.

If you're shooting because you want him dead then you are outside the law. The law does not allow a person to use deadly force to punish criminals or to avenge crimes.

If you're shooting because you reasonably believe that is the only way to prevent you (or someone you're defending) from being killed or seriously injured then you are within the law. The law allows a person to use deadly force to prevent certain carefully described crimes when there is no other option.

I also don't believe it's purely theoretical. Everything I have learned indicates that killing someone will be a difficult thing to live with for most normal people (internet chest-thumping notwithstanding) and I believe that knowing you acted strictly within the law will make it easier.

Also, I believe that understanding the intent of the law and determining that you will remain within that intent will serve a person in good stead. It will help a person remember what they should be focusing on if they have to use deadly force, it will help them explain to others correctly and it will help prevent them from saying stupid things either before or after a shooting that might cause them immense amounts of legal grief.

The intent is to stop but the only way to stop instantly is to kill.

You aim to stop, the other consequences are immaterial.

The key is that if you are acting legally you act out of a reasonable belief that your application of deadly force is immediately and absolutely necessary to prevent the crime in question and to defend innocent life (yours or others) and you do not concern yourself with the attacker's prognosis.

[Wagonman]

Well put John.

I don't understand the reasoning of throwing around semantic arguements in this matter. You shoot to stop the threat. you stop when the threat has been stopped. what happens to the BG is not relevant to your actions at the moment. If you are shooting to kill you are at least commiting aggravated battery. If you are shooting to stop you are commiting no crime

[GojuBrian]

It's all about perception, being PC, and maintaining legality.

Yeah, I shoot to stop. I tried koom bye yah, but it failed.

[Playboypenguin]

I started the discussion but then mainly stayed out of it to see where it went, but I do want to chime in and say to all the people that want to say it is just semantics or PC chatter..."You are wrong." It is about intention and state of mind.

If you are the kind of person that "wants or desires" to kill someone that wrongs you or someone that feels you even have the right to end someone's life over a perceived threat or injustice I would question your ability to make the necessary judgments needed when carrying.

[OldMarksman]

It's all about perception, being PC, and maintaining legality.

Why does it seem to me that someone else has apparently missed the point?

"Political correctness" has absolutely nothing to do with the subject--nothing.

Perception may be involved, to the extent that findings of the investigators, charging authority, grand jury or trial jury are influenced by their perceptions of the factual evidence presented.

As far as "maintaining legality" goes, yes, it has been said several times before in this thread that doing the wrong thing would constitute a criminal act. So--it is about not committing a criminal act when one uses deadly force.

Also previously stated is the fact that state laws vary; in some places retreat is required, and in some, the fact of an unlawful invasion of the house or car provides critical presumptions about the existence of imminent danger.

In general, however, should the question about whether a shooter has "maintained legality" require a legal defense, it boils down to this, as written for by a lawyer for defense attorneys; the use of deadly force is justified as self defense if...:

The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.

The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.

The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force.

The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.

It would seem to me that anything that reflects adversely on the shooter's possible state of mind--prior arguments with the person shot, anything that indicates a propensity to kill (internet comments, maybe?) --could make it more difficult to support the first three of the above items. That's why motive is important.

The paper goes on to say that a self defense case cannot be won if ....

The client continued to use force after the aggressor fell unconscious, surrendered, or began to flee. Self-defense has to cover every wound inflicted on the deceased.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click=

One more time, deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, or force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.

I suspect that any gunshot fired at any human being would constitute deadly force.

The fact that statistics indicate that the overwhelming majority of people shot by handguns do in fact survive would not enter into the picture, but the number of people who make assertions about their assailants ending up dead would seem to indicate that many are unaware of those statistics.

[Frank Ettin]

OldMarksman -- great post.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

...It would seem to me that anything that reflects adversely on the shooter's possible state of mind--prior arguments with the person shot, anything that indicates a propensity to kill (internet comments, maybe?) --could make it more difficult to support the first three of the above items. That's why motive is important....

Well said.

[raimius]

The goal is to stop the attack. The death of the attacker may be required. Since the most effective way to quickly stop attackers with firearms are also generally the most lethal, the effects are often the same.

To me, whether the attacker lives or dies is not relevant to self-defense. The important thing is the attack stops immediately. I've always been taught that the fastest/easiest ways to disable an attacker (via firearms) are COM and head shots. These have a tendency to be lethal. So, tactics wise, "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" are almost the same. Obviously, I'm not talking about finishing someone off who is no longer a threat. That is straight murder.

[OldMarksman]

The goal is to stop the attack.

Yep!

The death of the attacker may be required.

I would phrase it differently. May result.

Since the most effective way to quickly stop attackers with firearms are also generally the most lethal, the effects are often the same.

Often the same yes, but also, often not the same. I've been taught that the most effective way to quickly stop a moving assailant at close range is a series of COM shots, because of the greater certainty of hitting. That aim point may not be all that likely to be lethal. Take the case of the Fort Hood shooter, or of the unfortunate homeowner in Phoenix, or those of some of the wounded perps and wounded officers related by Mas Ayoob in his writings.

To stop someone wth a knife holding and threatening someone else, a head shot may be the most effective way to stop, and the most lethal. Makes me shiver to think about it.

In any case, one would not opt to "shoot to wound."

To me, whether the attacker lives or dies is not relevant to self-defense.

I believe that is true in the eyes of the law, also.

So, tactics wise, "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" are almost the same. Obviously, I'm not talking about finishing someone off who is no longer a threat. That is straight murder.

Yes, and perhaps exactly the same, when one precludes "finishing off."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to sidetrack but the shotgun is certainly the best weapon for making the hostage with a knife to the neck shot - through the hostage's COM?

Couldn't resist. I've tried the hostage shot in shotgun class - it's fun on paper targets. But reality - eek!

Besides with a shotgun - you don't even have to shoot it. Just rack it! No killing at all!

Now, I'm really a bad boy.

All the excellent posts center on the grand strategic issue that what you want out of an event is the best outcome for you and yours. Immediately and then in the later social and legal consequences. Stopping the opponent seems to offer the best of those two. How the stop was implemented isn't relevant unless you regard emotional satisification on a low level as very important. We do have that built into our emotional systems but we also have cognitive, rational systems that can see that may not be best.

[tiecuando]

Us "civilians" are treated differently than cops. But bottom line, a gun is a lethal force instrument, there is a reasonable expectation that you will kill who you will shoot. "Shoot to stop" makes it political.

[Wagonman]

Why are posters not understanding the difference between self defense and murder. IF YOUR OR SOMEONE'S LIFE IS BEING THREATENED AND YOU USE A FIREARM TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL OTHER AVENUES OF MITIGATING THE THREAT AND YOU STOP WHEN THE THREAT IS ELIMINATED YOU HAVE NOT SHOT TO KILL FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT EVEN IF THE BG DIES FROM HIS WOUNDS OR WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART

[spacemanspiff]

BG usually runs as soon as he sees a gun pointed at him or about to be...Like I said previously, a shot on the foot to distract and disarm the agressor is a good start in my book, then I let the BG decide for life or death. I sense you people are more afraid of the prosecutor than the BG...heheheh. I always beleived in the KISS law ....Dan

But my range doesn't sell any foot or other extremity targets, so its gonna be tough for me to practice that.
Not to mention that your mindset, while simple to you, is actually quite complex.

Deadly force does not always guarantee that death will occur. If I have to use deadly force to defend my life or that of someone else, my mind is already made up: I will do whatever I have to do.

What I won't do is put bumper stickers on my truck that say "Nothing in this truck is worth you dying for" or "I don't dial 911". I won't post threads on firearms related forums asking "Which caliber is best for killing two-legged scumbags?" or "What bullet will make the unlucky Ess Ohh Bee that knocks on my door at 4 in the morning the most dead?"

I am not eager to take someones life. If that happens, my conscience will have to bear that burden. It may break me down mentally. I do not know for certain that I will be able to light up a smoke while talking to a detective and coolly ask for a soda while being interviewed after killing a home invader.

I don't sit around fantasizing about how to best kill an intruder or to convince a prosecutor that it was 'justified'.

I am not a bloodthirsty wolf in sheepdogs clothing.

[OldMarksman]

IF YOUR OR SOMEONE'S LIFE IS BEING THREATENED AND YOU USE A FIREARM TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL OTHER AVENUES OF MITIGATING THE THREAT AND YOU STOP WHEN THE THREAT IS ELIMINATED YOU HAVE NOT SHOT TO KILL FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT EVEN IF THE BG DIES FROM HIS WOUNDS OR WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART

Almost-- there's one more "if":

If the authorities later agree (and, unless that agreement takes the form of an acquittal in trial court, always continue to agree) (1) that you that you had reason to believe that you had been in imminent danger at the time, (2) that you had indeed exhausted all other avenues, (3) that you did not provoke the conflict, and (4) that you used no more force than necessary--your use of deadly force will be judged to have been justified from a legal standpoint. I am not implying that the burden of proof is on you, just that it is up to you to produce evidence justifying your actions and to convincingly articulate your reasons.

Any unfavorable indications of what was "in your heart" (your state of mind) could work against getting that agreement.

[Wagonman]

As always YMMV when you get to court. The court issue isn't in this arguement IMHO.

[brickeyee]

I am not implying that the burden of proof is on you, just that it is up to you to produce evidence justifying your actions and to convincingly articulate your reasons.

Claiming 'self defense' is an 'affirmative defense' in many jurisdictions.

You are claiming that you violation of the law should be excused.

You will have to defend yourself in court if you use an affirmative defense to the extent of providing or pointing out evidence to justify what you have done.

The 'guilty until proven innocent' gets stretched here.
You will be admitting to a homicide ('I did shoot him'), but you will also show that it was not contradictory to the law (He was threatening to take MY life)..

[Wagonman]

You aren't admitting to homicide. You had no intention of killing him, you were stopping a mortal threat. Sorta like speeding to hospital with the bona fide woman giving birth. Your intention is not to speed it is to get emergency treatment for the woman

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Wagonman

You aren't admitting to homicide....

Well actually he is.

See http://dictionary.law.com --

[1] homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime,....

[2] manslaughter
n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" ...

[3] murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way)....

If one shoots another, and the person shot dies, it's a homicide, because the decedent's death was the result of the act or omission of another (i. e., the shooter). Homicide doesn't require that the actor intend the death, only that his act or failure to act resulted in the death.

If one shoots another, resulting in that person's death, and claims self defense, he has admitted the essential elements of manslaughter. He has admitted he shot the decedent and that he intended to shoot the decedent. Manslaughter doesn't require that the actor intended the death, only that the actor intentionally (or in some cases, recklessly) performed the act (in this case shooting the decedent) that caused the death.

The difference here between homicide (not here a crime) and manslaughter (a crime) is justification.

[Wagonman]

I officially give up you win. This semantic intentional misunderstanding of concepts has given me a headache.