head shots malicious?

[FrankDrebin]

Frank,

I'm not arguing that point--I'm just saying that it doesn't even have to be an issue unless the shooter decides to testify against himself.

I was responding more to the guy before you. I hate hearing that people are making money to impart information and saying things that they can't back-up. Ayoob being one of them.

[mvpel]

Well, considering you live near the semi-perennial murder capitol of the US - unless you live in Virginia, how often do you hear about defensive shootings in the first place, let alone the years-later legal aftermath? And if you live in Virginia where self-defense isn't prohibited, perhaps you don't have the kind of prosecutors that exist in other, more benighted areas of the country.

[OBIWAN]

I agree with Ayoob on one point....

Some lawyer can/probably will do anything to cast your defensive actions in a bad light....especially in the event of a civil case.

However...if you are justified in shooting.....where your bullets hit is unlikely to be an issue

[Superhornet]

Your heart's a thumpen, your adrenal is pumpin, you knees aquaken, your hand is shanken........How many can hit a six inch circle moving at a high rate of speed toward you at 5 yards under those circumstances ??? Center mass and the perp don't last......IMHO of course..

[mvpel]

Ayoob has served as an expert witness on a long list of civil and criminal prosecutions regarding defensive force, so I suspect that he could back up what he's saying if he felt comfortable blabbing in public about the specifics of the legal difficulties of the individuals he's worked with.

[BreacherUp!]

Shield20 said:

There is a school of thought that says if 2 shots to the chest doesn't stop him, more probably won't help because the target has stopped feeling pain due to the body's natural reaction. Better to turn him off NOW with a shot to the head if possible.

I too read about this school of thought. Some MD wrote that inflicting the most amount of damage to the body before the body responds physiologically to the damage was a way to put someone down (this is paraphrased, of course) i.e. shooting two shots in rapid succession. Not a doc, but it sounds reasonable considering how the body copes with traumatic injuries.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Been discussed on this forum, thehighroad, glocktalk. Consensus of all intelligent people is that a head shot in the course of defending yourself is legitimate. The "stop" usage by the instructor is a moronic misinterpretation of what 'stop' means.

I've been in LFI-1 and Ayoob never said this.

Some gun instructors are ...

[stevelyn]

Head shots malicious?

Nope. Just insurance.

If headshots were malicious, why would police firearms instructors teach Failure-to Stop (Mozambique) drills to every academy recruit and veteran officer during in-service quals?

Targets are: Computer (brain), Mobility (pelvis), and Lifesupport (vital organs) That's why they's labeled "A" Zone on these areas (pelvic region excepted).

Also be aware that Center-of-Mass is also center of target presented, not just a human torso.

[Bravo25]

FrankDrebin Quote:
Better Judged By 12, Than Carried by 6.



I'd prefer to avoid both.....it's virtually always doable.

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

JohnKSa If you told the police or the court that you intentionally shot for the head, then your error was blabbing--not where you placed your shots.

Shooting a moving target with a handgun while under severe stress does not lend itself to precise shot placement. I don't think it would be easy to prove that a head shot was intentional unless you help them out by admitting it was.

I'm not saying to lie--just reminding you that you don't have to testify against yourself.

This is sound advice. Remember that in todays society, defending your life, usually requires you to do it twice. Explain only that you felt your life, or the life of another was threatened, this is why, and I shot. Anything else should come from your lawyer. You will most likely need one for the civil trial either way it goes.

[FrankDrebin]

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

It's highly, highly unlikely that you will be charged as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. It's certainly not even close to "almost certain". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with. Until that time, you're not charged. The police may complete a warrant request as a matter of course and forward it to the prosecutor who THEN makes the decision to approve the charges or not.

Same thing goes for a civil trial. Despite what Masaad Ayoob says, you're a lot less likely to be sued than not after a legitimate self-defense shooting. I'd like to hear see any empirical evidence to the contrary. Lawyers don't like to work for free. If the guy you shoot doesn't have a case, he's not going to get a lawyer on a contingency pay scale. Just don't shoot a rich guy.

[mvpel]

Depends on what state you're in, as always.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, I think that shooting for the head is malicious alright, as is shooting for the chest. They don't call it deadly force for nothing!

Now that is something I can agree with! For the person on whom lethal force is being used, it is all pretty malicious, but that is a personal view, not a legitimate legal view.

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'" He also added, "even though the criminal is probably somebody that should have been executed 10 years ago by the court."

Various instructors may spout this crap, but they don't have any real backing to support the claim, at least none I have heard of. I find that a lot of instructors pass out garbage they read by gun writers in gun rags as if it was somehow true, such as only using guns or ammo that the local cops use as a means by which to reduce liability in court. There is no actual court case that supports the claim, but instructors spout it as if it was true at some schools.

I read a case here in TN about a gentleman who shot a man wielding a knife in a bar fight and then after he fell down went and finished him off with a head shoot. He went to jail for manslaughter as the assailant was no longer a threat. Seems like your time to act can be very short.

There was a similar case in Utah. I believe they tried the ‘good guy' for murder. If the bad guy is no longer a threat, then shooting him in the head or anywhere else for that matter, is probably going to be legally a bad thing. You don't get to use lethal force on folks who don't pose a threat to you.

Yes, when you are shooting somebody and they fall to the ground, incapacitated, you may not have any more time to deliver more shots. You may have no more time than your first shot. Executing a downed badguy who is not a threat to you at the current time is a vigilante act and is illegal.

Then again, you may put 9 rounds into a guy's chest over the course of 30 seconds while the guy continues his attack on you. That is a LOT of time you didn't attempt to shoot him in the head for a CNS shutdown.

[Bravo25]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with

Well to adress the following post first, yes it depends on what state you are in. That was my broad brush. My appologies. However, in a lot of states the police aresst you, read you your rights, and then obtain information. (In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.) It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter. Remember it is not up to a LEO to decide guilt or innocence, or even to decide "justified", they are there only to enforce the law. The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.
Here where I live, even LEOs that are involved with shootings will be reviewed by the DA. (another pet pieve of mine. LEO should answer to citizen councils, but that is whole different topic)
What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

[FrankDrebin]

(In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.)

If the police "get you" to volunteer any information while in custody without a Miranda waiver, it is most certainly NOT admissible.

It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter.

There is no such criminal charge of "homicide".

The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.

Which law would that be? And what happens if there are 5 witnesses who saw the shooting and tell the responding officers that it was self-defense? They have no probable cause to believe the shooter committed a crime, and no probable cause to arrest him. At most, they have reasonable suspicion to detain to get his name and his story if he wants to give it. You don't automatically get arrested when you shoot someone in self-defense. The standard of probable cause still applies.

What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

What I alluded to is that you are not charged until a warrant is presented to the court and you are brought before a judge and arraigned. You may be in custody, but you're not charged until the judge reads the charges to you. That's why most police departments won't release the names of arrestees to the news media before the arraignment......because they haven't been CHARGED with anything yet. This rarely happens in a legitmate self defense shooting. In other words, in the vast majority of self-defense homicides, there are never any charges brought against the homicider. You are NOT likely to be charged with anything as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. Nor are you likely (read, 51% of the time) to be sued.

[LAK]

Bullets; whether one or a dozen, whether they are marketed under the name of "Surgeon's Nightmare", or "Recovery Friendly", whether aimed at the big toe or the brain ... are considered deadly force.

If you are justified in using deadly force, a bullet in the brain or the upper spine (both quite likely to cause death) is your best bet - if you can do it.

[jburtonpdx]

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'"

Bullets; whether one or a dozen, whether they are marketed under the name of "Surgeon's Nightmare", or "Recovery Friendly", whether aimed at the big toe or the brain ... are considered deadly force.

If you are justified in using deadly force, a bullet in the brain or the upper spine (both quite likely to cause death) is your best bet - if you can do it.

Exactly LAK. Deadly force is deadly force, there is no room left for "excessive". Dead is dead, kind of like people saying "a little bit pregnant", 0 or 1 on or off yes or no there no middle ground with deadly force.

Shooting is deadly force, whether you shoot to maim, stop, kill, scare, whatever you say, if you shoot the gun at the person that is posing the threat to you, you are employing deadly force there is nothing more excessive.

If deadly force is justified I am going to shoot because I am going to live through the situation. I am going to see my family again, I am going to feed my dogs again, I am going to work, sleep, eat dinner, etc...

All that said it is possible the BG will live, sue you, the DA may be a gun grabber, the local police chief may not like "uppity citizens" whatever. In my mind none of that matters if somebody is about to hurt my family or me. All that other crap can be dealt with. I am prepared and willing to do what has to be done to protect my family and myself from death or grave bodily harm head shot, center of mass shot, whatever.

[Bravo25]

FrankDrebin

As this banter between you and I seem to have taken this thread off course, and you appear to enjoy the argueing for arguement sake, I will take this opportunity to conceed your apparent superior, and unmatched knowledge of the things relating to law. I will refrain from further post of off topic items in this thread so that you too may return to the issue at hand.
I would perhaps suggest that as you don't seem to recognize that homicide, and manslaughter are capital crimes which will be investigated, that you remember what a once wise man proclaimed. "The man that would have himself as a lawyer, has a fool for a client". I will take comfort in knowing that I, for one, won't take such an obtuse approach to legal dealings should I ever find myself in this situation.

[shield20]

In NY, "in any prosecution for an offense, justification as defined in sections... is A DEFENSE.

ALSO though "...conduct which would otherwise consititute an offense is justifiable AND NOT CRIMINAL when:"...standard SD stuff...

Seems it could go two ways - get charged with an offense (probably 1st degree assault) and show/prove justifcation as a defense in court; OR have it investigated/seen as justifiable in which case no criminal action has taken place in the 1st place.

[Blind Tree Frog]

convicted of shooting someone because he told the police or prosecutor he was shooting to wound. Where does Ayoob get this stuff? Does he make it up?

When choosing between Ayoob's statements, or of the anonymous person online claiming to be a cop somewhere, I'll choose Ayoob's statements every time.

Simply, his statements are the same as the cops who taught my CCW class. Personally, I'm going to listen to what the people that would be arresting me are going to say about what i can and can't do.

[buzz_knox]

One of the specific instance Ayoob aluded to is where a person used deadly force to stop a stomping attack by a group against himself and his brother. When questioned about why he used deadly force, he stated that "he didn't want to get his butt kicked." Unfortunately, his attorney didn't follow up by talking about disparity of force, the serious and life threatening injuries that can come from "getting one's butt kicked" etc. The jury was left with the defendent stating that he didn't want to get beat up so he shot someone. Bad witness prep, bad lawyer, bad result. Happens all the time in non-defensive shooting cases, so why should it be a surprise it happens here?

If I'm ever in a shooting, whether or not I will face charges depends on how the investigator, the prosecutor and the public sees the shooting. It's only a good shoot if a reasonable person would find it as such. It's my job to start the ball rolling for such a determination by explaining why I shot, and why it was reasonable. I can easily articulate why a head shot is a valid and justifiable technique, and that it is taught by the best instructors (including those who probably taught the cop doing the investigation).

[shield20]

Buzz,
Who would you explain this to? Ayoob also suggests shutting up until your lawyer is present. Others have said being in the right and explainign that right off the bat makes you a "good guy" and may get the cops/investigators on your side 'quickly'.

In general: Would you (any 'you' out there) take the stand if charged?

[buzz_knox]

Who would you explain this to? Ayoob also suggests shutting up until your lawyer is present. Others have said being in the right and explainign that right off the bat makes you a "good guy" and may get the cops/investigators on your side 'quickly'.

His suggestion is actually to do both, start them on your side then shut up.

Step 1: "Officer, this man attacked me and tried to kill me. I shot him because I was in fear for my life. I will press charges."
Step 2: "These people were standing here when it happened, his gun/knife fell there, and mine is here."
Step 3: "I hope you understand but I just went through something traumatic. Please call an ambulance. I'll cooperate fully after I get checked out."
Step 4: shut up and call an attorney.

[FrankDrebin]

As this banter between you and I seem to have taken this thread off course, and you appear to enjoy the argueing for arguement sake, I will take this opportunity to conceed your apparent superior, and unmatched knowledge of the things relating to law. I will refrain from further post of off topic items in this thread so that you too may return to the issue at hand.

Well, your're partially right, because I DO like arguing for the sake of arguing. However, in this case, I only replied because I know the stuff you're posting to be blatantly WRONG. There's nothing obtuse about it. Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you try to learn something. There are people who will gracefully admit when they're wrong, and there are those who will rationalize their mistakes all day long. You seem to be among the latter.

I would perhaps suggest that as you don't seem to recognize that homicide, and manslaughter are capital crimes which will be investigated.....

There you go again!!! I'm going to address this because some people may be taking what you're saying to be true: First "Homicide" is no more of a crime than "Operating a Motor Vehicle". "Homicide" is no more than the killing of a person. You have crimes like First Degree Murder, Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter, etc...THESE are crimes just like "Operating A Motor Vehicle Without A License" or "Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated" are crimes. There is no such crime of "Homicide".

Secondly, I would suggest that since you seem to like to just throw around words, the meaning of which you don't know, you should post the elements for the crime "Manslaughter". THEN, post the maximum sentence. THEN, tell me in what state of the union the crime of "Manslaughter" is punishable by death. You DO know what the term "capital crimes" means don't you? MANSLAUGHTER IS NOT A CAPITAL CRIME ANYWHERE IN THIS NATION!!!

When choosing between Ayoob's statements, or of the anonymous person online claiming to be a cop somewhere, I'll choose Ayoob's statements every time.

I prefer not to take anyone's word for something that I can readily verify for myself. Whether that person is a 30 year street cop veteran of the South Bronx, or, like Ayoob, a part time cop on a 3 officer department who MIGHT take one or two barking dog reports in a month. Literally. Instead of taking the word of a guy who makes a full time living writing about what he does part time, why don't you call a homicide cop at a busy police department and ask him how many legitimate self defense shooters he's seen prosecuted? I mean, if you really want to know that is.

[buzz_knox]

Instead of taking the word of a guy who makes a full time living writing about what he does part time, why don't you call a homicide cop at a busy police department and ask him how many legitimate self defense shooters he's seen prosecuted? I mean, if you really want to know that is.

If I were to do that here, I would get forwarded to the public relations department, who would then refer me to the DA's office, who might or might not discuss it.

By the way, there is something majorly wrong with your proposition. By definition, a legitimate self-defense shooter is someone who's shooting has been determined is legitimate. It's the effective equivalent of saying "ask a sex crimes cop how many times a partner to a perfectly consentual sexual act has been charged with a sex crime." Actually, the answer to that is more than a few, but I digress.

[FrankDrebin]

If I were to do that here, I would get forwarded to the public relations department, who would then refer me to the DA's office, who might or might not discuss it.

Then go to a cop bar and ask around.

By the way, there is something majorly wrong with your proposition. By definition, a legitimate self-defense shooter is someone who's shooting has been determined is legitimate. It's the effective equivalent of saying "ask a sex crimes cop how many times a partner to a perfectly consentual sexual act has been charged with a sex crime." Actually, the answer to that is more than a few, but I digress.

OK, then I'll contend that you are not likely to be charged with a crime when you shoot someone who you reasonably believe to be about to cause you great bodily harm or death. Nor are you likely to be sued. This applies to "normal" people and not those who shoot someone for looking at them funny and then claim self defense. The number of people who are charged because their idea of "reasonable" differs from the prosecutor's is too small to change my position. We could go through the newspapers and post cases where a shooter claimed self-defense and determine if our idea of "reasonable" is the same as theirs. I think you'll find that anecdotally, you are not likely to be charged in self defense shooting. I'll even go one step further and say that in MI, you will not be charged for shooting a fleeing felon. This does not mean that the fleeing felon must be tried and convicted by jury between the time he commits his felony and the time you shoot him.

I'll go first....Also, this article is appropriate to the "shooting better than the cops" thread. The person in this story was not charged.

Police: Bar Owner Kills Two Robbers With Single Shot
Wayne County Prosecutor To Review Alleged Robbery, Shooting

POSTED: 8:03 p.m. EST November 3, 2003
UPDATED: 8:09 p.m. EST November 3, 2003

Two suspected robbers are dead after a former police officer and owner of a Detroit bar fired a single shot, Local 4 reported.
Video


Archive: Family Searches For Answers In Fatal Shooting





The robbery and shooting happened early Sunday or late Saturday at Adela's place on the city's southwest side.

Police say the 49-year-old woman who owned the restaurant -- a retired Detroit cop who was a former member of Mayor Coleman Young's security team -- tried to hold the suspects in the parking lot until police arrived. But when the two men attempted to speed away, and nearly ran over one of her employees, she fired a single shot that apparently struck both men, according to police.

"We've had some robberies in that area. We have some evidence now that may indicate that someone was robbed there and assaulted there. There attempted to be another assault against one of the employees, before the owner of this establishment fired one shot in an attempt to stop a fleeing felon," said Detroit police Inspector Marilyn Hall-Beard.

The two men -- Dorian Gordillo, 22, and Rosalio Becera, 33 -- were later found dead from a bullet wound in a car parked on the Interstate 75 service drive, according to police.

One of the men was reportedly still holding a beer in his hand.

Family members of Gordillo and Becera were initially confused over their deaths, Local 4 reported.

"He was a very good guy. He would never look for trouble. I don't understand what happened. I hope we can find some answers," said Barbara Gordillo, the sister-in-law of one of the victims.

Officers who had responded to the incident at the bar wrote down the description of the car that left the scene and later made a match with the vehicle in which Gordillo and Becera were found dead, Local 4 reported.

While the shooting appeared to be justified, the Wayne County prosecutor was expected to review the case to determine if the bar owner would face charges.

Ayoob has served as an expert witness on a long list of civil and criminal prosecutions regarding defensive force, so I suspect that he could back up what he's saying if he felt comfortable blabbing in public about the specifics of the legal difficulties of the individuals he's worked with.

Ah...so he COULD back his statements up....he just doesn't because they're secret??? What makes him an expert anyway? I saw him from start to finish at this trial www.larrynevers.com
if anything, I thought he helped the prosecution. (he was hired by the defense). Caveat: I never said that Ayoob said that people are LIKELY to be prosecuted and sued after a self-defense shooting. I'm just taking the word of the Ayoobian disciple who SAID he said that. But...if he DID say that, he's wrong and I'll back it up if anyone wants to go somewhere where gambling is legal and put up some dough! My definition of "likely" is : "1 : having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable""

Well, considering you live near the semi-perennial murder capitol of the US - unless you live in Virginia, how often do you hear about defensive shootings in the first place, let alone the years-later legal aftermath?

I COULD tell you if I wanted to, but I'm hiding my backround information like Massad!! I'd guess I hear about defensive shootings a couple times a month maybe? More if I talk to any of the homicide cops that month. As far as the civil suits, I can only tell you about the police shootings, but I don't know why same thing wouldn't apply to civilian shootings, especially since the regular citizens don't have the money that the city does. Most of the good ones don't result in a lawsuit, even with the deep pockets of the city. If a notorious officers is involved, maybe.