Shoot to Kill, or shoot to wound? - Page 4

Lawyer Daggit · December 16, 2004, 09:59 PM

I don't think there is such a thing as 'shooting to wound' and I will not seek to address legal tests as these vary from state to state and I am not an American Attorney (I'm an Australian one ). The only 'reasonably safe' justification regarding use of deadly force these days is if your life, or that of someone else is threatened, and killing them is therefore the lesser of two evils.

Other than for this extreme position I would never use a gun for self defence. Even pulling a gun on someone is likely to invite a lawsuit for nervous shock / nightmares etc from some opportunistic crook.

Walter · December 16, 2004, 10:35 PM

I agree with Lawyer Daggit and several others who have posted, that unless
you are convinced without a doubt that either your life, or someone else's
life is in immediate danger, DON'T shoot.
I've been through the CHL course in Texas three times, and I came out of
all three classes without any doubt that the instant I pulled out a pistol in
any kind of confrontation, I was going to (at the very least) have to pay
out a LARGE sum of money to an attorney to keep me out of jail, possibly
have to pay a judgement in a civil suit, or possibly go to prison. Not any
of those options are very appealing to me.
I have yet to draw my firearm, thank God, but I carry it every day. I have
a responsibility, in my opinion, to my wife and my family, to defend my life
against the Bad Guys, and I will continue to do so.
If it ever comes down to a "shoot-out", I guess I will rely on 'Range-Training',
Marine Corps training, and whatever common sense I can muster in the heat
of the moment.
Two tours in Viet Nam taught me that a whole lot of knowledge goes right
out the window when the lead starts whizzing around your ears. It is
just a heck of a lot easier to use your senses to avoid a gunfight than it
is to try to shoot your way through one, or to justify yourself after the fact.

Hollowpnt · December 16, 2004, 10:53 PM

Well I think shoot to stop answers the question completely, but to add my two cents; Even in situations where non-lethal force is applied to apprehending a perp (ie: stun guns, tasers, baton, restraints, ect.) people become injured and even die.
The warped situation is departments and governments pay settlements to the injured perps or survivors even if no wrong doing in the arrest is proven. So even if you know your training, your justified, and its the best course of action, we all as taxpayers get to foot the bill for these actions warranted or not one way or another.
Shoot to stop and hope this very action of intent diffuses the situation.

Will Rodgers often said: "He never met a man he didn't like."
I have to wonder how can someone be so lucky as to go through life never meeting a lawyer.

rogerwilco · December 17, 2004, 08:58 PM

Shoot to Kill...Shoot to wound?.....Come on now...If you are attacked and you have to draw your weapon. Most people are not trained to react fast enough to think about whether or not to kill or wound. Most people in that situation will shoot to HIT...or whatever it takes to stop the threat.

matthew temkin · December 18, 2004, 01:08 PM

We shoot to stop.
Period.
If after two rounds the BG drops his gun and surrenders does not mean that we finish him off a la Bernie Goetz.
Shooting to stop the attack may, in fact, occur with the mere drawing of the firearm.
SHOOT TO STOP.
End of story.

willfriedman956 · December 18, 2004, 03:17 PM

deadly force can ONLY be employed to stop an immediate and grave danger of death or serious injury. Therefore, deadly force can be used until the “immediate and grave” danger terminates.

You hit the attacker with a round to the stomach, they fall and are in the fetal position, but still holding their weapon.

Still a deadly threat???

The answer is, IS your life still in danger?? Can you be killed?
Can they still shoot?

there's your answer.

Force continuum, You are allowed to go above the level force tha attacker is using. If it's deadly force, then it's no holds barred.

If the suspect happens to die. So be it. If they live they live.
Your life is worth more than any lawsuit. End of Story.

I recommend "The bulletproof mind" by LTC Dave Grossman

mjf1911 · December 18, 2004, 03:31 PM

Shoot to stop!

Spectre · December 22, 2004, 12:21 AM

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...highlight=stop

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...highlight=stop

Not that we've ever hashed this through before...

qurious · December 22, 2004, 01:05 PM

Realtives might, but they were not in the house. Know your states laws.
It looks like everyone pretty much agrees that you aim center mass.
<edited by Erick Gelhaus>

December 18, 2004, 03:17 PM	#81
willfriedman956 Member Join Date: December 18, 2004 Posts: 15	Shoot to eliminate the threat, what happens next is not up to us. deadly force can ONLY be employed to stop an immediate and grave danger of death or serious injury. Therefore, deadly force can be used until the “immediate and grave” danger terminates. You hit the attacker with a round to the stomach, they fall and are in the fetal position, but still holding their weapon. Still a deadly threat??? The answer is, IS your life still in danger?? Can you be killed? Can they still shoot? there's your answer. Force continuum, You are allowed to go above the level force tha attacker is using. If it's deadly force, then it's no holds barred. If the suspect happens to die. So be it. If they live they live. Your life is worth more than any lawsuit. End of Story. I recommend "The bulletproof mind" by LTC Dave Grossman

December 22, 2004, 01:05 PM	#84
qurious Member Join Date: December 21, 2004 Posts: 23	dead men hire no lawyers Realtives might, but they were not in the house. Know your states laws. It looks like everyone pretty much agrees that you aim center mass. <edited by Erick Gelhaus>

December 16, 2004, 09:59 PM	#76
Lawyer Daggit Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Posts: 1,181	I don't think there is such a thing as 'shooting to wound' and I will not seek to address legal tests as these vary from state to state and I am not an American Attorney (I'm an Australian one ). The only 'reasonably safe' justification regarding use of deadly force these days is if your life, or that of someone else is threatened, and killing them is therefore the lesser of two evils. Other than for this extreme position I would never use a gun for self defence. Even pulling a gun on someone is likely to invite a lawsuit for nervous shock / nightmares etc from some opportunistic crook.

December 16, 2004, 10:35 PM	#77
Walter Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2004 Location: North Texas Posts: 641	I agree with Lawyer Daggit and several others who have posted, that unless you are convinced without a doubt that either your life, or someone else's life is in immediate danger, DON'T shoot. I've been through the CHL course in Texas three times, and I came out of all three classes without any doubt that the instant I pulled out a pistol in any kind of confrontation, I was going to (at the very least) have to pay out a LARGE sum of money to an attorney to keep me out of jail, possibly have to pay a judgement in a civil suit, or possibly go to prison. Not any of those options are very appealing to me. I have yet to draw my firearm, thank God, but I carry it every day. I have a responsibility, in my opinion, to my wife and my family, to defend my life against the Bad Guys, and I will continue to do so. If it ever comes down to a "shoot-out", I guess I will rely on 'Range-Training', Marine Corps training, and whatever common sense I can muster in the heat of the moment. Two tours in Viet Nam taught me that a whole lot of knowledge goes right out the window when the lead starts whizzing around your ears. It is just a heck of a lot easier to use your senses to avoid a gunfight than it is to try to shoot your way through one, or to justify yourself after the fact.

December 16, 2004, 10:53 PM	#78
Hollowpnt Member Join Date: December 16, 2004 Location: California..or Kalifornia Posts: 40	Well I think shoot to stop answers the question completely, but to add my two cents; Even in situations where non-lethal force is applied to apprehending a perp (ie: stun guns, tasers, baton, restraints, ect.) people become injured and even die. The warped situation is departments and governments pay settlements to the injured perps or survivors even if no wrong doing in the arrest is proven. So even if you know your training, your justified, and its the best course of action, we all as taxpayers get to foot the bill for these actions warranted or not one way or another. Shoot to stop and hope this very action of intent diffuses the situation. Will Rodgers often said: "He never met a man he didn't like." I have to wonder how can someone be so lucky as to go through life never meeting a lawyer.

December 17, 2004, 08:58 PM	#79
rogerwilco Junior member Join Date: December 7, 2004 Location: Chesterfield,Virginia Posts: 152	Shoot to Kill...Shoot to wound?.....Come on now...If you are attacked and you have to draw your weapon. Most people are not trained to react fast enough to think about whether or not to kill or wound. Most people in that situation will shoot to HIT...or whatever it takes to stop the threat.

December 18, 2004, 01:08 PM	#80
matthew temkin Junior member Join Date: June 7, 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 363	We shoot to stop. Period. If after two rounds the BG drops his gun and surrenders does not mean that we finish him off a la Bernie Goetz. Shooting to stop the attack may, in fact, occur with the mere drawing of the firearm. SHOOT TO STOP. End of story.

December 18, 2004, 03:31 PM	#82
mjf1911 Registration in progress Join Date: December 17, 2004 Posts: 20	Shoot to stop!

December 22, 2004, 12:21 AM	#83
Spectre Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 23, 1998 Location: ATL Posts: 3,277	http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...highlight=stop http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...highlight=stop Not that we've ever hashed this through before...