Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Wagonman

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

I'm sorry that you feel that way. But I think this goes a little beyond mere semantics. We're talking about legal concepts, and it's helpful, I believe, to use and understand legal terminology properly.

[KD5NRH]

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

Even better: the #8 birdshot won't penetrate enough to hurt the innocent hostage, but because you're so close, it will blow a fist-size hole clear through the BG.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have to agree with the Fiddler on terminology. He is a lawyer and can instruct us that in the law, your common usage and understanding isnt' that of the law. The 'homocide' issue is a good one.

I feel the same way when someone here starts to go off on a psychological term and misuses it.

So just remember all the folks who go nutty ranting over clip vs magazine or bullet vs cartridge, etc.

[dandydany]

G. E. M . ( staff ), I think that there are mitigating circomstances that affect a man's decision, and using your " shoot to stop " extended views just enforce my feelings about the way I will protect myself in particular. I'm very near 77 years old and will take whatever decisions on shooting a BG as I wish according to circomstances. Besides, I'm a heart patient , cannot run away from an assault by younger or better conditionned BG. So I have no alternative but to end the assault....permanently . The community I live in " HAD " 3 deputy sheriffs that was reduced to none due to financial cut-back. It was then recommended that local residents should get a CCW as soon as they could. Fortunately, Pres. Obama $250 stimulus checks for seniors help me towards that. In the meantime, one middle age man was brutally assaulted and badly injured for a lousy 12 pack of beer . The attackers, 4 of them, are all in prison . All are teens, the type mommy says " my boy is a good boy " idiots" that perpetrated this assault in a small town where everybody knows everybody...that's my 2 cents, Dan

[brickeyee]

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

Why is this so hard for many to understand?

There are a couple differnet legal views of how self defense killing is handled, and Virginia is the one I am most familiar with.

We have NO statute laws governing the use of lethal force.

It is ALL case law.

Virginia uses 'justifiable homicide' and 'excusable homicide' depending on the degree of interaction between the defender and the dead person.

Justifiable is reserved for a defender who through NO action on their part is forced to use letahl force to defend themselves.

Excusable gets into the touchier cases were there was some type of altercation preceding the use of lethal force.
Words exchanged, threats, maybe even physical violence.

To claim self defense then requires the defender to clearly indicate they wish the altercation to end, by word and deed since killing in the course of 'mutual combat' is murder.
Only at that point if they are further pursued will lethal force become available as an option to them.

There are a number of very 'folksy' decisions in the Virginia common law, including a decision that you cannot challenge a man to a fist fight, then draw a gun when you start to loose.

There is a fair chance that a 'good shoot' will at least appear before a grand jury.
You want to make sure everything clearly points to your justifiable use of lethal force.

[dandydany]

A few posts on this thread indicate that one must think of STOPPING an assault from a BG. It seems to me that with whatever mean used , the BG's going to end up either dead or barely alive; if a gun was used by victim under assault, HE ( SHE ) would supposedly AIM the firearm and pull the trigger to stop the BG . It's at this point that I kind of get wondering that if shooting an aimed shot that killed the PERP to STOP him if that constitutes murder, since you AIMED the fatal shot. It would be difficult to prove that it was your purpose at that point, even if it was NECESSARY to stop the BG that way. Next week, I'm taking a CCW class for my permit, paid by the OBAMA stimulus money for seniors....heheheheh :barf: Dan

[JohnKSa]

It seems to me that with whatever mean used , the BG's going to end up either dead or barely alive

If you acted within the law (which includes, among other things, your intent) then that's irrelevant. The law acknowledges that the death or serious injury of the BG is possible if deadly force is used and is legally acceptable if deadly force is warranted and legally employed.

It's at this point that I kind of get wondering that if shooting an aimed shot that killed the PERP to STOP him if that constitutes murder, since you AIMED the fatal shot.

No, it does not. If you acted within the law then it is not murder. If you used deadly force when the law does not allow it (for example--to punish or avenge rather than defend) then it is murder.

It would be difficult to prove that it was your purpose at that point, even if it was NECESSARY to stop the BG that way.

No, it wouldn't be difficult. If the circumstances warranted deadly force and you acted within the law and if you don't say something stupid (before or after the shooting) that implies otherwise then there's nothing difficult about it.

Change any of those things and it gets very difficult indeed.

[Wagonman]

[/I'm sorry that you feel that way. But I think this goes a little beyond mere semantics. We're talking about legal concepts, and it's helpful, I believe, to use and understand legal terminology properly.

If you are shooting to stop the threat you haven't commited the criminal offense of homicide. You have commited the medical act of homicide. You still can't or won't understand the difference.

[OldMarksman]

If you are shooting to stop the threat you haven't commited the criminal offense of homicide.

True. With hope, that will be the judgement of the charging authorities.

You have commited the medical act of homicide.

Medical act? Huh? No, you will have committed justifiable homicide, assuming that the threat was imminent, and that the shooting was immediately necessary as a last resort.

You still can't or won't understand the difference.

Speaking to Fiddletown? Sorry, he understands it perfectly.

[pax]

If you are shooting to stop the threat you haven't commited the criminal offense of homicide.

"Homicide" is the act of killing another person. Period, full stop. There are several types of homicide -- some of which are criminally culpable and some of which are not. Excusable homicide and justifiable homicide are not criminal offenses, but they are both still "homicide" in the eyes of the law. If you kill another person, regardless of your intent, you have committed homicide in the eyes of the law.

While the specific terminology will differ from one state to another, as a general rule the types of homicide are as follows:

1) Murder

(The intentional killing of another human being with malice -- with or without aforethought. Murder with aforethought is called "premeditated murder" or "first degree murder." Other types of murder are not coldly planned, but still have the element of malice, meaning the murderer fully intended to kill the victim.)

2) Manslaughter

(The difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence of "malice," another legal term that speaks to the defendant's mindset at the time of the action. There are also different types of manslaughter, depending upon whether you acted recklessly or simply negligently when you caused the other person to die.)

3) Excusable homicide

(Rarely used; it means you made a mistake but it was a mistake anyone would have made in the same circumstance. You weren't justified in killing the person you killed, but it was an understandable and excusable mistake.)

4) Justifiable Homicide

(You acted deliberately and in full knowledge that the other person was likely to die as a result of your action, and your action was justifiable because your purpose in doing what you did was to preserve innocent life.)

pax

[sserdlihc]

I can't remember that last time we had this many staff members commenting on the same thread. This is quite interesting.

[pax]

sserdlihc,

That's because the other option was simply shutting it down -- since people are so bound & determined to self-incriminate whenever this topic comes up. Nobody likes to be told that there are very specific laws about this.

Reluctantly decided to keep it open, but it bears careful watching and direction. We don't condone lawbreaking here, and we are very serious about promoting the cause of responsible firearms ownership and use.

pax

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Wagonman

If you are shooting to stop the threat you haven't commited the criminal offense of homicide. You have commited the medical act of homicide. You still can't or won't understand the difference.

Homicide is not necessarily a criminal act. I explained it and Pax explained it. A homicide that is a criminal act is either murder or manslaughter.

And I understand this perfectly.

[Wagonman]

"Homicide" is the act of killing another person. Period, full stop. There are several types of homicide -- some of which are criminally culpable and some of which are not

Which is the distinction I have been making for days.

I am not saying that you can't be charged with murder in a legit self defense shooting I am refering to intent which is an element of any offense, which is what you lack if you are shooting to stop the threat and not shooting to kill.

Medical act? Huh?

Yes, Medical act as in the Medical Examiner makes the determination on the cause of death....accidental, natural causes, Homicide.

The ME can rule it homicide because you shot said bad guy but the State's Attorney PROBABLY wouldn't charge because your intent SHOULD be to shoot to stop

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Wagonman

...Medical act as in the Medical Examiner makes the determination on the cause of death....accidental, natural causes, Homicide...

In determining if a death is accidental, from natural causes, homicide or suicide, the Medical Examiner is making a legal determination. This is the legal cause of death. Such legal determination is within the jurisdiction of the ME in most states, and such determination would have legal consequences. For example, if the ME finds the death to be a homicide, the DA or Public Prosecutor will need to decide if there's a basis upon which to determine if the homicide was criminally culpable. If the ME determines that the legal cause of death was accident, natural causes or suicide, such determination may have various other consequences, such as whether insurance proceeds are payable.

The ME may also make a finding as to the medical cause of death. This would be the physiological cause of death, e. g., cardiac arrest secondary to exsanguination from a traumatic injury to the aorta.

[warrior poet]

I am currently serving in the USMC and I teach combat marksmanship. I shoot center mass (high center mass, specifically) because I was taught to do so. This maximizes my chances of living- and is also the most generally lethal to my opponent. The upper thoraic cavity contains the heart, aorta, lungs, and a section of the spine. If a hammer pair/ controlled pair to this area doesn't immediately stop the bad guy, I am trained (and teach) to take the head shot.

I mention this b/c reading this thread makes me think that my training has "set me up" with a poor legal footing should I be involved in a lethal encounter while on leave (or after I get out/ retire). I can't believe that the same government which taught me these things would also attempt to punish me to the fullest extend of the law for acting out of instinct- an instinct that they have honed, and one that has saved my life before.

-Sgt Ski

[JohnKSa]

If your training indicates that your targeting strategy maximizes your chances of survival then it would be consistent with legal self-defense.

I believe the high center-mass point of aim is also chosen because it improves the chances of shooting above the area typically protected by body armor. Given that body armor is sometimes used by criminals I would think that point of aim could be defended from that perspective as well.

If it becomes an issue (and I doubt it will unless you make it an issue), simply indicating that your point of aim was consistent with your training and stating that you reverted to training under the stress of the moment would be a compelling argument as well.

The most important thing is that you aren't on record before or after an incident stating that your goal was to kill.

[Wagonman]

The point I am making is that the ME can and will rule a good shoot a homicide, but you SHOULD not be charged if you were shooting to stop the threat as opposed to trying to kill the BG

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem is that 'should' may not be the case. What should be done isn't what is done.

The view of the 'threat' is unfortunately ambiguous at times. If the legal authorities don't view it as a clear cut threat - you can go to trial. Then, if 'threat' is your perception but not others, you are in trouble. Most important, if you are seen as previously stating 'shoot to kill', etc. , your exposition of a 'threat' might not be believed.

[OldMarksman]

The point I am making is that the ME can and will rule a good shoot a homicide, but you SHOULD not be charged if you were shooting to stop the threat as opposed to trying to kill the BG

If by that you mean that it would not be fair or right for you to be charged for an act that was necessary and therefore justified, everyone on this board would agree wholeheartedly.

If you are referring to the likelihood that you will be charged, it will depend on appearances, evidence, witnesses, the jurisdiction, and the mindset of the authorities involved.

What happens after the fact can become critical--being the first to call, identifying yourself as the victim, making sure that evidence and witnesses are pointed out before they disappear, and avoiding any other discussion with anyone, oral, written, or electronic, before you have the advice of counsel can go a long way in influencing the outcome.

So can what may have happened before the encounter may come to bear--any previous dealings with the deceased, previous threats on your part, e-mails or internet postings that may indicate state of mind...

Whoops, looks like Glenn has already said it!

[DT Guy]

While it's essential to know the laws relevant to this discussion, I see a different dimension-

Do you want to be a 'killer'? There's a tenuously fine line involved, but it's a line nonetheless; if you want to stop an assault, you're an honest man protecting himself. As soon as you move past that, even if only internally, you've become a killer. A person whose intent was to end a life, not an assault.

Anyone who's had to make decisions like this realizes how heavily they can weight on you in years to follow. Forget (for a moment) the courts, the press and your family, and consider your interior life. Will you want to go through the rest of your life knowing you intentionally stepped past that fine line, and went from self-preservation to killing?

I don't want to. Should such a situation arise, I'll be shooting to stop and hoping with all my heart the attacker lives.

Larry

[OldMarksman]

Will you want to go through the rest of your life knowing you intentionally stepped past that fine line, and went from self-preservation to killing?

I don't want to. Should such a situation arise, I'll be shooting to stop and hoping with all my heart the attacker lives.

I agree. I'll see you on that and raise you one. On three occasions I've been able to "stop" attackers in the home with the point of a gun, with no shots fired. That, in my mind, represents the best outcome once the threat has materialized.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Wagonman

The point I am making is that the ME can and will rule a good shoot a homicide, but you SHOULD not be charged if you were shooting to stop the threat as opposed to trying to kill the BG

I understand that. But as a lawyer I would break the analysis down further and refine it as follows:

• The ME will rule any death a homicide if caused by the act or omission of another person.
• Depending on the procedures and scope of the ME's legal responsibilities in the particular jurisdiction, the ME might, or might not, offer an opinion as to whether or not criminal liability could attach to the person whose act or omission caused the death.
• In any case, if the ME concludes that the death was a homicide, the police and district attorney's office will continue to investigate to make a decision as to whether (1) the homicide clearly was justifiable or excusable, and therefore no prosecution is warranted; or (2) there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the homicide was most likely criminal, i. e. either manslaughter (the result of an intentional or reckless act, without legal justification and without malice) or murder (intentional, without legal justification and with malice). If the DA concludes that there is probable cause to believe that the homicide was a criminal act, he must then decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge a particular person with the crime or to bring a particular person before a grand jury for such determination.
• The question of the actor's intent becomes important in the DA's analysis of whether there is evidence that the homicide was a criminal act and therefore the actor should be charged.
• If the evidence is strong enough that the actor appropriately used force to stop a potentially lethal attack, the DA should conclude that the the homicide was justifiable and that no prosecution is warranted. But if there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the actor intentionally went beyond what was reasonably needed to stop the threat, the DA would probably prosecute. Now the actor becomes the defendant, and he must convince a jury that he was legally justified to use lethal force.

[Wagonman]

The question of the actor's intent becomes important in the DA's analysis of whether there is evidence that the homicide was a criminal act and therefore the actor should be charged.
If the evidence is strong enough that the actor appropriately used force to stop a potentially lethal attack, the DA should conclude that the the homicide was justifiable and that no prosecution is warranted. But if there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the actor intentionally went beyond what was reasonably needed to stop the threat, the DA would probably prosecute. Now the actor becomes the defendant, and he must convince a jury that he was legally justified to use lethal force

Which ironically where shooting to stop becomes relevant.

No one other than a soldier on a battlefield has the right to kill another person. However, you have the right and duty to stop the threat from killing or grievous injury.

[KingEdward]

having read all of this, thanks to all; and any gun owner who keeps
them at home for protection should read this info.

When thinking about a home invasion or at the least a forced entry break in and the homeowner is confronted with danger, I don't think much about the legal terms or what the terms to protect my family are (stop, end, cease, etc).

There are three thoughts and probably during such a scenario, ONLY these
three thoughts will prevail in my head:

1) is my family safe according to our plan? (was there time to get them in
safe room)

2) if they are safe, can I stay with them and guard the safe room door?

3) if they are not safe, what has to be done to make them safe? could mean
several things which could include armed confrontation with intruder but only
using a fire arm if there is imminent danger of grave bodily harm is posed by intruder(s).

Castle law is fine and my state has but if at all possible, I'm not confronting someone in the living room or dining room for taking china or silver if I and the family are safe in the master BR.

Locked doors and an active alarm system along with dog should be good deterrents but nothing is fail safe and having a plan that has a good chance of working is key.

I understand the importance of knowing the laws and considering all of that weight and what can or could happen and what juries consider and how important all the little facts and details are to attorneys and judges. If I'm awakened at 4am with the horn sounding and the dog barking, the 3 questions
are what will be running through my mind.