To Kill Or Not To Kill...That Is The Question

[TexanAmerican]

I'm pretty much the "new kid" on the block to this forum but since I am retired I do spend a bit of time reading the various input besides I'm a half-ass insomniac and it beats staring at the Tele. For those who have killed another person each carries away their own deep rooted feelings for having done so. Many times in my life I have been asked by one person or another "which gun is the best for home defense". My reply has simply been: The best gun is the one you are willing and capable of killing someone with. Therein lies the rub. My next question to that person is if in their heart of hearts and the deepest recesses of their soul would they without a doubt willfully, knowingly and very deliberately kill someone with full knowledge that you very likely may incur some type of physical damage of your own. If there is any hesitation or if the answer is no then my advice is to invest in better locks and home security and just hope and pray that 911 doesn't put you on hold. After all my bloviating I wonder how many out there in Internet Land have ever really, truly and honestly asked and answered that question for themselves before reading Guns and Ammo and running out to buy a "self defense" firearm. I'm talking without all the moral evaluations and so called legally justifiable hocus pocus. Even if the guy is drenched in blood holding a pick axe with a catch you gut you look in his eye. How many have honestly examined themselves and what they THINK they would do? Just one of the things I ponder when I'm sitting here in the wee hours pondering human behavior. Whatcha' think?

[TheBluesMan]

What you are saying is that mindset is more important than the firearm you choose.

I agree completely.

If, when faced with imminent harm or death, one is not prepared to fight back, it makes no difference what tool one is holding.

I think this thread fits better in Tactics & Training. Moving now...

[CDH]

Texan, I think your mindset about "to kill or not to kill" is all wrong (no offense intended).

The whole idea of making a committment to your own and family's self defense has to do with "stopping" an attack. If you go in with the idea of killing or not, you have already set yourself up with doubts about whether you can pull a trigger at all, and a moment of hesitation at that point can kill YOU.
Plus, you set yourself up for a lifetime of emotionally crippling guilt.

When you have first made the determination that your life is in danger and that the attacket MUST BE STOPPED, then you do what you have to, to STOP him.
It is not your concern if whatever means you use to STOP him results in his death or not. The outcome is not your fault, but the attacker's. You shouldn't be as concerned about killing an attacker as you are with simply stopping the attack.

Thinking of it another way, you should NEVER use the word "kill" when referring to stopping an attacker. It is more accurate and proper to use the word "neutralize" because by neutralizing the threat, you have stopped the threat which really should have been your ONLY purpose for pulling the trigger in the first place.

Using your example of the guy with a pickaxe staring at you, my only thought is to neutralize him as a threat, not kill him. If he dies during the process, that's his problem, but if he just drops to the ground, STOPPING the attack, I would never think of walking over and putting another round in him for the purpose of killing him. If he got up and continued the attack, then more defensive action would be justified which may very well be additional shots until he STOPS advancing his attack.

Here's a thought provoking piece you might like to read:
http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/...sheepdogs.html
I feel that a lot of this applies to us who have committed ourselves to at least our own defense, even though not in a public service capacity (LE).

Carter

[TexanAmerican]

Thinking of it another way, you should NEVER use the word "kill" when referring to stopping an attacker. It is more accurate and proper to use the word "neutralize" because by neutralizing the threat, you have stopped the threat which really should have been your ONLY purpose for pulling the trigger in the first place.

CDH,
Likewise, with all due respect you make make my point for me. Terms such as "neutralize", "extreme prejudice", "stop" etc. are all legalease and nice "civilized" euphamisms for removing someone from their mortal surroundings. I don't know your background, but in any police academy you don't get cudos for leg and arm shots. Your best scores are center mass (heart, lungs, vitals) or good old fashioned head shots. The first thing the military (the real military) does in boot camp or basic training is to break down ones thinking about social and legal issues of "neutralizing" an enemy and teach you to kill or be killed. A "wounded" enemy can still kill you and is now probably pissed enough to do just that. Most CCL instructers teach the "neutralize" or "stop" jargon so that if, God forbid, you should have to shoot someone you can minimize your criminal culpability when top cop rolls up on the scene. If you can muster up at least one crocodile tear that won't hurt either. Reality is that from the very first firearm built the purpose was for killing, not for "neutralizing". It's sole purpose in the history of man was to kill food for the dinner table or kill an enemy that threatens you and/or loved ones. Aside from all that, some people just flat deserve killing. By the way no offense taken. The reason I posted the question was to garnish thoughts from others. One thing I have learned in life is that it isn't one man's world. None the less I'm still a strong advocate of "one shot-one kill". But that's just me.

[shield20]

So, are there people here, who when locked in a life and death struggle with an adversary, will actually feel guilty if they win?

Great topic, but one I don't think should be answered in public in writing. Unfortunately, "anything you say may be used against you in a court of law".

[BlueTrain]

I should hope there are people here who feel, not guilty, but responsible if they killed someone, whether or not they won. Otherwise, what is the difference between them and the Bad Guy. Here I am assuming everyone here is a Good Guy.

It is a good topic. Perhaps you should keep your opinions to yourself if they aren't nice but the topic is certainly relevant to half the subjects on this forum. In a way, it even applies to hunting, though that is not usually a self defence issue but it involves killing. By the way, I think that thinking that a threat can be stopped with a firearm without killing or danger of killing is fantasy, the sort of thing you used to hear fifty years ago, up there with "flesh wound," "shoot to maim, not to kill," and similar statements. A claim about large caliber handguns like the .45 was that you could stop them with a shoulder wound and not have to kill them. That claim was probably made by someone who was a better shot than I was.

There is more. The biggest advantage the bad guy has over the good guy is his willingness to kill and to do so without remore, so it would seem. The police catch more bad guys than you might think and they have said they would track someone down, go to his house and find him sleeping peacefully in bed. However, be that as it may, the good guy can overcome his natural disadvantage by having the right mindset before hand, not to say this is easy to do. Jeff Cooper has probably written more about this than anyone.

[springmom]

I don't think Carter is at all equivocating. What he is saying is exactly what we were taught regarding the use of deadly force when I took my CHL class. You shoot to stop the threat. Heck, if pulling out my gun causes the doofus to drop his weapon and hit the floor, then the threat IS stopped. If shooting him COM doesn't kill him but stops the threat, then the threat is stopped. You don't keep shooting until he's dead, you keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat. ISTM that you are equating the two, and I would agree with Carter that they are not in fact the same by definition.

Of course, the BG may die. Or he may not. But determining that outcome is not my responsbility. Protecting myself and my family is.

Springmom

[tydephan]

To me, the question that is being posed should be "to shoot, or not to shoot..."

It would seem to me that the major decision, if confronted with a late night intrusion, is whether to shoot (i.e. "Could/Would I really pull the trigger and take the risk of taking someone's life, despite their intent).

This was definitely a concious decision I made before I decided to buy my first HD firearm. Without a doubt I will do whatever it takes to stop a threat to me or my family, however there is a line between offense and defense (us footballers call it the line of scrimmage )

Once this decision has been made, it is only common sense to continue defensive shots until the intruder is neutralized. Although I agree that a BG has given up his right to live if he/she threatens me in my house, common sense (once again) dictates that I would not continue to shoot. As noted previously, if he dies, he dies. And I would have to deal with that, knowing that I did the bare minimum to protect me and my loved ones.

Now, with all that being said, I also know that most LEO are trained that if you must shoot, the situation is bad enough that doubletaps to the head are duely warranted (i.e. no leg or arm shots to stop the threat, or for that matter "shooting over the head."). It's a difficult call, with two entirely different schools of thought. The common thread is the ability to pull the trigger...and I sure as hell will not hesitate once the threat is revealed.

[TireFryer]

CDH:
AWESOME article! I am printing it to have on hand with me to give out to some of my "sheep" acquaintainces, and forwarded to a few other forums!

good discussion...

[john in jax]

I feel VERY strongly about protecting my familiy. I am sure I would/could immediately eliminate any threat to me or them without any remorse or hesitation. I've noticed that even watching a news story on TV about kids being hurt/abused gets my "fight" response all fired up.

[tydephan]

CDH,

Thanks for posting that article. I had read that previously, however when re-reading I noticed a portion that directly applied to this discussion (I think...)

"...Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice "when/then" thinking, not "if/when." Instead of saying,"If it happens then I will take action," the warrior says, "When it happens then I will be ready."

This one statement accurately summarizes the dichotomy of Home Defense.

[CDH]

Texan American said:

Terms such as "neutralize", "extreme prejudice", "stop" etc. are all legalease and nice "civilized" euphamisms for removing someone from their mortal surroundings.

TA, I don't mean the use of these terms as "legalease" or being "civilized" at all.
I mean them very literally because I will never go into a situation of defense intending to kill. Those terms very accurately describe the ONLY reasons I would draw a weapon. I would never draw a weapon to intentionally kill someone.
And in all of this, I never once suggested trying to make an arm or leg shot. To stop an attacker, your best option that you should ALWAYS go for is a center of mass aim point. That is the best way to stop an attacker, but there are a lot of cases where COM shots do not actually cause the person shot to die. The point here is that you shouldn't be concerned whether your attacker lives or dies, but mainly that he is STOPPED. Center of Mass shots "stop" best.

What I was trying to explain is that any of us who carry should get not just get the word "kill" out of our minds, but get the notion of "killing" out of our minds.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but the best example I can give you is that I am pretty sure that I would have a really hard time reconciling the fact (emotionally) that I killed someone (even the worst BG you can imagine) if I had even the slightest thought that I should "kill" him because he is attacking me. I am NOT a "killer", I am just defending myself with the most appropriate means available at the time, and my only intent is to STOP the attack.

If a BG happens to die as a result of his attacking me requiring my subsequent and necessary use of a lethal weapon for my own defense, then I assure you that I can live with that.

Think of it in a legal sense being applied to an emotional issue; in a court of law, "intent" has a lot to do with a defense of a crime.
In the case of self defense resulting in the death of the attacker, I did not intend to kill the attacker (just stop him) so I will be much better able to handle the resulting emotional consequences than if I had to look in a mirror and see someone who intended to kill someone.

The emotional part of what I have been talking about is, to me, the most important part of the topic you brought up. And you can maintain the kind of "non" killing mentality without at all compromising yourself when it comes time to pull the trigger. In fact, by taking away the lingering doubt about "killing" someone and instead replacing it with a solid concept of simply "stopping" an attacker, you are less likely to pause when a pause could turn deadly for YOU.

You can take this to the legal side as well and wonder what the outcome of your legal defense would be if you at some point said to an officer on the scene: "He came at me with a weapon so I KILLED him".

Carter

[pickpocket]

Can we dispense with all of the back-and-forth about "kill" or "stop"?

We all know that your legal statement should have all the correct buzzwords in them to minimize the possibility that you will be portrayed as a mass-murdering hermetical crazy if your day in court comes.

HOWEVER... it's is really REALLY stupid to sit here and pretend that STOPPING does somehow not equate to KILLING. In fact, I think people's tendencies to give it a kinder, gentler name eventually leads to a little desensitization.

Make no doubt about it people; call it whatever you want. The coroner is still going to call it DEAD.

The original question wasn't about whether or not you should call it this or that - it was calling into question whether or not all of you people out there who have decided that you are - in some capacity - capable of defending yourselves or your loved ones have really considered what your feelings are on the fact that you might one day be responsible for the death of another person. Yes, for the faint-hearted, an SD shooting is going to mean that someone probably dies. After all, all of the legal hounds scream from the rooftops that we shouldn't shoot to wound - so that doesn't leave many other options.

Interestingly, I think that all of the hemmig and hawing about using the kinder, gentler, socially pleasing terminology shows that - at some level, and to some degree - we haven't all truly answered that fundamental question.

At the end of the day, if you have not been REALISTIC about what being involved in a shooting really means, then you're deluding yourself. Hopefully that doesn't come back to bite you during the moment of truth.

Stay sharp.

[Samurai]

Believe it or not, I've thought about death in self-defense quite alot through my martial arts career. And, I feel that the responses to this question provide a useful insight into the answer itself: Nobody likes to kill people. If you have to kill people, you will find a way to cope with it.

We've heard some people say some pretty well-reasoned justifications for killing people. We heard TheBluesMan say, essentially, that survival is important, and either you're ready to fight back or you're ready to die. This is quite true. Sometimes, you must choose between surrendering your own life and committing a moral atrocity. Personally, I think life is quite precious, and noone's life is more important than my own.

We heard Springmom (a very wise woman, incidentally), and several others, say that the point in firearms wielding is not to "kill," per se, but rather to "stop" or "neutralize." Springmom says that if the assailant dies, it's not her fault. She only means to neutralize the threat. This, also, is true.

But, I think that these things are merely mental and emotional rationalizations. As CCW people, we all have at least considered the possibility that we might, one day, be forced to choose between our life and the life of someone else. And, we have all decided that, painful as it may be, we would rather that we live than the other guy. We carry instruments of death and mayhem on our hips. We aim to kill. We need justifications, we need rationalizations, we need to tell ourselves that when this happens, it is not our fault. THAT'S how you keep from going mad with guilt for refusing to roll-over and die!

Now that I've accused everyone ELSE of mere rationalization, here's MY rationalization: They do it to themselves. If a BG attacks me, then he has chosen to enter my circle. He has chosen to risk life and limb for the opportunity to take my life. He has pitted his life against mine and said, "One of us will not leave here." All I do is give him EXACTLY what he has asked for. If he had chosen to respect me, to respect himself, and to fear for his OWN life, then I wouldn't have to kill him. But, when he chooses to gamble on an attack, he must be ready for the counter-attack. It's sad, and it's tragic, but that's life!

Now, with that said, I would like to think that I would be able to control a situation enough not to have to kill. I often think that I would like to train to place the first shot in the center of the stomach. The attacker should have this ONE opportunity to leave my circle. After that, if he is too crazy with rage/adrenaline/blood-lust to recognize that the fight is over, the next seven shots riddle the upper body. But, I will try to watch the gun, and I will stop shooting when the gun drops. I will call the ambulance, call the police, and render first aid. I don't think this is very realistic, but it's a nice fantasy.

[BlueTrain]

It may be that sometimes in order to fight, you have to be ready to die.

[garryc]

So, are there people here, who when locked in a life and death struggle with an adversary, will actually feel guilty if they win?

In my case guilt was not a factor. Initial bewilderment, stress reaction after, but not guilt.

[pax]

HOWEVER... it's is really REALLY stupid to sit here and pretend that STOPPING does somehow not equate to KILLING. In fact, I think people's tendencies to give it a kinder, gentler name eventually leads to a little desensitization.

I think it's REALLY stupid to sit here and pretend that STOPPING is always the same thing as KILLING.

80% of people shot with a handgun survive. 80%.

If your attacker tosses his weapon away and goes down but is still breathing, are you going to shoot him some more because STOPPING is somehow equated to KILLING in your mind?

I really hope not.

Me, I'm goint to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat -- until he is STOPPED. If he's also DEAD, well, I can live with that.

But unlike what some people appear to be saying, I can also live with it if he isn't.

pax

[SOG/MACV]

I have to agree with PAX. My past experience in having to "waste" the Bg was 40 years ago in the military. So from my perspective tyhe question is one of who is going down first, you or the Bg. I have been asked about this topic several times over the years... My response has alwways been the same:

1- "Could" you drop the hammer on someone if you and/or your family are threatened?

2- "Would" you drop the hammer on someone?

These are questions which evoke different answers for each bust the end result is usually the same,,,

This is just my perspect after being in fire fights..

[ZeroJunk]

If you REALLY believe somebody is going to kill you, in the final seconds this takes place a primal instinct is going to take over and you are going to be thinking very little about anything but survival.How and when you make that determination is everything.

[SOG/MACV]

I see that I need to spell check everything -- good grief

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting debate. In a way, it philsophically paraphrases a reported discussion between a North Vietnamese general and an American one years latter. Supposedly the later said that you never defeated on the battle field and the former said that was irrelevant.

I approach the issue as wanting the best possible outcome in a situation. It is irrelevant if you kill or stop the BG or if you flee - you want the best outcome. Maybe you should give the BG the money.

Thus you build a skill and knowledge set that will let you effect the best possible outcome.

If one of the skills is to use an instrument of deadly force which has the probability of killing someone, then you need to able to see if killing someone is one of the outcomes that defines the set of best possible outcomes after an incident. If you cannot deal with the consequences of killing even if it stops the incident - then you probably don't need a firearm.

I just want a good outcome - whether the bad person is killed, flees, is incapacitated is irrelevant. I've accepted that I will use a method that does contain the possibility of death. However, I don't care if I kill, them - I just want a good outcome for me.

Stopping vs. killing is irrelevant, if you take the broader view of the best outcome.

This is a reasoned discussion here. Some folks who argue that stopping is just a PC way to say KILL (not you Pickpocket - you are more reasoned) are a subset of the internet "I wanna shoot someone folks".

[spacemanspiff]

It is not your concern if whatever means you use to STOP him results in his death or not.

Yes, and No. In ones own mind, the armed citizen has to accept the fact that he/she may one day take anothers life. This is a heavy thought, and if you are not convinced 110% that you can do such, you should not be carrying.
Part of this comes from our societys obsession with death, and abhorrence of it. Many feel that if they take someones life, justifiably even, they are somehow 'less' of a human.
Each person rationalizes it differently. Me, I realized that defending life from those who don't respect life is acceptable. It doesn't make me a killer, nor a monster. I respect life, and it must be defended from those who don't respect it.
That respect becomes evident when we choose our defensive weapons and the ammunition. We want something that will do the most efficient job, and match it with the best possible practice/training. We realize that overpenetration is to be avoided, and thus we look into using hollowpoints or whatever else will expand quickly from a high velocity. If velocity isnt an issue, then we use whatever we feel will work.

Yes, we may one day have to end someones life.

[mack59]

Those individuals who should not own guns to defend themselves are: those who say they just want a firearm to deter and would never load it let alone actually shoot it, those that say that they could never kill someone even if they were threatening the life/lives of the individual and/or their family, and those that say that say they would only shoot to wound.

Such individuals are, in my IMNSHO, in denial of some of the most basic realities of life. Given the physical means, every human being is capable of killing another, that is a reality. Those who feel or believe that they can't are not willing to be honest with themselves. But then generally people in our western culture exhibit a massive amount of denial about death and killing. Look at how many people can't even deal with the slaughter of animals for food - let alone the death/killing of a pet.

[TexanAmerican]

TA...would they without a doubt willfully, knowingly and very deliberately kill someone with full knowledge that you very likely may incur some type of physical damage of your own.

"...Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice "when/then" thinking, not "if/when." Instead of saying,"If it happens then I will take action," the warrior says, "When it happens then I will be ready."

Coach Bob actually re-enforces the question posed. He actually carries it one logical step further. You don't approach the issue as "if" it is going to happen; you approach it by being ready "when" it happens. "When" it happens one can only be "ready" by careful self-reflection and practice, practice, training and more training and if in doubt more practice. (No offense intended for anyone) I have notice a few stats quoted in the thread. As we all know there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. It's fact that 89.32453% of all stats are made up on the spot (I just did it). I think some are missing the core point of the interrogative.

This is a reasoned discussion here. Some folks who argue that stopping is just a PC way to say KILL (not you Pickpocket - you are more reasoned) are a subset of the internet "I wanna shoot someone folks".

I agree that this is a "reasoned" discussion and many here have expressed their "reason" for what they feel. To reiterate: It's not one man's world. It has never been suggested that anyone go "medieval" on a perp. If you read the shotgun forum there are many who choose the shotgun for HD and most lean toward the 12 ga.(as probably do thousands more in our nation). Regardless the round of choice in the confines of an average home odds are better than even for a kill shot on the perp; besides, as I was taught all my life, whether you throw 9 pellets or 90 pellets down range it only takes one to kill. The bottom line is that the very second someone makes the conscious decision to acquire a firearm for "protection" it will be an assumption of law the intent for potential of lethal injury is present. Whether one only wishes to wound, stop, incapacitate or have an acceptable outcome; or if someone else could care less the decision to willfully and knowingly kill another must be resolved in the shooter. As Coach Bob put it: are we prepared to do it "when" it happens; not "if". Even in th '60's when a drill instructor could still disassemble you and reasseble you as a "killing machine" there were many guys when sent to Vietnam who for reasons only they know were unable to make the conscious decision to "terminate with extreme prejudice" and either shot blindly or not at all. I do not feel this makes anyone a coward. Even then it wasn't one man's world and each of us can only do the best we can with what we have to work with. It wasn't unusual to see GI's with severe wounds still carrying the fight to the enemy and vice versa. Many times someone would be as good as dead and didn't know they were supposed to fall down; much like perps on PCP who commit major numbers of burglaries and robberies in this nation. I sure as hell never knew anyone who relished in killing or just wanted to "shoot some folks". The point being: A choice exists; either fire for effect or shoot blindly or not at all. If one keeps a firearm for more than sport then it is imperative that one make a conscious effort to reconcile killing another so that "When it happens I will be ready". No one in his right mind expects enjoyment from it, we only want to be able to hug our family tomorrow.

[pickpocket]

Glenn - you're right. There are definitely some of the internet subset of "I just wanna shoot someone" population, and anyone who posts something along those lines should be easily spotted and duly ignored. And thank you for the nod.

PAX, although I'm quoting you I'm responding to your words not the person..

Originally Posted by pax

I think it's REALLY stupid to sit here and pretend that STOPPING is always the same thing as KILLING.

Good thing I didn't say ALWAYS.

80% of people shot with a handgun survive. 80%.

If your attacker tosses his weapon away and goes down but is still breathing, are you going to shoot him some more because STOPPING is somehow equated to KILLING in your mind?

I really hope not.

You have obviously never had to deal with it, then....and that's my point. We have a lot of people here pontificating on what it is to shoot someone and only a handful of people who have actually done it.

If you cannot admit to yourself that when you pull the trigger that someone WILL die, then you are lying to yourself. Maybe the person you shoot will be in that 80%, maybe not. But I can tell you that nobody intends for the person they shoot to survive...otherwise the States would enact the dreaded shoot-to-wound legislation across the board. Survival is a byproduct of luck and medical response, don't fool yourself into thinking it's because you only STOPPED him instead of KILLED him. Every round that leaves that weapon is fatal. To believe otherwise is simply niave.

Call it what you want, whatever name that allows you to continue on with your sense of ease and comfort. Just know that your reality will change if you ever have to go through it. Stopping vs. killing doesn't matter one iota when the end result is the same. Maybe to the legal system it does...but not in the lonely hours by ourselves.

Me, I'm goint to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat -- until he is STOPPED. If he's also DEAD, well, I can live with that.

Hopefully you'll be cognizant of the exact moment the situation goes from threatening to non-threatening and don't send one more round through your weapon. Experience and research say differently. I promise you that your idea of what is and is not a threat will be somewhat skewed in the moments that follow.