Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[dandydany]

I had a very painfull experience long ago when the instep of my foot ( where the foot meet the lower ankle) was hit with a pick. It was absolutly painfull...to this day, I still recall the pain and when I read all your ideas about stopping a BG in his tracks , I think about shooting his instep first and finish him off second if the threat does not end. Dan

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by MLeake

...additional thoughts and feelings in your head are really between you and your God.

But really only as long as they truly stay in one's head. When they start getting spread around and circulating in cyberspace, things can get a lot more complicated.

[ATW525]

I guess what I asking is this, does the necessity to use deadly force preclude any other reasons that may be present? In other words, if a defender actually wants to kill his attacker, but simultaneously has reason to defend himself with deadly force from that attacker, then would the law somehow require that the defender NOT defend himself simply because he might actually want to kill the attacker?

As long as you acted in good faith while following the guidelines for using deadly force in your jurisdiction, I don't see the problem. We're human beings, not robots, and an emotional response is to be expected. I wouldn't think that wanting to kill somebody would invalidate a claim to self defense as long as that desire wasn't your reason for taking action.

I would strongly advise keeping any homicidal thoughts you might have at the time of a shooting to yourself, however, because they certainly aren't going to help your case. I've always imagined this is one of the reason why experts advise people not give a statement right away.... things that might be going through your head immediately following a shooting incident, but not directly relevant to shooting itself, could be very damning if you blurt them out without taking time to recover your wits first.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer.

[Greg_TX]

Putting aside for a moment the question of intent, what constitutes a certainty that the threat has been stopped? Seems like that could be a pretty subjective thing to assess, especially when under a great deal of stress and adrenaline. If they're still on their feet but their weapon is no longer aimed at you, are they still a threat? If they're sitting on the ground, or lying on their side, but still have the weapon in their hand and can still bring it to bear, are they still a threat? There are countless stories of people who were shot multiple times and were still able to maintain an attack.

Shooting to stop the threat implies that at some point you had to make a judgement whether a threat still existed. There are cases where it's obvious; if they're lying face down, bleeding out on your floor and not moving, it's probably safe to say the threat has ended. If they're sitting up against a wall, seriously - and maybe fatally - wounded, but they're conscious and still have the gun in their control, what do you do? Keep them covered and fire at them again if they make a move toward you? Wouldn't that look like you were 'finishing them off', even though you were still responding to a perceived threat and not with the intent to kill?

[JohnKSa]

Assuming that the defender ends the use of deadly force at the "legally prescribed time", then I can't see how wanting to kill the guy for raping his wife has any relevance.

It has relevance because the defender's state of mind/intent is part of the justification for the use of deadly force. If you are acting on an intent that is not the state of mind narrowly described by the law then you are acting outside the law.

The fact that no one knows or finds out that what you were thinking wasn't in accordance with the law doesn't mean that it's legal, it just means you won't be caught/prosecuted for murder.

That's what we're talking about--if you kill someone when it's not legally justified then you committed murder. If you shoot/kill someone to punish them or to exact revenge your actions are not justified although it may be impossible to prove.

I'm not going to try to dissect the dual motive question other than to say the motive you ACT on is the one that counts. If you act on the reasonable belief that deadly force is absolutely and immediately required to preserve life/prevent serious injury then you are acting legally. If you act out of a desire to punish or get revenge then you are not acting legally.

The bottom line is that when the prognosis of the attacker becomes your focus then you are no longer using deadly force legally. The legal goal of deadly force is to stop/prevent certain very specific illegal criminal activities when no other reasonable alternative exists. That's it.

...what constitutes a certainty that the threat has been stopped?

From a legal standpoint the threat has been stopped when you no longer reasonably believe that the attacker poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death to you.

From a tactics standpoint you will have to make that decision based on the specific circumstances of the particular situation.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

...From a legal standpoint the threat has been stopped when you no longer reasonably believe that the attacker poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death to you.

From a tactics standpoint you will have to make that decision based on the specific circumstances of the particular situation.

And you will need to be able to articulate why you decided what you did. Saying, "He was still breathing" would NOT be a recommended explanation.

[Greg_TX]

It probably also wouldn't sound good to a jury to say "I was just trying to stop him, and, well, I had to stop him a couple of times."

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

It probably also wouldn't sound good to a jury to say "I was just trying to stop him, and, well, I had to stop him a couple of times."

First, I'd have to hope that you'd have the wit not to tell your story in those terms. But, if true, something like, "He came at me with a knife from about five yards. I believed I had no other way to avoid him killing me but to shoot. I fired twice, and he appeared to stop, but he remained standing; and I didn't let down my guard. I yelled at him to stay where he was and to drop the knife, but he started to move at me again with his knife raised. He was only three yards or so away, and I had no place to go. I fired three more time and he fell." would probably sit fairly well with a jury.

[Greg_TX]

Well, I was kind of being a wise*** with the last comment, but my real point is that the line between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" could be crossed without malice. To the average homeowner at 03:00, it may be hard to determine whether a threat remains after the initial shot(s). They may end up firing again, but not with deadly intent, because they misread the physical state of the attacker. There may also be a case where the homeowner panics and just unloads on the BG, maybe without even realizing they're doing it.

I fully agree that it is wrong, morally and legally, to begin the incident with the mindset that the perp won't leave the house alive.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

...the line between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" could be crossed without malice...

But the point is that there is no line to cross. There is no reason to. It's always, in one's mind, "shoot to stop." the assailant may die, but the intent is always simply to stop.

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

...To the average homeowner at 03:00, it may be hard to determine whether a threat remains after the initial shot(s)....

Yes, it may, but that doesn't change the intent of the defense.

Originally Posted by Greg_TX

...They may end up firing again, but not with deadly intent, because they misread the physical state of the attacker. There may also be a case where the homeowner panics and just unloads on the BG, maybe without even realizing they're doing it....

But still the intention remains the same -- to stop the attacker. Some may try to second guess the defender's assessment of the threat and the extent of the defense, but if it appears that the defender was in general acting as a reasonable person under the circumstances, he'll probably be okay. After all, Oliver Wendall Holmes once wrote, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

But this also kind of illustrates how important the impression you make can be. Let's say that you do unload your full magazine, and let's say some question whether you overdid it. Do you think it may make a difference whether overall you seem to be an honest, thoughtful person, pure of motive, thrust into a terrible situation and wanting only to protect yourself and family from grievous harm, or you come across as a savage seeking revenge and retribution?

[JohnKSa]

the line between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" could be crossed without malice. To the average homeowner at 03:00, it may be hard to determine whether a threat remains after the initial shot(s).

Assuming that the intent of the defender doesn't change the line isn't crossed. i.e. as long as the defender remains a defender and doesn't become a punisher/avenger/executioner the line is not crossed.

As far as whether or not it's possible to be 100% certain about whether or not a threat remains, it's important to remember that is not the standard. The standard is "reasonable" belief.

I fully agree that it is wrong, morally and legally, to begin the incident with the mindset that the perp won't leave the house alive.

...or to acquire that mindset/intent during the encounter.

[JASmith]

Intent and motivation are important philosophical issues. One of the reasons police departments went from the 38 Special to heavier calibers was that many fatal hits failed to stop. The heavier calibers stop better but also kill more frequently for the simple reason that stopping a threat normally means the bad guy experiences rapid loss of blood pressure or significant spinal or cranial injury. Spinal or cranial injury presents a small target. Getting rapid loss of blood pressure in a reasonably short time generally means the bad guy bleeds out before medical assistance is available.

[dandydany]

JohnKsa, you talk like a prosecutor, and I can see that it's getting worse for the good guy. It's really very simple, I don't know where I heard that saying " DON'T PULL YOUR GUN UNLESS YOU INTEND TO SHOOT "; in reality, none of you are going to have those thoughts in your mind when the BG comes your way, only survival will be in your mind. As mentionned many time on like subjects , 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

[JohnKSa]

Getting rapid loss of blood pressure in a reasonably short time generally means the bad guy bleeds out before medical assistance is available.

If you are forced to achieve a physiological stop (i.e. break down the attacker, disrupt the CNS, or incapacitate through blood loss) then this is correct. However most "stops" are psychological in nature (the attacker gives up vs. being incapacitated) and a large number of stops do not even involve serious injury.

One should never assume that using a handgun in self-defense is synonymous with killing the attacker. In reality they are rarely the same thing. I am NOT saying that people should EXPECT the attacker to survive or expect to use a handgun in self-defense with the intention of sparing the attacker's life nor am I saying that people should use handguns in self-defense if they are unwilling to accept the possibility of the attacker expiring, I am merely pointing out that in the vast majority of cases a person shot with a handgun will survive and that in the majority of self-defense situations involving a firearm the attacker doesn't die and often isn't even seriously injured.

JohnKsa, you talk like a prosecutor, and I can see that it's getting worse for the good guy.

The deadly force laws in TX have not gotten worse for the good guy, just the reverse is true. And Grand Juries in TX are notedly unwilling to indict defenders even when the circumstances might justify a trial. So, no, things are not getting worse for the good guy--at least not in my area.

The question was posed and I answered it. For some the concern is not getting caught, for others it's doing the right thing. The nice thing about doing the right thing is you don't have to worry about being caught.

in reality, none of you are going to have those thoughts in your mind when the BG comes your way, only survival will be in your mind.

EXACTLY. If you find yourself thinking about anything other than survival then it is VERY likely that you don't need to use deadly force and also that it is not legally justified.

Like I said previously, a shot on the foot to distract and disarm the agressor is a good start in my book,

I know of no expert who recommends shooting to wound and the way that deadly force laws are stated make intentionally shooting to wound questionable in terms of being justifiable. If you are intentionally shooting to wound there is the implication that you are not worried enough about your survival to justify deadly force, and even shooting to wound is considered to be deadly force.

then I let the BG decide for life or death.

It is, as you say, the bad guy's decision, but you shouldn't be thinking about HIS life or death, only yours. You shoot to preserve your life, to prevent your death--whether he lives or dies should be immaterial. Because, as you say, "only survival will be in your mind"--and that is as it should be, per the law.

I sense you people are more afraid of the prosecutor than the BG

Knowing the law doesn't imply that one fears the law or the people who enforce it. Nor does answering a legal question.

As I said, if you want to do the right thing then the right thing, the legal thing, has been carefully outlined by me and others on this thread. If you are merely concerned with not being prosecuted then you can probably get away with a lot more. It's your own personal decision, but I don't think it's too much to ask to request that you refrain from sneering at those who don't share your mindset.

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by JASmith

Intent and motivation are important philosophical issues. One of the reasons police departments went from the 38 Special to heavier calibers was that many fatal hits failed to stop. The heavier calibers stop better but also kill more frequently for the simple reason that stopping a threat normally means the bad guy experiences rapid loss of blood pressure or significant spinal or cranial injury. Spinal or cranial injury presents a small target. Getting rapid loss of blood pressure in a reasonably short time generally means the bad guy bleeds out before medical assistance is available.

J.A.,

Welcome to the forum.

I agree with almost everything you say except one

The heavier calibers stop better but also kill more frequently

Statistics (and the conclusions drawn therefrom) depend heavily on your sampling method. I wonder if you compare successful small-caliber stops to successful large caliber stops if the fatality percentages would remain as before. Here's my reasoning; It may take more hits with a 38, 380 or 9mm to stop a guy than hits with a 45. And it stands to reason that multiple wounds may kill more frequently than a single wound.

Once you include small caliber multiple hits that failed to stop (recipient dying later, elsewhere) the percentages may change. Now, I don't have the figures or the expertise to analyze the data. You also have to consider that stopped shooting victims usually receive medical attention quicker than ones that run away, the analysis gets a lot murkier. I am just wondering out loud.

I prefer heavier calibers for social work because I believe they do stop better with fewer hits. I also hope that the recipient of my bullets survives. Not only because of the guilt I may feel over the death of another human being, but because I want a second chance at him in court.

Lost Sheep

[dandydany]

John Ksa, I don't recall sneering at anybody not sharing my mindsets. If I did, I apologize...Thank you, Dan

[CWPinSC]

From a legal standpoint the threat has been stopped when you no longer reasonably believe that the attacker poses an immediate threat of serious injury or death to you.

From a tactics standpoint you will have to make that decision based on the specific circumstances of the particular situation.

And, unfortunately, the D.A., judge, and jury have days, weeks, even months to decide what you had to decide in a split second. Their mindset, as they sit calmly in an office protected by locked doors and bullet proof glass, will be much different than yours was as you dove for cover in a dark alley while trying to draw your CW piece to protect your wife and 6 year old daughter. For the home scene, it'd be as you dove for cover and grabbed for your HD gun listening to the sound of your back door being kicked off the hinges at 2 in the morning.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It has relevance because the defender's state of mind/intent is part of the justification for the use of deadly force. If you are acting on an intent that is not the state of mind narrowly described by the law then you are acting outside the law.

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

The law requires that we act as a machine? Completely without emotion?

I know, there are always a million different scenarios but imagine watching someone kill your wife or children. When they come after you there would be an expectation that you do not defend yourself because you want to kill the person that you just watched kill your wife?
Could a jury convict, a prosecutor actually go after you for murder, even when you otherwise had every legal reason to use deadly force but because you want to kill the guy then you are precluded from using deadly force?

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

I'm imagining myself on the jury. If the assumption is correct, that you CANNOT defend yourself if you want to kill your attacker, then I'm saying the guy who watched his wife get killed and then was himself attacked and killed his attacker would, by sheer emotionless law, be guilty of murder even if EVERY other indication was that he acted completely within the bounds of the legal use of deadly force. There's no way that someone in those circumstances doesn't want the attacker dead. "I'm sorry, sir. If only you hadn't let watching the murder of your wife effect you emotionally then you'd be fine. Unfortunately, you let the sight of your wife's bloody body get the better of you and, even though you would have been killed yourself had you not defended yourself and even though you ceased the use of deadly force at the appropriate time, we're going to have to bring you up on Murder 1 because you clearly wanted your attacker to die."

On the other hand, I'm not an emotionless law deciphering cyborg. It would be hard for me to believe that 99% of any juries in America would convict someone under those circumstances, I certainly wouldn't.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Geez, talk about missing the point.

The mindset will come into play if the incident is not clearly self-defense or if it starts as self-defense and proceeds beyond that to continue to use an instrument of lethal force on a fleeing opponent or one that seems disabled and not a threat.

We just go in circles and circles.

[OldMarksman]

Could a jury convict, a prosecutor actually go after you for murder, even when you otherwise had every legal reason to use deadly force but because you want to kill the guy then you are precluded from using deadly force?

Well, jurors are human...

In my lay opinion, the question hinges on your ability to produce favorable evidence to the effect that you did in fact have "have every legal reason to use deadly force" and to articulate your reasons to others after the fact. That is, that you used deadly force only to the extent that it was immediately necessary to protect yourself from imminent danger. If that turns out to be a straight forward undertaking, and if you do not face a jury that for some reason might be pre-disposed to sympathize with your attacker, that should seal the deal.

The further things drift from that ideal situation, the more important it may be to avoid muddying the water with anything that could reflect poorly upon you or to indicate any possibility of a criminal state of mind.

Oops, I think Glenn E. Meyer just said about the same thing with more economy of words. I do hope this helps.

[javabum]

honestly people,this subject has become a bit over the top.
hypothetically and scenarios aside you need to know the laws of your respective states.And only then will you know what is lawful and what is illegal.No amount of discussions on a forum will take the place of that.

When it all comes down to the act of defense,one may only use enough force to stop an attack.if that means using voice commands then so be it.
All this back and forth with this scenario and that scenario means nothing till faced with a threat.
Remember this forum is not private.Any and all of what you put on here can and most likely will be used against you.And nothing takes the place of knowledge,so avail yourself of all the that it offers.

[dandydany]

PBP, what would you do after shooting and wounding a BG if he threatens you " I'll be back and kill you " and there's nobody around ? I think there's a legal point there especially in the presence of a LEO. Or " I'll see you in court" with no LEO around ...Dan

[MLeake]

... some theoreticals are best not put on the internet. They can come back and bite people.

[OldMarksman]

PBP, what would you do after shooting and wounding a BG if he threatens you " I'll be back and kill you " and there's nobody around ? I think there's a legal point there especially in the presence of a LEO. Or " I'll see you in court" with no LEO around ...

well, most murders do take place when there is "no LEO around", and many occur in the absences of any witnesses.

That does not eliminate forensic evidence.

So--what's your question? I suggest that you not answer that--it's purely rhetorical.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are heading for a shut down - so beware - it is not legal to kill someone because of a threat in the future.

If you propose that you are incorrect and we won't debate law breaking.

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.