Ethics and legality of headshots

[tony pasley]

All the double speak and legaleze speak, in the end when you make a head shot in a defensive shooting you will get sued. Some lawyer that wants a nice percentage and a name for himself, says "if you could make that shot under pressure why didn't you just wound." then you spend the next couple of years and a boat load of money defending again. That is just the plain hard facts.

[K_Mac]

All the double speak and legaleze speak, in the end when you make a head shot in a defensive shooting you will get sued. Some lawyer that wants a nice percentage and a name for himself, says "if you could make that shot under pressure why didn't you just wound." then you spend the next couple of years and a boat load of money defending again. That is just the plain hard facts.

Nonsense. The fact is every situation is different and making this statement is not any more plausible than saying a headshot is the only sure way of stopping an attack.

[OldMarksman]

...in the end when you make a head shot in a defensive shooting you will get sued.

Do you have any basis at all for that contention?

Some lawyer says ... "if you could make that shot under pressure why didn't you just wound."

Very easy for an expert witness to counter....

...then you spend the next couple of years and a boat load of money defending again.

If the evidence prevents you from being successful in your quest for civil immunity, you may end up in court. Or your attorney may advise settling out of court.

But the fact that one of your bullets may have have struck your attacker in the head will likely have little or no effect on that.

[TXAZ]

Let’s change the calculus since we are contriving scenarios: The new scenario is you can either:
1) make a good head shot, get arrested and be sued in civil court, -or-
2) not shoot at all, not get arrested, not get sued in civil court, but get killed.

Anyone think choice 2 works for them?

[OldMarksman]

Let’s change the calculus since we are contriving scenarios: The new scenario is you can either:
1) make a good head shot, get arrested and be sued in civil court, -or-
2) not shoot at all, not get arrested, not get sued in civil court, but get killed.

Sounds like a stretch, and your point is unclear.

Are you imagining a scenario in which you reasonable believe that deadly force is immediately necessary but you can only make a head shot, and the evidence somehow makes your claim of self defense appear less than credible?

[TXAZ]

Old Marksman,
In other words, if my only 2 choices were 1- live but go thru legal hell, or 2 - die, I’ll take my chances with the juries.

In any real situation it’s unlikely anyone here could exactly specify the scenario, so I proffered one.

[jmorris]

an LEO in my town dispatched a gunman holding a hostage with a head shot. But it seems to me that really exposes you to prosecution, being labeled a sadistic fiend out to do harm instead of engaging in self defense.

I wonder what he would be labeled as if he just shot through the hostage, Good Samaritan?

The subject of ethics and killing doesn’t come up a lot in my circles, except for some discussion about Kosher food, where “law” (Shechita) that ironically requires that the throat be cut.

As you might expect animal rights activists think it’s cruel and want to ban the method.

So from a legal standpoint, if you are within the law to kill, it wouldn’t matter if you scared them to death or chopped off their head. Ethics are moral principles and have a much larger variation than written laws.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Since there aren't varying degrees of "dead", I seriously doubt prosecutors take into account where a person is shot when deciding to prosecute or not prosecute the person who did the shooting. They look at whether or not the taking of life was justified.

All this talk of head shots seems a bit ridiculous to me. Some of you have been watching entirely too much TV and have little concept of how difficult a head shot is to pull off in the first place. Getting in a well placed shot to center mass in the stress of a SD shooting would be difficult at best, let alone a deliberate head shot. Paper targets are one thing. Actual people are something else.

[TXAZ]

JMorris noted

I wonder what he would be labeled as if he just shot through the hostage, Good Samaritan?

In the US, the attitude and first priority is to save the hostage.
We lived in a country for a while where the first priority was to “get the bad guy” and “let God sort it out” in a hostage was killed.
I’m glad there are cops that are confident in their head shots.

[OldMarksman]

.... I seriously doubt prosecutors take into account where a person is shot when deciding to prosecute or not prosecute the person who did the shooting. They look at whether or not the taking of life was justified.

Some of you have been watching entirely too much TV and have little concept of....

That thought comes to mind during discussions of many subjects.

Getting in a well placed shot to center mass in the stress of a SD shooting would be difficult at best, let alone a deliberate head shot.

Yep!

Paper targets are one thing. Actual people are something else.

It's not just what the target is; it's movement, and the fact that the incident is neither anticipated nor planned.

[briandg]

Legal matters are one thing. Are you legally justified in using what would be termed 'lethal' tactics? Then it probably doesn't matter whether you dispatched the bad guy with a single head shot, it was legal. You should have the protection of having used 'legally justified lethal force'.

Does that jury, civil or criminal, have any concerns about the fine points of a case, civil or criminal?

Imagine a different scenario, a silly, nearly ridiculous one, but relevant, nonetheless.

You have been maced. Guy had a bottle that he said was kerosene, a lighter, and he has vowed to burn you alive to kill the demons inside of you.

You are blinded, and have nothing but a 7" square head screwdriver, and since you legally, legitimately fear for your life, you start stabbing and don't stop until your arm is so numb that you drop the weapon.

Really, what should the system think? Here's a guy whose entire body is little more than a bloody sponge, you did it, and if there are problems with your statement, wth?

At some point he was no longer a threat but you went on for ten minutes and killed him. At some point he was dead, so you desecrated his corpse for another ten minutes.

What will the entire civil and criminal system think and do?

Here we are, saying that we should without giving it even a second of consideration, put two bullets center chest, and then one to the brain? Am I supposed to shoot until I hit the head, do I keep shooting until I'm sure that I got his brain? How long should I wait until he is so still that I can be certain that I will hit his head? In my case, I'm going to have to get within ten feet, put my glasses on, then get out my flashlight

Seriously think. These statutes generally only authorize use of lethal force, but don't give carte Blanche to ensure that the guy is as dead as if he was hit by a truck. Every shooting is a special thing and every legal case becomes a unique challenge. Whether it's putting a couple extra bullets into a guy to ensure that he's not going to shoot back, or running him over with a truck, the questions will be asked by prosecution whether you were justified in shooting, and the civil courts won't have that same burden of justification.

A tattoo that says 'two to the chest and one to the head, keep on shooting until he is dead' isn't going to help.

[Double Naught Spy]

I believe they are 100% ethical to alleviate undue pain and suffering so long as you were in a position to fire your gun in self defense.

I'm not sure that line of thought is legal. That comment leads me to believe you are shooting to kill.

I sure as heck would not be shooting to wound. If you can show me a law that says that it is illegal to shoot to kill when lethal force is justified, then you might have a valid argument for that jurisdiction.

No laws that I have found on use of lethal force stipulate that shooting "to kill" is illegal when the use of lethal force is allowed by law, just like none of the laws stipulate where the bullets must be placed during those parameters.

I would be hard pressed to believe that if you were shooting in self defense and you shot center of the chest that you were not trying to kill the person. You may articulate that you were trying to stop the person and I would equally argue that a brain shot equally is an attempt to stop the person. We are all shooting to stop when we legally use a firearm in self defense. Some stops just may be more permanent than others.

[OldMarksman]

If you can show me a law that says that it is illegal to shoot to kill when lethal force is justified, then you might have a valid argument for that jurisdiction.

No laws that I have found on use of lethal force stipulate that shooting "to kill" is illegal when the use of lethal force is allowed by law, ....

Almost all codified laws specify that deadly force may be used when immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and in some cases to prevent kidnapping.

"Deadly force" is defined as force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

There is a very considerable body of case law that tells us that a defender may lawfully use no more force than necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

The attacker may die or he may not, but to shoot to kill would in most cases be regarded as the unlawful use of excessive force.

I would be hard pressed to believe that if you were shooting in self defense and you shot center of the chest that you were not trying to kill the person.

What an odd way of thinking about it.

The vast majority of persons shot with handguns do survive.

[Lohman446]

No laws that I have found on use of lethal force stipulate that shooting "to kill" is illegal when the use of lethal force is allowed by law

To me there is a distinction between shooting with the intent to kill and using deadly force to stop an imminent threat. Yes both may end up being fatal but to me the discussion is about intent. A defendant who "shoots to kill" would have me, as a juror, wondering if the circumstances really did rise to the level of the use of lethal force of if said defendant was "waiting for his chance"

[K_Mac]

Well said Lohman 446. Yes, using lethal force can be, well, lethal, but that cannot be the objective. All this talk of shooting to kill the attacker or ending his suffering once stopped does nothing but add fuel for the anti-gun zealots.

We shoot to stop the life threatening attack when we have no other reasonable option. We use the force necessary to do so. We're not cops, soldiers, vigilantes, or executioners. We are not blood thirsty thugs looking for someone to shoot. We are reasonable people who have the right to protect ourselves and those in our charge. If not we are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Nanuk]

All this talk of head shots seems a bit ridiculous to me. Some of you have been watching entirely too much TV and have little concept of how difficult a head shot is to pull off in the first place. Getting in a well placed shot to center mass in the stress of a SD shooting would be difficult at best, let alone a deliberate head shot. Paper targets are one thing. Actual people are something else.

https://www.policeone.com/police-her...mo-on-the-job/

When he settled down he made very good hits.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/03...-in-texas.html

[briandg]

I can't remember where I heard it, maybe I said it myself, but when presented with the situation that may justify deadly force, you must make one decision. Are you going to use deadly force, or will you try other options? Sure, you are not obligated to back down, and you have justification, right? This is your decision.

What level of force will you use to neutralize the threat? Everyone here knows that there are different levels of danger and response to danger is not one size fits all. I'm not going to bother with details or scenarios. Your second decision is how you will respond. Your decision and you have full ownership, full responsibility. Much of what I'm hearing is that people have no worries about the level of force used, that legal use of force means that whatever choice you make,there can be no argument.

That sounds great on a t shirt, but god almighty. Bulldozing through a situation while turned up to eleven shows a lot about the shooter.

Now seriously, with a few seconds to decide, it's still wise to look at the situation carefully before acting. Decide as well as you can after assessing the situation what is a correct response.

So many people are saying that they are immune to consequences because they have legal protection. The problem with this is that you have only a few seconds to be clear on your actions. Without evidence supporting your claim of justifiable deadly force, you simply put, have no protection. Criminal laws have provisions to prosecute when a shooting doesn't meet the standard. So do civil courts.

There will be plenty of time afterwards. Plenty of decisions made by other people. Maybe years of the process. When you choose to shoot, It's not up to you to decide whether you were right. Being stubborn or stupid isn't an excuse. There are other people who do that. Whether it is illegal to use excessive force or not, your actions will be considered during every step. Those actions matter.

It's not my choice to argue here. I don't want people to make mistakes. Haven't we seen enough police officers fired,even imprisoned because they misjudged a situation? It's just plain dumb to think that as civilians we have greater protection,greater safety than a sworn law enforcement professional.

[Lohman446]

Haven't we seen enough police officers fired,even imprisoned because they misjudged a situation?

I think you touch on a good point. One of the things that these conversations often miss is those officers MAY have made the right decision in some of those cases. However the public perception, the half stories, and the inability to adequately articulate the need for the use of deadly force all worked against them. Certainly not in all of the situations, perhaps not in most, and perhaps not in any but we cannot deny it is a real possibility.

We can't even come up with a system to crown a national college football champion without controversy and yet we seem to think that a good shoot / bad shot and good guy / bad guy situation is going to be instantly and correctly judged. We have mountains of evidence and studies that indicate any witness accounts may be inaccurate, our own account may be inaccurate, videos may fail to show important details, and other details may flat out be falsely reported and yet somehow we cling to this notion that "a good shoot is a good shoot" It's simply not true. Juries, investigators, and prosecutors can be swayed by little things. "I shot for the head because i wanted to be sure he stayed down" may be one of those things.

No shoot is, IMO, ever a good shoot. It may be necessary and it may be legally justified but there is no such thing as a good shoot. The fact that the need for deadly force arose and you forced to use it renders the situation a negative.

[Ricklin]

I am not the only one who has an issue with the oft used term good shoot.

As Lohman said, no such thing. Perhaps justifiable shoot should be used.

And yes I hear from far too many internet commandos who seem to be anxious to use their CC weapon.

[briandg]

I honestly can't think of a word for it, because 'justified'is so completely in the mind of those who judge it, not just in the mind of the grieving mother or widow, but in the mind of the judge who might sentence the shooter for reckless homicide for shooting the retarded kid from down the block, who was playing cops and robbers.

Correct? I don't know what to call it, so I will call it 'good' in the sense that it wasn't wrong, but not good in the sense of

wow, did you see that gopher's head just blow the check up?
That there's a good shoot!

[briandg]

I have expected since I was young that I would kill someone. Not desired it, just expected it Lord knows, it still might happen.

[Don Fischer]

I have been ignoring this post. Reason being, imagine getting into a gun fight and thinking about any thing other than simply stopping the bad guy. Think of it as the rule's of war. When bullet's start flying, the rule's go out the window! All that's left is the will to survive!

[SIGSHR]

I agree, the first rule in a defensive situation is-SURVIVE ! "Front sight, PRESS!"
However as something of an Old Soldier I have never heard of civilians being hailed as heroes, decorated, etc. for dispatching enemies. Would be a good idea if we did it, but that's a way off.

[TXAZ]

^^^ Lots of civilians have been hailed as heroes, the last one I remember was the neighbor who was instrumental in stopping the carnage at the Sutherland Springs church in South Texas.

[Lohman446]

I have been ignoring this post. Reason being, imagine getting into a gun fight and thinking about any thing other than simply stopping the bad guy. Think of it as the rule's of war. When bullet's start flying, the rule's go out the window! All that's left is the will to survive!

These discussions are useful because they influence training and allow us a chance to articulate why we trained or acted in a particular manner. Being able to articulate why, or more correctly being wise enough to let your lawyer articulate why, may make a major difference in the aftermath