definition of "shoot to stop"

Nimitz87 · July 20, 2004, 11:54 PM

after reading that thread i found out i dont really know when "shoot to stop" is... when they say "shoot to stop" does that mean shoot until he/she is either dead, or cant move?

im just asking if you could be in legal trouble if you put to many holes in the BG....

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150278

thanks

chad

carebear · July 21, 2004, 12:37 AM

The basic meaning is "shoot until the threat is no longer a threat."

That may be when they surrender, when they go down incapacitated or dead or when they flee.

You may notice that those situations are kinda "grey". Are they running away or going for cover? Are they really down and out of the fight or shamming? Are they surrendering to try to gain tactical advantage?

That's where the totality of the circumstances and the "reasonable man" standard really come into play. If you can justify your reasons for continuing to fire and it is otherwise a good shoot you'll probably be okay. If the justification for shooting at all looks dicey, your decision to continue firing on a downed, running, surrendered man may look more suspicious.

That's where all the debates on "what to say after", "what rounds to use", "what gun to carry" "how to dress" come from. The grey areas.

Most on here will tell you to first worry about the actual threat you're dealing with at the time and worry about the ancillary details later. Survival first.

Nimitz87 · July 21, 2004, 01:18 AM

Most on here will tell you to first worry about the actual threat you're dealing with at the time and worry about the ancillary details later. Survival first.

sounds like some pretty good advice... i cant be in the court room if im dead...

Dusty Miller · July 21, 2004, 02:03 AM

This is going to be a state-to-state kind of thing. Messachewsutts ain't gonna look at it the same as Texas.

Double Naught Spy · July 22, 2004, 05:51 AM

Shoot to stop - when conditions exist to justify the use of lethal force, one can shoot and continue shooting until the person or people performing the act(s) that warranted a lethal force reaction cease performing that act(s).

Shoot to stop implies nothing about the intent of the shooter in regard to potential damage to the bad guy(s). It isn't shooting to wound or shooting to kill, although either one of those results may occur.

Technically, warning shots could be considered as an attempt to shoot to stop where the idea is that the warning shot is fired so as to get the attention of, threaten, or warn the person doing the bad act that if their actions continue, the next shots will not be warning shots. Generally speaking, warning shots are a bad idea, although there may be some circumstances where they may be warranted.

Hard Ball · July 22, 2004, 08:12 AM

Aim center of mass and shoot rapidly untill your attacker is either dead or unable to continue to attack you. It does not matter which.

Jeff Gonzales · July 22, 2004, 08:41 AM

N...

Keep it simple on yourself. Use lethal force until a cessastion of hostilities occurs. There are no levels to the use of lethal force, one round needs to be justified the same as eight. You can shoot eight times and only hit once, so make sure you understand everything completely. Another way to look at this is if you are still in danger due to whatever the circumstances were in the first place that warranted the use of lethal force then continuing to use lethal force is permissable.

Bottom line, to find the best answer for you seek out professional training and remember nothing you read hear constitutes legal advise.

Later,

pax · July 22, 2004, 11:59 AM

The difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" is not where you aim. In both cases, you aim for the center of the biggest part of the BG's body that you can see.

Nor is the difference between the two how many times you pull the trigger. You can shoot to kill with one shot or twenty, and you can shoot to stop with one shot or twenty.

The difference isn't even whether the BG survives the encounter. Any shot that stops a BG also has a high likelihood of killing him, and if you can't accept that, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

The difference between the two is all about mindset. It answers three questions:

When can I shoot?
Why am I shooting?
When am I done shooting?

If you are shooting to stop:

You begin shooting when there is an immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or severe bodily harm to the innocent.
You are shooting to save lives and to prevent harm to the innocent.
You are done shooting when the threat stops -- whether that happens with the surrender of the BG, with the death of the BG, with him incapacitated, or with him fleeing. You might rejoice that he is dead, but you didn't set out to kill him. You set out to make him stop what he was doing, and you immediately stop shooting when you accomplish that.

If you are shooting to kill:

You begin shooting with the goal of killing the BG.
You are shooting because you are angry enough to kill someone. You might have gotten that angry because he was threatening your life, but you are shooting because you want him to die. Even though it might save someone's life, you aren't shooting primarily to save life, but to take it. Still doesn't make much difference in your actions. Point 3) is where it gets sticky...
You keep shooting until the person who made you angry is dead. This might be okay, if he was still on his feet and still a deadly threat when you fired the killing shot. But what if he wasn't? What if he'd thrown down his weapon and surrendered? What if he was unconscious and in no way a threat to you ... and you shot him in the head, when he was helpless, just to make sure he was dead? After all, you were in the mindset of "shooting to kill" and he wasn't dead yet ... so you simply finished the job you started. Then what? Well, our laws would call that action "murder" and you a "murderer."

pax

You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger. -- Marty Hayes

KSFreeman · July 22, 2004, 12:56 PM

Now, now, now, pax! It always depends!

Dwight55 · July 23, 2004, 09:26 PM

Hardball has the right idea when you are confronted and have to use deadly force. But! In Ohio at least, pax defined the difference as to whether it is a justifiable shooting (shooting to stop the altercation) or a criminal shooting (shooting to "kill" the perp).
One must always remember that any shooting will be first looked at by LEO's with a very critical eye. Any hint or suggestion that it was anything but pure, virgin, self defense (or defense of others), . . . and the liberal news media will have a field day at your expense.
Our sherrif here a few years ago popped off about the farmer who protected his buildings & animals from a bunch of drunk teenagers hell bent on causing ruckus & trouble. The farmer confronted them, . . . they advanced on the farmer, . . . farmer pulled out trusty 9mm, . . . teenagers fled, . . . farmer shot out back tire from about 3 feet away, . . . farmer was arrested and gun was confiscated by the local anti-gun sherrif. Eventually the farmer was cleared of all wrong doing, but he went through some bad times in the paper and so forth for a while.
Just be careful to know when you can be justified and only shoot when you are fully, 100% justified.
May God bless,
Dwight

griz · August 14, 2004, 12:51 PM

Maybe itwould be helpful to think of it as shooting to stop the threat instead of shooting to stop the bad guy. Note that the threat is usually related to actions taken by the bad guy, so it is entirely possible for the threat to end even before death, him falling down, even before you hit him. Your shooting should be according to the current threat.

UnforgivenII · August 14, 2004, 09:36 PM

The biggest thing I've been taught is to be able to articulate why you did what you did. Be sure you can explain in words what you did and WHY you did it. Shoot until the threat has ceased. Stop at that point.

CarlosDJackal · August 16, 2004, 07:04 PM

IMHO, the definition of "shoot to stop" is to shoot the attacker until they are no longer a threat. This means that the BG is no longer capable of doing harm to me or someone else because they are either dead, dying, or have given up.

It is important to realize that killing an attacker is not any of my immediate concerns. It's surviving the fight.

JM2CW.

Quartus · August 16, 2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Keep it simple on yourself. Use lethal force until a cessastion of hostilities occurs. There are no levels to the use of lethal force, one round needs to be justified the same as eight.

True, Jeff, but we know that some prosecutors and some juries will look more critically on a 15 round magazine dump than they will on just two shots fired. That's just the reality. (I'm STILL ticked about the DA 20 years ago who prosecuted a cop for shooting a perp "too many times" with "too powerful a gun". It was 3 rounds from a .357 against an armed criminal.)

Still, the standard is, shoot to stop the threat. If we keep our cool and stick to that, in deed AND word, we'll should be in good shape legally.

And if we don't stop the threat, we might not be in good shape at all!

Tamara · August 16, 2004, 11:04 PM

Priorities:

1) I am attempting to make a scary person cease a course of action that is, or is potentially, harmful to me.

2) The tool I have at my disposal is a pistol.

3) How can I use this pistol to make him stop with minimum risk to myself?

The answer to number three, for me, is "shoot at him with it until he stops doing whatever it was that made me start shooting at him in the first place." If the first shot misses and he runs off, guess what? The gun has done its job. If it takes the whole magazine plus my backup gun, and he is so determined that he doesn't stop until he's dead, guess what? The gun has done its job. From where I stand, priority one is to make the guy cease and desist, and the pistol is a pretty narrow spectrum tool, good only for poking holes in folks, so that is how I will try to use it, however we shouldn't confuse incidentals with results: The result I am looking for is the cessation of hostilities on Mr. Bad Guy's part, and whether it is accomplished via death, injury, surrender, flight, deus ex machina in the form of the cops showing up, or his sudden discovery of the Eight-Fold Path is immaterial to me...

OBIWAN · August 18, 2004, 04:01 PM

Yeah...we had the classic..."he was shot so many times that he was dead before he hit the ground"....never mind that he was 15 feet away and armed with a knife...or that all the shots were fired into his body while he was still standing and waving the knife...and refused to drop it.

The cop is still suspended for 10 months without pay

But on the bright side...the kids family got $ 1.3mm (iirc) and our Denver Cops got Tasers and Krav Maga training.

And some sensitivity training no doubt....

But at least the concerned citizens didn't burn Denver down...

Cause that would be bad...I guess

July 20, 2004, 11:54 PM	#1
Nimitz87 Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2004 Location: Cooper City,Fl Posts: 369	definition of "shoot to stop" after reading that thread i found out i dont really know when "shoot to stop" is... when they say "shoot to stop" does that mean shoot until he/she is either dead, or cant move? im just asking if you could be in legal trouble if you put to many holes in the BG.... http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150278 thanks chad

July 22, 2004, 05:51 AM	#5
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Shoot to stop - when conditions exist to justify the use of lethal force, one can shoot and continue shooting until the person or people performing the act(s) that warranted a lethal force reaction cease performing that act(s). Shoot to stop implies nothing about the intent of the shooter in regard to potential damage to the bad guy(s). It isn't shooting to wound or shooting to kill, although either one of those results may occur. Technically, warning shots could be considered as an attempt to shoot to stop where the idea is that the warning shot is fired so as to get the attention of, threaten, or warn the person doing the bad act that if their actions continue, the next shots will not be warning shots. Generally speaking, warning shots are a bad idea, although there may be some circumstances where they may be warranted. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

July 22, 2004, 08:12 AM	#6
Hard Ball Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 1999 Location: California Posts: 3,925	Aim center of mass and shoot rapidly untill your attacker is either dead or unable to continue to attack you. It does not matter which. __________________ "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeis domestic or foreign WHOMSOEVER."

July 22, 2004, 08:41 AM	#7
Jeff Gonzales Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2004 Location: Prescott, AZ Posts: 126	Keep it simple N... Keep it simple on yourself. Use lethal force until a cessastion of hostilities occurs. There are no levels to the use of lethal force, one round needs to be justified the same as eight. You can shoot eight times and only hit once, so make sure you understand everything completely. Another way to look at this is if you are still in danger due to whatever the circumstances were in the first place that warranted the use of lethal force then continuing to use lethal force is permissable. Bottom line, to find the best answer for you seek out professional training and remember nothing you read hear constitutes legal advise. Later, __________________ Jeff Gonzales Director of Training Trident Concepts, LLC.

July 22, 2004, 11:59 AM	#8
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	The difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill The difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill" is not where you aim. In both cases, you aim for the center of the biggest part of the BG's body that you can see. Nor is the difference between the two how many times you pull the trigger. You can shoot to kill with one shot or twenty, and you can shoot to stop with one shot or twenty. The difference isn't even whether the BG survives the encounter. Any shot that stops a BG also has a high likelihood of killing him, and if you can't accept that, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. The difference between the two is all about mindset. It answers three questions: When can I shoot? Why am I shooting? When am I done shooting? If you are shooting to stop: You begin shooting when there is an immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or severe bodily harm to the innocent. You are shooting to save lives and to prevent harm to the innocent. You are done shooting when the threat stops -- whether that happens with the surrender of the BG, with the death of the BG, with him incapacitated, or with him fleeing. You might rejoice that he is dead, but you didn't set out to kill him. You set out to make him stop what he was doing, and you immediately stop shooting when you accomplish that. If you are shooting to kill: You begin shooting with the goal of killing the BG. You are shooting because you are angry enough to kill someone. You might have gotten that angry because he was threatening your life, but you are shooting because you want him to die. Even though it might save someone's life, you aren't shooting primarily to save life, but to take it. Still doesn't make much difference in your actions. Point 3) is where it gets sticky... You keep shooting until the person who made you angry is dead. This might be okay, if he was still on his feet and still a deadly threat when you fired the killing shot. But what if he wasn't? What if he'd thrown down his weapon and surrendered? What if he was unconscious and in no way a threat to you ... and you shot him in the head, when he was helpless, just to make sure he was dead? After all, you were in the mindset of "shooting to kill" and he wasn't dead yet ... so you simply finished the job you started. Then what? Well, our laws would call that action "murder" and you a "murderer." pax You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger. -- Marty Hayes

July 21, 2004, 12:37 AM	#2
carebear Junior member Join Date: December 8, 2001 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 494	The basic meaning is "shoot until the threat is no longer a threat." That may be when they surrender, when they go down incapacitated or dead or when they flee. You may notice that those situations are kinda "grey". Are they running away or going for cover? Are they really down and out of the fight or shamming? Are they surrendering to try to gain tactical advantage? That's where the totality of the circumstances and the "reasonable man" standard really come into play. If you can justify your reasons for continuing to fire and it is otherwise a good shoot you'll probably be okay. If the justification for shooting at all looks dicey, your decision to continue firing on a downed, running, surrendered man may look more suspicious. That's where all the debates on "what to say after", "what rounds to use", "what gun to carry" "how to dress" come from. The grey areas. Most on here will tell you to first worry about the actual threat you're dealing with at the time and worry about the ancillary details later. Survival first.

July 21, 2004, 01:18 AM	#3
Nimitz87 Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2004 Location: Cooper City,Fl Posts: 369	Most on here will tell you to first worry about the actual threat you're dealing with at the time and worry about the ancillary details later. Survival first. sounds like some pretty good advice... i cant be in the court room if im dead...

July 21, 2004, 02:03 AM	#4
Dusty Miller Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2004 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 262	This is going to be a state-to-state kind of thing. Messachewsutts ain't gonna look at it the same as Texas.

July 22, 2004, 12:56 PM	#9
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Now, now, now, pax! It always depends! __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

July 23, 2004, 09:26 PM	#10
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Hardball has the right idea when you are confronted and have to use deadly force. But! In Ohio at least, pax defined the difference as to whether it is a justifiable shooting (shooting to stop the altercation) or a criminal shooting (shooting to "kill" the perp). One must always remember that any shooting will be first looked at by LEO's with a very critical eye. Any hint or suggestion that it was anything but pure, virgin, self defense (or defense of others), . . . and the liberal news media will have a field day at your expense. Our sherrif here a few years ago popped off about the farmer who protected his buildings & animals from a bunch of drunk teenagers hell bent on causing ruckus & trouble. The farmer confronted them, . . . they advanced on the farmer, . . . farmer pulled out trusty 9mm, . . . teenagers fled, . . . farmer shot out back tire from about 3 feet away, . . . farmer was arrested and gun was confiscated by the local anti-gun sherrif. Eventually the farmer was cleared of all wrong doing, but he went through some bad times in the paper and so forth for a while. Just be careful to know when you can be justified and only shoot when you are fully, 100% justified. May God bless, Dwight

August 14, 2004, 12:51 PM	#11
griz Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2000 Location: Middle Peninsula, VA Posts: 1,588	Maybe itwould be helpful to think of it as shooting to stop the threat instead of shooting to stop the bad guy. Note that the threat is usually related to actions taken by the bad guy, so it is entirely possible for the threat to end even before death, him falling down, even before you hit him. Your shooting should be according to the current threat.

August 14, 2004, 09:36 PM	#12
UnforgivenII Member Join Date: June 3, 2004 Posts: 57	The biggest thing I've been taught is to be able to articulate why you did what you did. Be sure you can explain in words what you did and WHY you did it. Shoot until the threat has ceased. Stop at that point.

August 16, 2004, 07:04 PM	#13
CarlosDJackal Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2004 Location: Central Virginia Posts: 109	IMHO, the definition of "shoot to stop" is to shoot the attacker until they are no longer a threat. This means that the BG is no longer capable of doing harm to me or someone else because they are either dead, dying, or have given up. It is important to realize that killing an attacker is not any of my immediate concerns. It's surviving the fight. JM2CW.

August 16, 2004, 11:04 PM	#15
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Priorities: 1) I am attempting to make a scary person cease a course of action that is, or is potentially, harmful to me. 2) The tool I have at my disposal is a pistol. 3) How can I use this pistol to make him stop with minimum risk to myself? The answer to number three, for me, is "shoot at him with it until he stops doing whatever it was that made me start shooting at him in the first place." If the first shot misses and he runs off, guess what? The gun has done its job. If it takes the whole magazine plus my backup gun, and he is so determined that he doesn't stop until he's dead, guess what? The gun has done its job. From where I stand, priority one is to make the guy cease and desist, and the pistol is a pretty narrow spectrum tool, good only for poking holes in folks, so that is how I will try to use it, however we shouldn't confuse incidentals with results: The result I am looking for is the cessation of hostilities on Mr. Bad Guy's part, and whether it is accomplished via death, injury, surrender, flight, deus ex machina in the form of the cops showing up, or his sudden discovery of the Eight-Fold Path is immaterial to me... __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

August 18, 2004, 04:01 PM	#16
OBIWAN Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,340	Yeah...we had the classic..."he was shot so many times that he was dead before he hit the ground"....never mind that he was 15 feet away and armed with a knife...or that all the shots were fired into his body while he was still standing and waving the knife...and refused to drop it. The cop is still suspended for 10 months without pay But on the bright side...the kids family got $ 1.3mm (iirc) and our Denver Cops got Tasers and Krav Maga training. And some sensitivity training no doubt.... But at least the concerned citizens didn't burn Denver down... Cause that would be bad...I guess