Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

[Deaf Smith]

Unfortunately the best places to shoot to stop are also the most fatal. And CNS shots, needed to stop the attack in milliseconds, are usually immediately fatal. That is just the way it is.

I shoot to stop the person, ‘right now’! And whatever they are doing I feel MUST be stopped immediately. And there is no other practical way to stop them.

And it does not matter if I'm shooting them, stabbing them, clubbing them, etc... I have to use that deadly force and they must be stopped immediately.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

Unfortunately the best places to shoot to stop are also the most fatal. And CNS shots, needed to stop the attack in milliseconds, are usually immediately fatal. That is just the way it is....

The point is that what happens to the assailant is immaterial, as long as he is stopped and the innocents saved.

[armsmaster270]

I always shoot to stop, I don't care what happens after the shot/shots are fired as long as he is stopped.

[Ian0351]

Dead men may not talk, but they most certainly do tell a story.

And in the very litigious society we live in that story may cost you a pretty penny if rounds 1&2 stopped the threat but you fired 3-6 anyway "just in case" the BG would have survived as a result of modern medicine or dumb luck.

Secondarily, I think many who have been in legitimate firefights would tell you that there is a mental disconnect between shooting and killing when the bacon is sizzling.

[qwman68]

i was trained to shoot center mass until threat was neutralized.how many shots that requires is up to the unlucky person doing the threatening.i will say that at the very least he is getting a double tap,from me anyway..my 02...

[RC1986]

it would be really hard for me to distinguish the two, if an armed felon fired at me, and i fired back hitting him in the leg and he kept firing at me, then it would be my first thought to shoot him again, same as if an animal would attack me, if i shoot a dog and it still lives, it would be right to kill the animal and not make it suffer.

[Big Bill]

I always practice to hit the center mass of my target. When/if the time comes that I will need to shoot for real, I'll be aiming for center mass and will shoot till the threat no longer exists.

The thing that convicted (so called) mountain man Claude Dallas when he killed Conley Elms and Bill Pogue (the two game wardens) was that he put a bullet in each of their heads to insure they were dead (like a trapper does to an animal caught in a trap).

So, if the threat is neutralized and not dead, it would be murder to finish them off. I think that's the difference.

Here's the story of Claude Dallas:

From a distance, the officers determined that Dallas was not at his camp, but they located him some distance above it. When they made contact with Dallas, they told him why they were there. The officers took a .22 caliber pistol from Dallas, removed the shells, and returned it to him. They walked back to the camp where they met Jim Stevens who periodically brought Dallas mail and supplies. They informed Dallas that he was under arrest, but did not handcuff him. The officers could see some of the bobcat hides in the tent and Conley Elms went in to retrieve them. Meanwhile, Dallas asked several times if he was under arrest and Pogue answered him each time, saying he was. As Elms emerged from the tent, Pogue shifted his attention. At that moment, Dallas reached for the .357 Magnum he had under his coat. Pogue apparently saw what was coming and drew his own weapon but never returned fire. He was shot twice in the chest and went down. Dallas then shot Elms two times in the chest, and fired his last two shots into Pogue. He went into the tent, loaded his .22 caliber pistol and shot each officer in the head....

... Dallas was known to be an expert with firearms and to be particularly good at police combat shooting. He purchased an AR-15 assault rifle in Sandpoint, Idaho sometime prior to the killings. When police searched his belongings after the killings, they found a flak vest, gas mask, an entire library on warfare and how to kill, as well as several thousand rounds of fully automatic weapons ammunition.

Dallas and his supporters maintain that he killed the officers in self-defense, but his actions, attitude and comments before, during and after the killings indicate otherwise.

http://www.igwmagazine.com/article101/

...Pogue and Elms were killed after confronting Dallas at his winter camp on the South Fork of the Owyhee River, one of the West's least-populated regions, where the 30-year-old trapper had come to trap animals. The officers were investigating reports that Dallas had killed two bobcats four days before Idaho's legal trapping season was to begin.

Jim Stevens, a potato farmer and friend of Dallas who was visiting the camp, witnessed the killings.

"Nobody has the right to come into my camp and violate my rights," Dallas later told Stevens. "In my mind it's justifiable homicide."

A jury of 10 women and two men found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter after deliberating seven days. The jury foreman, Milo M. Moore, now a retired Nampa, Idaho, shopkeeper, says Dallas might have been freed outright if he hadn't gotten his .22 caliber rifle to finish the pair off.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336883/posts

IIRC - Dallas only spent about 20 years in prison. At one point he escaped and was on the lamb for a year.

[Wagonman]

Isn't this kind of a distinction without a difference?

[Big Bill]

Wagonman - No! There is a big difference. Claude Dallas found that out. He served in prison for 20 years because he didn't respect that there was a difference.

[RC1986]

i agree bill, but claude dallas is an idiot, and he shouldnt even be brought up in this converstaion.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by RC1986

it would be really hard for me to distinguish the two, if an armed felon fired at me, and i fired back hitting him in the leg and he kept firing at me, then it would be my first thought to shoot him again, same as if an animal would attack me, if i shoot a dog and it still lives, it would be right to kill the animal and not make it suffer.

I don't see how or why it's difficult to distinguish the two.

You shoot to stop the threat. If he's still shooting, he's still threat; and you must keep shooting until he stops. When he stops, you stop.

If he's dead when he stops, so be it. But if he's alive, he's alive. You don't "finish him off." If you do, it's manslaughter.

[RC1986]

that is why it is hard, i can be in court for the "incident" knowing it is up to the court to judge when and when it is not manslaughter.

[Glenn Dee]

Great thread.
Another 2 cents worth.

As I've posted before ... a self defense shoting requires an affermative defense. You have to admit to commiting the act. The alternative to a justifiable shooting would be a crime. ( misdemeanor or felony). Every crime has two elements that must be satisfied in order to be charged. The first element is the "ACTUS RHEA" [sp] Such as the act of shooting someone. The second element is the " MENS RHEA". [sp] Or the mental state of the actor at the time of the act. For example Intent, recklessnes, depraved indifference, etc.

A person who shoots another in a self defense situation will have acted with intent. There will be contributing factors to the intent. It may be fear, anger, depraved indifference, etc. In my opinion... and this is only my own opinion... fear is the most easily understood, most defensable, and most likely to explain a self defense shooting.

Having said all that. Ever admitting to shooting to kill may muddy the waters or give a D/A with a political agenda what he needs to charge a person who commited no actual crime. I have always, and will always advise folks who carry, and or use firearms to shoot to stop the bad guy, not shoot to kill him.



Glenn Dee

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by RC1986

that is why it is hard, i can be in court for the "incident" knowing it is up to the court to judge when and when it is not manslaughter.

And that is why you drum it home into your consciousness that your goal is to stop the threat and save yourself and/or any innocents. You must think of your goal in that way. That is how you want to know and understand things down to the very core of your being. Your goal is to stop the threat -- nothing more and nothing less. And you conduct yourself accordingly.

[RC1986]

roger that fiddletown

[Big Bill]

i agree bill, but claude dallas is an idiot, and he shouldnt even be brought up in this converstaion.

I was just making an observation from a real life event.

Stopping the perp doesn't mean killing him/her.

[javabum]

The difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop the threat"
is about 10 to 20 years.Depending on where you live.
Seriously,if you are asking the question and truly don't know the answer you need to lock up your weapons and give the keys to a friend till you are properly educated on the subject matter.
If your intent for carrying a weapon is so you have a means of protecting your loved ones and yourself you owe it to them and yourself and the innocent by standers to have the knowledge of your states laws and proper training.
It is as simple as that.
And if you don't have the mind set of "Shoot to stop the threat" as we all should have you have no reason to be carrying a loaded fire arm let alone own one.

But that is my opinion and 2c.

[KD5NRH]

I may be over simplifying, but my shooting philosophy is extend, press (I think I just stole that from Rob Pincus).

Well, then, wouldn't you also be seeking to survive the dynamic violent encounter (is there such a thing as a static violent encounter?) by shooting to significantly impact the assailant's ability to continue to present a threat to you?

[Dannyl]

I like to define it as follows:
(We are obviously assuming that the situation is such that shooting is the only option to successfully defend your life or that of an innocent person near you).

My priority is to neutralize the threat, an oponent who is no longer able to harm people, has surrendered, or is fleeing is no longer a threat. Until one of these conditions is apparent, my shooting will be directed to the biggest target available, which in most instances will be COM, and depending on the distance and circumstances, a head shot is also an option.

I will shoot as many shots as needed until the threat is neutralized, whether the result is that the attacker is wounded or dead at this stage, will depend on my ability to shoot straight at that moment, and to a degree on the choice of the attacker to press on with his actions give up.

Unless I have no choice I will not take a deliberately aimed shot at a non-vital part. Over here prosecutors (and lawyers suing you on behalf of the attacker who is now your "victim") tend to use this to claim that if you had time to aim you may have had other options rather than shooting. (I kid you not, and this is far from being funny)

At no time do I consider wounding or killing an attacker to be my intention, either of these will be the result of my actions while trying to stop the attack.

And this is exactly what I'll be saying to any officials who attend the scene.

Brgds,

Danny

[nitetrane98]

Shoot to stop/shoot to kill is simply a politically correct exercise in semantics.
The whole concept was invented to avoid civil litigation liability. It actually had it's origins in LE. Much like the old saw, "Better to be tried by 12....." It used to be enough to say, "He was trying to kill me so I killed him." Now we have to stop him from killing us.

How long before we see a successful defense of a BG saying. "I didn't try to kill him, I was just trying to stop him from stopping me from robbing him."

When the lead begins to fly, if the BG is still conscious, he's still a threat.

Bottom line. Always say you shoot to stop, always think shoot to kill.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Fiddletown has it right as to the rational cognitive processes that guide your actions. Dannyl expresses it so well.

PBP has insight into the different processes going on in your noggin.

1. Fiddle's what actually to do. Take action to protect yourself and others you care about.

2. Your emotional response - driven by different neural systems that want the blood.

While we feel the pull of #2 - we should act in accord with 1.

[Jeff #111]

I've been a cop for ten years and we practice head shots. Actually head shots are part of our qualification course. However we do shoot to stop the threat. We use force to stop the threat. Whether that force be verbal, hands-on, a taser or a firearm. Stop the threat. When the threat is stopped move back down the force continium.

[CWPinSC]

Over here prosecutors (and lawyers suing you on behalf of the attacker who is now your "victim") tend to use this to claim that if you had time to aim you may have had other options rather than shooting. (I kid you not, and this is far from being funny)

Yes, it IS true, and NOT funny at all, especially when it's actually a viable argument. In SC, we're taught that the only time we can shoot is then we "feel in imminent danger of loss of life of grave bodily injury." Now, if that's the case, should your response be anything less than deadly? If someone is trying to take your life, is it not reasonable to take theirs first? If you do not shoot to kill, you may leave yourself still "in imminent danger of loss of life of grave bodily injury."

It's a fine line and partially an argument in semantics. All I know is, I'll shoot to negate the threat - either by incapacitation or death.

[Wagonman]

I still am at a loss. I am shooting stop the threat, just because shooting as many rounds into COM as required to stop said threat may well kill said threat does not mean I was or would ever shoot to kill.

What does this murderer Dallas have to do with issue?

[RC1986]

shoot to stop, if he dies from it, too bad.