Shoot to thrill or shoot to kill?

[arthrimus]

This, anyone here who has ever been hurt bad enough knows how powerful adrenaline is. Wounds become nearly painless, and you just shake a little.

A couple of years ago, a table saw was compelled by my foolishness to take a sizable bite out of my left forefinger. Immediately after the event I was able to take stock of the situation, shut off the table saw, evaluate the extent of the damage, make my way to the sink to wash my wound and apply pressure and a cloth to slow the bleeding. It was not until I had nearly arrived at the hospital that the pain was sufficient to cloud my judgement.

So yeah, you can never count on pain to incapacitate someone. The best bet to stop a threat is to cause massive blood loss which will lead to unconsciousness.

 

[CQB]

I would shoot until the person stopped doing whatever they were doing that caused me to shoot them.

^^^^
This

 

[bluewraith]

Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat exists after the first shot, or the 7th, then it has not been stopped.

Keeping that in mind, if you have chosen to carry a gun then choose to carry extra magazines as well. You never know if that threat has a friend or two around the corner.

 

[cschwanz]

I will do what my 2nd in command, Mr. Biden, instructed me to do. 2 shots in the air then yell at the person who is bothering me. That's the best way to end all threats.


Shoot to stop the threat. Period.

 

[dusterboy49]

I would shoot until the person stopped doing whatever they were doing that caused me to shoot them.

This would be the most advantageous thing to do in my opinion.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

when does shoot to neutralize or stop turn into excessive force?

When a "reasonable person" being presented with the facts as you know them at the time should reasonably know that the threat is over.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

When a "reasonable person" being presented with the facts as you know them at the time should reasonably know that the threat is over.

And to those reading this, it does indeed sound subjective and nebulous.

Because it IS subjective and nebulous.

"Mr. Smith, why did you shoot this guy in the back as he was running away? Wasn't his running away enough evidence that the attack was over?"

-I fired again because as he was running away from me, he swung his gun back towards me and my family as if targeting us again.

That's a whole other ballgame than saying "I fired again as he was running away because he had my 47" Bravia in his hands and I can't afford another TV".

-J-

 

[Gunslinger45]

Man this keeps getting better and better! I mean, I completely agree with 99% of what has been said. I would concur that for most of us, we are reasonable and law abiding citizens who merely carry to protect ourselves, as well as our loved ones. On that note, I think that it would ultimately be up to US to decide when the threat is neutralized, may it be 1 or 10 rounds. Interestingly enough however, the topic and defense is SUBJECTIVE and should definitely not be looked upon with ease. It's not an easy topic to discuss, and yes there are a LOT of "what if's" but I think as gun owners and carriers we need to think about these things.

Another note on this topic (so to speak) In another thread I posted about ammo, we were discussing legal repercussions for carrying x-ammo on the grounds that we were looking to do more damage than an officer, or we wanted maximum carnage....On that note I brought up how certain grips like the punisher logo or glock base plates with sayings on them can be grounds for legal repercussions....One thing I didnt consider is what Bluewraith brought up which was an extra magazine....

Think that would be looked upon by legal as "looking for a gun fight" ?? I personally 90% carry an extra mag merely for the fact that I like the saying "2 is 1, 1 is none" and that no one EVER in the history of a shootout said "I wish I had less bullets" .....granted 99% of the time in a self defense situation 1-2 bullets are used, BUT I would rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

 

[jkwparrott]

In light of lawsuits that infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens due to wounding bad guys I tend to fall on the side of my Old Man who always said "Dead men tell no tales."

I would shoot as I have been trained, center mass until the threat is ended.

 

[singlesix]

Heck why aim for a leg or other body parts? I'll just shoot the gun or knife out of the attacker's hand. Heck I bet I can shoot off his belt so his pants will fall down and trip him .... ..

Stressful situation center of mass. Read up on reports about police shootings, a lot of rounds fired with very few hits.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll just shoot the gun or knife out of the attacker's hand.

You laugh, but that question has been asked by jurors in Grand Juries for police action shootings in Marion County. "Officer, why didn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand?"

 

[Jack Burton]

Man this keeps getting better and better! I mean, I completely agree with 99% of what has been said. I would concur that for most of us, we are reasonable and law abiding citizens who merely carry to protect ourselves, as well as our loved ones. On that note, I think that it would ultimately be up to US to decide when the threat is neutralized, may it be 1 or 10 rounds. Interestingly enough however, the topic and defense is SUBJECTIVE and should definitely not be looked upon with ease. It's not an easy topic to discuss, and yes there are a LOT of "what if's" but I think as gun owners and carriers we need to think about these things.

Another note on this topic (so to speak) In another thread I posted about ammo, we were discussing legal repercussions for carrying x-ammo on the grounds that we were looking to do more damage than an officer, or we wanted maximum carnage....On that note I brought up how certain grips like the punisher logo or glock base plates with sayings on them can be grounds for legal repercussions....One thing I didnt consider is what Bluewraith brought up which was an extra magazine....

Think that would be looked upon by legal as "looking for a gun fight" ?? I personally 90% carry an extra mag merely for the fact that I like the saying "2 is 1, 1 is none" and that no one EVER in the history of a shootout said "I wish I had less bullets" .....granted 99% of the time in a self defense situation 1-2 bullets are used, BUT I would rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

The proper fallback position is always "I did exactly what the local police officers do." If the police carry a spare magazine and you get one up to testify exactly why they do, then it becomes easy to say, "That is my reason also."

Kinda hard for the DA to position the police as "looking for a fight."

 

[Bigshep]

Yep, it's James Yeager. This is exactly how I look at it, though




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRT60YEeanY

 

[AlwaysVigilant]

If I have drawn my weapon it is because I am responding to an attempt on my life or someone else.

I don't like the adage "shoot to stop the threat", because it causes conversations like this, bridled with confusion. If you have to shoot someone, you better be aiming at the good stuff...or kill shots to put it succinctly.

Handgun ammo sucks at stopping people unless you get the shots where they need to go. If they die, they die. You make that choice when you draw the gun.

Shoot to kill.

 

[Trigger Time]

I shoot to stop the threat to life. Ideally that will be center CHEST (not center mass as some say) shots. But as long as I'm getting hits on the attacker then I will take what I can get while trying to avoid unintended targets.

 

[freekforge]

aim for where ever is needed to stop them. If you shoot somebody and go to court and say "I didn't want to kill him" they will question whether the use of deadly force was neccesary and if you say "I wanted to kill him" they will question whether or not it was murder and if it was pre meditated. Shooting to stop the threat may not be a perfect description but when in court you DID indeed shoot to stop the threat.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I don't "CCW" so I don't count, apparently, but always shoot to stop the threat. 5-7 center mass ought to do it. Most of the time.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I have drawn my weapon it is because I am responding to an attempt on my life or someone else.

I don't like the adage "shoot to stop the threat", because it causes conversations like this, bridled with confusion. If you have to shoot someone, you better be aiming at the good stuff...or kill shots to put it succinctly.

Handgun ammo sucks at stopping people unless you get the shots where they need to go. If they die, they die. You make that choice when you draw the gun.

Shoot to kill.

Shoot to stop the threat is more accurate and what's legal. You are using deadly force, but that doesn't always result in death.

Example, your first shot severs the spinal cord mid chest. They drop and are no longer a threat. Shoot to kill implies you now walk up and put one between their eyes. Shoot to stop the threat implies you now stop shooting, as if they are dead or alive is irrelevant. What's relevant is they are no longer a threat.

 

[warriorbob]

I was trained by the army to shoot center mass do in a stress situation you fall back on what your trained to do.

 

[HenryWallace]

Shoot to kill, cause they'd have to be trying to kill me or a loved one in the first place.