STOP THE THREAT

[WOLFEMAN]

Recently I was in a discussion with a fellow employee about using deadly force if
my life or an innocent victims life was threatened. I would feel I
would need to stop the threat and if it ment to empty my Glock I would
do so. Now this co-worker of mine said that's criminal and stated he would
only shoot to wound, or slow the threat down.
Wow, am I going to the extreme? Two in the chest, two in the head, too much?
Besides all the legal hassels, the bad guy was stopped, innocent lives may
be saved. Right?

 

[Jubba]

The title of the thread says it all.

 

[esrice]

You don't shoot to kill. You don't shoot to maim. You don't shoot to warn. You don't shoot to scare or intimidate.

You shoot to stop the threat. Many times death is a natural byproduct-- sometimes its not. Leave that decision up to the bad guy.

 

[VERT]

My opinion and that alone. If a person is in the unfortunate situation where they have to use a weapon for self defense, it is safe to assume they are facing a determined attacker. Stopping the threat means one of two things. 1) Remove their ability to cause harm or 2) remove their desire or will to do harm. Also, it is in the best interest of Innocent bystanders that you do this quickly. Shooting to "wound" is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

 

[Birds Away]

Shooting for anything but center mass is a good recipe for disaster. Anyone who says they would "shoot to wound" doesn't know much about guns and greatly overestimates their ability when under duress. I presume if you are shooting that they are potentially shooting back. Tell your coworker I wish him good luck with that "shoot to wound."

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard if you are going to shoot someone in self defense or defense of another, it looks better in court if you unload your weapon on them, because it will be easier for your lawyer to show you were fearing for your life.

 

[tmfinney]

Shooting for anything but center mass is a good recipe for disaster. Anyone who says they would "shoot to wound" doesn't know much about guns and greatly overestimates their ability when under duress.

I agree with this statement very much. People react so differently when they're involved with a stressful situation that its hard to say where that bullet will be going. I once watched a show that the guy hosting it said that when faced with a situation that a person has never encountered they will do one of three things: fight, run or freeze.

We all on INGO go to the range and perfect our use of our firearms, however, until we are faced with a life or death situation it is hard to determine if we will still shoot the same as if we are at the range. It's easy to say that we will shoot for center mass, but most of us (myself included) have never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will, so it'd be hard to determine if we actually could hit the center mass. I do agree though that shooting to wound is a bad idea if its your life or a loved ones life that is in danger.

 

[Doug]

District Attorney: "You have testified that, when you shot the victim, you specifically intended to wound him. Is that correct?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "So, it was not your intent to use deadly force?"
Defendant: "No."
District Attorney: "The statute clearly states that deadly force is justified if you believe your life is in danger. Do you agree with that law?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "Clearly, the use of deadly force is justified when a person feels his life is in danger, but you did not use deadly force. You intentionally shot to wound and cripple the victim. You, obviously, did not believe your life was in danger because you did not use deadly force. You merely wanted to punish the victim for the alleged threat you claim he made to your person. Your purpose was not to defend your life, only to defend your pride from the insult of the victim's presence and words."
Defendant: "But,..."
Plaintiff's Attorney: "No further questions."

Never shoot to wound, shoot to stop.

Doug

 

[Hooker]

If your firearm makes an appearance, I would assume it is because
(and only because) you fear for your life, in which case shooting to wound
gives the predator a better chance at killing you. It would suck if I were
to shoot an attacker in the shoulder to "stop him" and then have him
recover only to shoot me in the head.

 

[littletommy]

You work with a blooming idiot! Stay away from him as much as possible!

 

[littletommy]

Wait! you're an NRA instructor and you had to come here to ask that question?

 

[youngda9]

Wait! you're an NRA instructor and you had to come here to ask that question?

OH SNAP.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

District Attorney: "You have testified that, when you shot the victim, you specifically intended to wound him. Is that correct?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "So, it was not your intent to use deadly force?"
Defendant: "No."
District Attorney: "The statute clearly states that deadly force is justified if you believe your life is in danger. Do you agree with that law?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "Clearly, the use of deadly force is justified when a person feels his life is in danger, but you did not use deadly force. You intentionally shot to wound and cripple the victim. You, obviously, did not believe your life was in danger because you did not use deadly force. You merely wanted to punish the victim for the alleged threat you claim he made to your person. Your purpose was not to defend your life, only to defend your pride from the insult of the victim's presence and words."
Defendant: "But,..."
Plaintiff's Attorney: "No further questions."

Never shoot to wound, shoot to stop.

Doug

While I agree with your over-all sentiment... That argument only looks good on a web forum. ALL Firearms use is "deadly force".

 

[Jack Burton]

District Attorney: "You have testified that, when you shot the victim, you specifically intended to wound him. Is that correct?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "So, it was not your intent to use deadly force?"
Defendant: "No."
District Attorney: "The statute clearly states that deadly force is justified if you believe your life is in danger. Do you agree with that law?"
Defendant: "Yes."
District Attorney: "Clearly, the use of deadly force is justified when a person feels his life is in danger, but you did not use deadly force. You intentionally shot to wound and cripple the victim. You, obviously, did not believe your life was in danger because you did not use deadly force. You merely wanted to punish the victim for the alleged threat you claim he made to your person. Your purpose was not to defend your life, only to defend your pride from the insult of the victim's presence and words."
Defendant: "But,..."
Plaintiff's Attorney: "No further questions."

Never shoot to wound, shoot to stop.

Doug

This nails it.

IMO, every gunowner should memorize this entire book, The Law of Self-Defense: A Guide for the Armed Citizen by Andrew F. Branca (Apr 1, 1998)

 

[Jack Burton]

While I agree with your over-all sentiment... That argument only looks good on a web forum. ALL Firearms use is "deadly force".

It's not what you know... it's what the jury believes.

 

[cbseniour]

Your co worker hasn't thought this one through or else he watched too many Roy Rogers episodes.
Stop the threat doesn't necessarily mean kill, if you miss on your first shot(s) and the threat is on the ground groaning in pain or decides to get out of Dodgeg then you have stopped the threat. If on the other hand your superior shooting skills and training kick in and you hit the threat dead center of the chest then the threat is stopped and the world has one less dirtbag to deal with.
either way a win for the good guys.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I'd watch that guy's job performance a bit. He may be competent in his field, but his judgment is a bit off. If it goes as far as drawing and firing, the bad guy surviving being shot by you is a lot different to you just seeking to hurt him at the outset without killing him. Winning hearts and minds: two to the heart, one to the mind.

 

[Mellow]

A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.

O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.

J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.

I would say that if these conditions are met then your primary concern would not be to wound, but to stop the threat.
I respect the decision or idea that someone would not want to take another life, but if my life, or my families lives were in immediate, unavoidable danger I would use everything in my power to stop the threat.

 

[littletommy]

I'm sorry, I have to ask again, you're an NRA instructor and you need to ask INGO this question? I am really interested in an answer. I'm a long time NRA member, long time 2A advocate, I've had uneducated people ask me things like this before, and it would seem to me that an NRA certified instructor would have a ready answer for this. Not trying to stir up trouble, but, seriously? What exactly goes into becoming an NRA certified instructor? is it just technique? Is a philosophy taught/required? I've never really looked into it that much.

 

[VERT]

I went through the process of becoming an NRA rifle instructor. Basically safety, terminology, shooting technique. Learning to shoot/teach "sporting" arms. Nothing that related to self defense. This was back in 2000 so things might have changed.

I believe NRA does now have instructors that teach defensive pistol techniques. But not every Certified Instructor has this credential.