• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why we shoot to stop the threat?

Tanner

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
474
Location
Chesterfield, Virginia, United States
"Discussion about why we shoot to stop the threat, as opposed to shooting to kill or shooting to wound, or shooting warning shots - my opinion is that such discussion appears to be needed."


This is a quote from skidmark. It brought up a good point about something that I thought was pretty cut and dry. If a situation is bad enough to draw your weapon its bad enough to fire. My thought is I wouldent shoot in a manner as to wound or warn....espically warn, but rather shoot to kill. Isent this exactly how police are trained?

This should go without saying but ill say it just to make sure. I in no way ever want to take a persons life or even hurt someone els for that matter. EVERY option must be explored and attempted to avoid even drawing your weapon much less useing it. Lethal force is and should be the absolute last option and not taken lightly.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill.

We say "shooting to stop the threat" because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the "side effect", if you will.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I totally agree with you that *in most, but not all, circumstances,* one should only draw his weapon when he is also justified in pulling the trigger. In any event, you had better be damn ready to pull the trigger, because once you produce a weapon, the other guy is not going to hesitate to use his if he has one.

As for the question in the thread title, let's just say this. We shoot to stop the threat, because the threat is what endangers our personal safety. It just so happens that shooting the areas of the body most likely to incapacitate the threat, are also those areas most likely to produce a fatal wound. This is an unfortunate, but irrelevant, coincidence.
 

Tanner

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
474
Location
Chesterfield, Virginia, United States
Shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill.

We say "shooting to stop the threat" because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the "side effect", if you will.

From what I understand User is a determined lawyer. I wonder what his thouts on this would be..................I SAID I WINDER WHAT HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS WOULD BE <------Joke
 

Lincoln7

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
143
Location
Isle of Wight County, Virginia
Shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill.

We say "shooting to stop the threat" because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the "side effect", if you will.

I completely agree with this statement.

Further, if presenting the firearm stops the threat then the threat is over and the situation should move on. I know the naysayers will yell "brandishing" but if the threat is stopped...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
From what I understand User is a determined lawyer. I wonder what his thouts on this would be..................I SAID I WINDER WHAT HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS WOULD BE <------Joke

If you take the time to peruse the thread on the Culpeper shooting you will come across User quoting his seminar on deadly force. He addresses the issue of what and how the law looks at producing your firearm when there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. He also discusses the type of client and shooting situation that he considers would make the "ideal" client to defend in a shooting situation.

Stop wondering. It's only (at this time) 58 pages to wade through. You can learn how to use the Advanced Search feature, too.

Sometimes you just set yourself up for these things. I am so glad I have never been one to pass up the easy ones.:banana:

stay safe.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
With all due respect,

"Discussion about why we shoot to stop the threat, as opposed to shooting to kill or shooting to wound, or shooting warning shots - my opinion is that such discussion appears to be needed."


This is a quote from skidmark. It brought up a good point about something that I thought was pretty cut and dry. If a situation is bad enough to draw your weapon its bad enough to fire. My thought is I wouldent shoot in a manner as to wound or warn....espically warn, but rather shoot to kill. Isent this exactly how police are trained?

This should go without saying but ill say it just to make sure. I in no way ever want to take a persons life or even hurt someone els for that matter. EVERY option must be explored and attempted to avoid even drawing your weapon much less useing it. Lethal force is and should be the absolute last option and not taken lightly.

I must disagree Tanner. Police are NOT taught to shoot to kill and that term has not been used for decades. All firearms training IS taught as "shoot to stop". I instructed at the DC police academy way back when (Probably before you were born) in a number of fields including as a range instructor and never did I hear the word kill used.

Standard marksmanship is taught to shoot at "center mass" as that is the best chance of stopping the threat. Advanced training is taught as 2 to "center mass" and one to the head. SWAT Sniper training is a whole different ball of wax that I will not comment on.

Yes, if the situation is bad enough to draw your gun, you better be ready to use it. But to stop the aggressor from causing you or another grievous bodily harm.

A lawyer would eat you alive if you uttered those words in public or when testifying.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I can tell you why we shoot to stop rather than kill and it has nothing to do with legal or moral values.

The idea in shooting something that's big and mean enough to kill you if it can, is to keep him/it from getting to you (Or in the case of an armed man, using his weapon).

Depending on what shot presents itself, the only guaranteed instant kill shot is a center brain hit, not off to the side, you can blow the frontal lobes out and only irritate some people or creatures.

A heart or lung shot will only kill after the O2 runs out in the bloodstream.

Breaking them down is a certain way to stop something. Breaking major bones that almost always send fragments into the rest of the internal organs and stopping them usually results in death anyway. A center shot with an adequate caliber should break the sternum or rib, take out the heart and one lung and hopefully cause enough trauma to the spine to bring him down.....hopefully!

There's too little hydrostatic shock value in a handgun to depend on that being a factor.

The other advantage of hitting bone is to expand bullets from handguns and I know I'll hear all about the Green Dragon Zombie bullets everyone uses that will expand in a sheet of Charmin. The tooth Fairy carries them too.:lol:

The old saying "shoot them where they're biggest" comes about because you want to have the greatest probably of a stopping hit, under stress.

Now suppose the other fellow is wearing body armor. Where do you shoot. Most people say the head but most people in a gun fight couldn't hit someone in the head with a shotgun. That's the same reason you don't shoot to wound.

That leaves major bone structures and the biggest one is the pelvic region. Break those bones and they're going down and killing them is an easy task from there on....or just walking away.

So Tanner....you want to STOP the threat from hurting you. If it happens to die in the process, so be it!
 
Last edited:

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
STOP the threat from hurting you. If it happens to die in the process, so be it!

1+

just to muddy the waters

Only hits count... shoot what you can hit and hope you get a better target if needed.
 
Last edited:

Tanner

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
474
Location
Chesterfield, Virginia, United States
I must disagree Tanner. Police are NOT taught to shoot to kill and that term has not been used for decades. All firearms training IS taught as "shoot to stop". I instructed at the DC police academy way back when (Probably before you were born) in a number of fields including as a range instructor and never did I hear the word kill used.

Standard marksmanship is taught to shoot at "center mass" as that is the best chance of stopping the threat. Advanced training is taught as 2 to "center mass" and one to the head. SWAT Sniper training is a whole different ball of wax that I will not comment on.

Yes, if the situation is bad enough to draw your gun, you better be ready to use it. But to stop the aggressor from causing you or another grievous bodily harm.

A lawyer would eat you alive if you uttered those words in public or when testifying.

I can tell you why we shoot to stop rather than kill and it has nothing to do with legal or moral values.

The idea in shooting something that's big and mean enough to kill you if it can, is to keep him/it from getting to you (Or in the case of an armed man, using his weapon).

Depending on what shot presents itself, the only guaranteed instant kill shot is a center brain hit, not off to the side, you can blow the frontal lobes out and only irritate some people or creatures.

A heart or lung shot will only kill after the O2 runs out in the bloodstream.

Breaking them down is a certain way to stop something. Breaking major bones that almost always send fragments into the rest of the internal organs and stopping them usually results in death anyway. A center shot with an adequate caliber should break the sternum or rib, take out the heart and one lung and hopefully cause enough trauma to the spine to bring him down.....hopefully!

There's too little hydrostatic shock value in a handgun to depend on that being a factor.

The other advantage of hitting bone is to expand bullets from handguns and I know I'll hear all about the Green Dragon Zombie bullets everyone uses that will expand in a sheet of Charmin. The tooth Fairy carries them too.:lol:

The old saying "shoot them where they're biggest" comes about because you want to have the greatest probably of a stopping hit, under stress.

Now suppose the other fellow is wearing body armor. Where do you shoot. Most people say the head but most people in a gun fight couldn't hit someone in the head with a shotgun. That's the same reason you don't shoot to wound.

That leaves major bone structures and the biggest one is the pelvic reason. Break those bones and they're going down and killing them is an easy task from there on.

So Tanner....you want to STOP the threat from hurting you. If it happens to die in the process, so be it!

VA Tazdad. I wouldent consider it disagreing with me. I asked or ment to ask if they were trained to kill. Since you actually have first hand experience with training of the sort I would consider my question answered. Thank you.

Peter since I know a thing or two about my self I have considerd getting lazer grips for my 1911 because like you said in a nut shell "stress is a
B-Word!" I am a ok shot but if you added the stress of a live situation I coud screw it up

And to Skidmark. Or Biscuit as I may start calling him. I have seen the Culpeper thread. Please dont make me read it!!!!! When we first met you said there was no treasure chest of knowledge any one could bestow upon me. I disagree the chest even has a website check it out!

:Dopencarry.org:D
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Since you are shooting to stop a threat; then I would say you are shooting to affect a citizens arrest .. so you use reasonable force to accomplish this (and that can include killing someone, even if running away from you in certain circumstances-I recall a murderer running away from a guy performing a citizen's arrest & he shot the guy in the back, killing him -- court said that's OK -- so its very fact & situational dependent).

Of course this varies by state. Of course if you do shoot someone or discharge or show your gun ... shut the heck up when questioned...wait for your lawyer.
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
From what I understand User is a determined lawyer. I wonder what his thouts on this would be..................I SAID I WINDER WHAT HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS WOULD BE <------Joke

User is not the only determined lawyer out there. Hope you never end up on the wrong side of a courtroom with a lawyer looking to make a career out of your name.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Even if you win the "luck of the draw" and effectively "stop" your opponent in a completely "excusable or justified" manner, the expense may be ill afforded. Still it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Back when I was instructing for a large state agency our early mandate was to shoot to wound. I'd point at my forehead and ask, "What are you if I shoot you here?" Invariably someone would call out "dead."

Excuse me? Is there an entry wound? Well, yes, but... Then you, sir, are wounded - fatally perhaps, but wounded. Department eventually changed their mandate to shoot to stop. I continued to teach the same way - to live and go home at night.
 
Last edited:

Tanner

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
474
Location
Chesterfield, Virginia, United States
Even if you win the "luck of the draw" and effectively "stop" your opponent in a completely "excusable or justified" manner, the expense may be ill afforded. Still it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Back when I was instructing for a large state agency our early mandate was to shoot to wound. I'd point at my forehead and ask, "What are you if I shoot you here?" Invariably someone would call out "dead."

Excuse me? Is there an entry wound? Well, yes, but... Then you, sir, are wounded - fatally perhaps, but wounded. Department eventually changed their mandate to shoot to stop. I continued to teach the same way - to live and go home at night.

This is why they pay him the big bucks! Explained perfectly so a dumbie like me can understand it! Thanks grapeshot.
 

CrimsonSoul

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
144
Location
, ,
When I was working in the tx prison system (TDCJ) we were told to shoot to stop not shoot to kill, why? Because it looked better if you said shoot to stop in court as opposed to shoot to kill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

half_life1052

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
270
Location
Austin, TX
Even if you win the "luck of the draw" and effectively "stop" your opponent in a completely "excusable or justified" manner, the expense may be ill afforded. Still it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Back when I was instructing for a large state agency our early mandate was to shoot to wound. I'd point at my forehead and ask, "What are you if I shoot you here?" Invariably someone would call out "dead."

Excuse me? Is there an entry wound? Well, yes, but... Then you, sir, are wounded - fatally perhaps, but wounded. Department eventually changed their mandate to shoot to stop. I continued to teach the same way - to live and go home at night.

Sort of sounds like the method Uncle Sam taught me.
Present sidearm
acquire sight-picture center mass
squeeze evenly until discharge
Repeat til threat neutralized or slide-lock.
If slide lock occurs
drop
insert
rotate hand up to slide
pull
Go back to step 1 .
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I don't recognize the term, "shoot to kill" and therefore never use it other than when discussing it. I do, however, recognize the term, "shoot to wound" for wholly different reasons. Like others here, I much prefer the term, "shoot to stop [the threat]". I tend to view the term "shoot to kill" as Hollywood hype or better, Hollywood ignorance. We've all seen this in TV and movies where someone uses this term for whatever reason and it comes across with a measure of onerousness, finality, or extreme... in the sense of drama.

I much prefer PistolPackingMomma's post of;

"Shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill.

We say "shooting to stop the threat" because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the "side effect", if you will."

But I still don't like the term "shoot to kill". Has nothing to do with sensitivity (Lord knows I am not one to be accused of that), but rather an invented term of something I just don't tend to recognize.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I don't recognize the term, "shoot to kill" and therefore never use it other than when discussing it. I do, however, recognize the term, "shoot to wound" for wholly different reasons. Like others here, I much prefer the term, "shoot to stop [the threat]". I tend to view the term "shoot to kill" as Hollywood hype or better, Hollywood ignorance. We've all seen this in TV and movies where someone uses this term for whatever reason and it comes across with a measure of onerousness, finality, or extreme... in the sense of drama.

I much prefer PistolPackingMomma's post of;

"Shooting to kill could be misconstrued by a determined lawyer as a way of saying you were looking for someone to kill.

We say "shooting to stop the threat" because once the threat is over, deadly force is no longer warranted. If the threat does not stop until dead, then you have stopped the threat. Death was just the "side effect", if you will."

But I still don't like the term "shoot to kill". Has nothing to do with sensitivity (Lord knows I am not one to be accused of that), but rather an invented term of something I just don't tend to recognize.

If wounding kills and killing wounds, and both stop the event, what is the difference? Why perception - how such is viewed/interpreted by others. Be your own best advocate - chose your words carefully.
 
Top