View Poll Results: Wound or Kill: your life is @ stake

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Kill- 3 in the chest, 1 in the head.

    5 14.71%
  • Kill- No Double Tappin', that just ain't right!

    0 0%
  • Wound- Nothing to serious, I'm not a judge.

    1 2.94%
  • Wound- Who cares, let him bleed..

    2 5.88%
  • Wait- Lets see what this guy does now....

    0 0%
  • This is the dumbest Poll ever Bro.

    26 76.47%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Shoot to wound or kill??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Personally, I wouldn't pull my gun unless I/my loved ones really was in iminent harm or fear of my life..and im sure we all agree that if the unfortunate circumstance did come about, we would pull.

    Now what?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Personally if it came down to it I would shoot to stop the threat if that means he/she/it lives or dies it doesn't matter as long as the threat has been stopped.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Tucker wrote:
    Personally if it came down to it I would shoot to stop the threat if that means he/she/it lives or dies it doesn't matter as long as the threat has been stopped.
    thats what i was figurin for.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    If I'm going to shoot it'll go something like this -

    Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, click - Drop mag, insert new one, chamber round - reassess.



  5. #5
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Tucker wrote:
    Personally if it came down to it I would shoot to stop the threat if that means he/she/it lives or dies it doesn't matter as long as the threat has been stopped.
    UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE
    Home | Site Map | Calendar | Code/Constitution | House | Senate | Search
    76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    (2) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if he or she:
    (a) initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
    (b) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
    (c) (i) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force; and
    (ii) for purposes of Subsection (i) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
    (A) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
    (B) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
    (5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
    (a) the nature of the danger;
    (b) the immediacy of the danger;
    (c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
    (d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
    (e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

    Amended by Chapter 26, 1994 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_02_040200.ZIP 3,183 Bytes


    [line]

    Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page


    Last revised: Thursday, May 01, 2008

    I agree. Besides, under the utah Use of force laws, it onlyallows you "stop" the felony action of another. Technically, once you have shot the person, if it "stopped" them, any force, deadly or not, thereafter would probably constitute excessive force.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Kevin


    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    You don't have an appropriate choice for me to vote.

    I choose to shoot to stop the threat.

    If you state that you will shoot to kill in a gun encounter, and then you actually do shoot and kill, a savvy prosecutor will subpeona every single post that you have made on every single gun forum you belong to.

    The prosecutor will then find the one post where you state "I'll shoot to kill" and use that post a the basis for upping the charge to "PREMEDITATED" murder.

    I will never shoot to kill outside of a wartime military application.

    I will shoot to stop the threat. If two shots center mass doesn't immediately discourage the attacker, then another round to the head may be necessary to stop the threat.

    If an attacker dies in the process of my stopping the threat, then that is unfortunate for the attacker, but the threat is stopped.

    If the attacker throws up his hands and surrenders withouta shot being fired, so much the better, nobody is hurt and the justice system has a change to attempt to do the right thing, and I won't be the one on the receiving end of the attempt.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    REALLY bad and STUPID options, with all due respect to the author.

    We shoot NEITHER to wound nor to kill, but to STOP the illegal violence against us.

    That will cause a wound of one degree or another. ("Warning shots" are not generally legal nor a good idea so I'll assume we actually shoot to hit the target and manage to do so.)

    It may very well cause death as death is a completely predictable result of the use--even lawful and moral use--of deadly force. But it might not.

    Again, decent, law-abiding citizens use force, including deadly force, ONLY to STOP illegal violence against us, a loved one, and possibly an innocent third party.

    PLEASE get your terminology straight before it creates major legal headaches for you and a serous PR problem for all of us.

    I HIGHLY recommend that everyone who carries, or intends to carry a gun (OC, CCC, CC) go take the class for a concealed weapons permit from a State certified instructor. Even if you are not eligible for the permit (age I presume), or otherwise don't want to get a permit, take the class from a good and reputable instructor. Both Clark Aposhian and Mitch Vilos are excellent. I'm sure there are others.

    About 90% of the class deals NOT with any specifics of gun handling or even concealed carry, but rather with Utah's use of deadly force laws (and where you can/can't legally carry a gun even with a permit).

    This is neither Texas nor New York and I hope anyone who is carrying a gun has a MUCH better source for what is and is not allowed in terms of using or threatening to use deadly force than some Hollywood production.

    We shoot ONLY to STOP the threat. Death, is a foreseeable, but UNINTENDED side-effect of the lawful, moral use of deadly force to STOP criminal violence.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    If I miss him and he runs away, that is still good enough.

    I wouldn't shoot with the intended purpose of wounding or killing. I would shoot with the intention of stopping the threat by any legal means necessary. What the end result of that looks like would depend on the situation. If someone shoots at my family and dives behind cover as I fire back at him... and he runs away - I've done my job.

    Very poor choice of poll options.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Generally, I don't find polls all that useful.

    Mark Twain had something to say about public opinion. "Some think it the voice of God." Or something like that. See his essay, Corn Pone Opinions.

    A poll won't change my opinion. What other's say in a prepared-question format isn't really all that helpful to me. I'd rather hear the person's reasoning behind his opinion.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Unless you like being jail bait you need to get your verbage correct. Regardless of what is going on in your head during a shooting your answer needs to always be the same. You "shoot to stop". Nothing more, nothing less. If the offendor dies, lives, gets away it doesnt matter. When questioned about why you discharged your firearm the only legal answer is that you shot to stop the felony. If you start spouting off about killing, wounding, etc. count on the case being sent to the DA. You best be getting your verbage correct right quick before you get yourself in trouble.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    REALLY bad and STUPID options, with all due respect to the author.

    We shoot NEITHER to wound nor to kill, but to STOP the illegal violence against us.

    That will cause a wound of one degree or another. ("Warning shots" are not generally legal nor a good idea so I'll assume we actually shoot to hit the target and manage to do so.)

    It may very well cause death as death is a completely predictable result of the use--even lawful and moral use--of deadly force. But it might not.

    Again, decent, law-abiding citizens use force, including deadly force, ONLY to STOP illegal violence against us, a loved one, and possibly an innocent third party.

    PLEASE get your terminology straight before it creates major legal headaches for you and a serous PR problem for all of us.

    I HIGHLY recommend that everyone who carries, or intends to carry a gun (OC, CCC, CC) go take the class for a concealed weapons permit from a State certified instructor. Even if you are not eligible for the permit (age I presume), or otherwise don't want to get a permit, take the class from a good and reputable instructor. Both Clark Aposhian and Mitch Vilos are excellent. I'm sure there are others.

    About 90% of the class deals NOT with any specifics of gun handling or even concealed carry, but rather with Utah's use of deadly force laws (and where you can/can't legally carry a gun even with a permit).

    This is neither Texas nor New York and I hope anyone who is carrying a gun has a MUCH better source for what is and is not allowed in terms of using or threatening to use deadly force than some Hollywood production.

    We shoot ONLY to STOP the threat. Death, is a foreseeable, but UNINTENDED side-effect of the lawful, moral use of deadly force to STOP criminal violence.

    Charles
    ok, first of all, will some1 show me a SAFE bullet? One that i KNOW doesnt have the potential to wound or kill some1?? I guess i should of clarified that i have the powers of deductive resoning and determine the bullets in my potentially deadly gun, to be...well...deadly...so, yea, i would EXPECT verbage on ammo boxed like "For Rapid Expansion" and so on and so forth to lead me to the conclusion that bullets can kill people. Are we ALL asleep?

    So lets see: by your logic, i should go ahead an apologize to the prosocutor in your head for my previous statement and it was mis-guided and ill-stated, please refer to paragraph above. wow...



  12. #12
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Safe bullets? WTF are you spouting off about? Charles was simply explaining that if you were to use your firearm on someone, with intentions other than to stop a forcible felony, then you are wrong.

    In your poll, I answered "This is the dumbest Poll ever Bro." It is a stupid question. The only reason anyone should ever arm themselves, is to stop a threat. Not to kill, wound, intimidate, pistol whip... see where this is going?

    This is not Texas, and you are not Joe Horn. Can you imagine if you were on the phone with 911, here in Utah, and you told the dispatcher you were going to KILL the guy who just burglarized your neighbors home?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    You know my answer with this phrase: "Dead man tell no tells."
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    scorpioajr wrote:

    ok, first of all, will some1 show me a SAFE bullet? One that i KNOW doesnt have the potential to wound or kill some1?? I guess i should of clarified that i have the powers of deductive resoning and determine the bullets in my potentially deadly gun, to be...well...deadly...so, yea, i would EXPECT verbage on ammo boxed like "For Rapid Expansion" and so on and so forth to lead me to the conclusion that bullets can kill people. Are we ALL asleep?

    So lets see: by your logic, i should go ahead an apologize to the prosocutor in your head for my previous statement and it was mis-guided and ill-stated, please refer to paragraph above. wow...

    You have clearly failed to comprehend at all what I wrote. Please read it again.

    Serious injury, even death, are completely foreseeable, but UNINTENDED consequences of legal and moral self defense. Mens rea. I do NOT shoot with the intent to KILL another human being when acting in lawful self defense. My INTENT is only to stop his criminal aggression. I KNOW full well that my actions may lead to severe injury or even death. But it is not my INTENT to injure, maim, wound, or kill. My INTENT is ONLY to stop the attack. As bobernet has pointed out, if I should happen to miss him entirely and he chooses to run away I am EVERY BIT as successful in my INTENDED purpose as if he dies instantly. He has STOPPED his attack. (Again, certain legalities and liabilities make deliberate warning shots a really bad idea, but if I miss and he chooses to run away lest my next shot find its mark, I have still STOPPED the attack which was my ONLY INTENT in using deadly force.

    A hunter shoots to kill his animal.

    A member of the armed forces shoots to wound or kill his enemy.

    A law abiding citizen, acting in lawful self defense against criminal aggression shoots ONLY with the INTENT to STOP the criminal aggression.

    If you do not CLEARLY and totally understand this take a good concealed weapons permit class. Or pay a really good self defense lawyer to educate you. Or drop your false and vulgar pride long enough to learn it from those who have bothered to get educated. But learn it before you end up acting and talking yourself right into a really unpleasant and unnecessary jail stay.

    This isn't the Old West or the Alamo and you ain't John Wayne "bro." When the threat stops, so must your shooting lest you become a criminal. And even when you shoot, your only legal mental intent is to STOP the threat, NOT to kill, wound, maim, teach a lesson, scare, intimidate, or otherwise act with unlawful intent.


    Wanna try again?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    The only reason anyone should ever arm themselves, is to stop a threat. Not to kill, wound, intimidate, pistol whip... see where this is going?
    +1 Shoot to stop!

    If they die, they die. If they live they live. Either way, sue them first to tie up their funds so they can't sue you.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    You know my answer with this phrase: "Dead man tell no tells."
    With modern forensics the dead reveal ALL kinds of information about themselves and how they died. And that is even before we consider the always possible existance of witness you did not know was watching, listening, or otherwise aware of what was going on.

    If someone acts in such a way that I am legally and morally justified in using deadly force to stop his criminal agression, he may well die. And if he does, so be it. But you may rest assured that neither I nor any decent, law-abiding, moral person will do ANYTHING with the explicit intent to cause that death, and especially NOT after the threat has ceased.

    So long as the threat continues, or should it resume after having stopped, then deadly force may well be warranted. But my intent, always, is ONLY to end the criminal threat. And, acting only upon that intent, I trust forensic evidence and honest testimony from any witnesses will indicate that I did not act outside legal bounds.

    As a man thinketh, so is he.

    And on a related topic, this is Utah, no "need" to drag dead bodies into your home to justify deadly force. Besides which, good shooting or bad, messing with evidence is ALWAYS going to be a REALLY BAD idea.

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    SNIP With modern forensics the dead reveal ALL kinds of information about themselves and how they died. And that is even before we consider the always possible existance of witness you did not know was watching, listening, or otherwise aware of what was going on.

    If someone acts in such a way that I am legally and morally justified in using deadly force to stop his criminal agression, he may well die. And if he does, so be it. But you may rest assured that neither I nor any decent, law-abiding, moral person will do ANYTHING with the explicit intent to cause that death, and especially NOT after the threat has ceased.

    So long as the threat continues, or should it resume after having stopped, then deadly force may well be warranted. But my intent, always, is ONLY to end the criminal threat. And, acting only upon that intent, I trust forensic evidence and honest testimony from any witnesses will indicate that I did not act outside legal bounds.

    As a man thinketh, so is he.

    And on a related topic, this is Utah, no "need" to drag dead bodies into your home to justify deadly force. Besides which, good shooting or bad, messing with evidence is ALWAYS going to be a REALLY BAD idea.
    +10
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    You don't have an appropriate choice for me to vote.

    I choose to shoot to stop the threat.

    If you state that you will shoot to kill in a gun encounter, and then you actually do shoot and kill, a savvy prosecutor will subpeona every single post that you have made on every single gun forum you belong to.
    +1

    And I agree that this poll did not cover the bases. Just like we teach in our ROE classes. You shoot to end the threat. But along with that, the only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing. Also a lot of other things go along with this. One such thing is the fifth safety rule. Another is esclation of force.

    He made the decision to initiate the attack, he made the choice to end his life by your hand.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Vermont, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Shoot. If they die, fine, if they are wounded, fine. Just so long as I/others are no longer in danger. Stupid ass poll.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    C-D-P wrote:
    But along with that, the only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing.
    I disagree. The threat generally ends long before the BG stops breathing. Your statement goes too far.

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    You shoot to stop the threat. Whether that means you have to kill the person or not is separate.

    You should never shoot with the intent to kill. You can get in a lot of trouble if you shoot to kill. Even if it is justifiable self defense there is such a thing as overkill and you can get in trouble for excessive use of force.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    C-D-P wrote:
    But along with that, the only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing.
    I disagree. The threat generally ends long before the BG stops breathing. Your statement goes too far.
    Please feel free to disagree with me. But it seems that you fixated on one part of my post without taking the rest of it into account.

    "And I agree that this poll did not cover the bases. Just like we teach in our ROE classes. You shoot to end the threat. But along with that, the only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing. Also a lot of other things go along with this. One such thing is the fifth safety rule. Another is esclation of force."


    If you would like me to elaborate further you only need to ask.

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    What is the fifth safety rule?

    If someone comes at you with a knife you shoot them once, they fall down, drop the knife, and stay down you no longer need to shoot them. Holding a gun pointed at their head will usually make sure they aren't going to get up. If you do shoot them you can be charged for murder.

    Yes the only way you can guarantee the threat is over is if they are dead but that doesn't make it legal nor advisable. The only way to make sure there is no threat at all is to just kill anyone who comes to close to you. I mean it really is the only way to guarantee your own safety. See the failed logic?

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Dead men do tell tales. It's called forensics and witnesses. The idea that if you do shoot someone you should make sure they are dead so they can't sue you or whatever later is wrong in so many ways.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Cykaos wrote:
    You shoot to stop the threat. Whether that means you have to kill the person or not is separate.

    You should never shoot with the intent to kill. You can get in a lot of trouble if you shoot to kill. Even if it is justifiable self defense there is such a thing as overkill and you can get in trouble for excessive use of force.

    Maybe we are arguing semantics here, but if you draw without the ability to shoot to kill, or you draw with the intention to shoot to wound, then that projectile just became a liability to those around you or on the other side of your target. And as such if you draw without having the mental ability and physical skill to kill with that shot, you become a liability to yourself and your own safety.

    This does not mean that if you draw you must kill. Hence the bolded parts of my previous post.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •