Shoot to wound or kill??

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The threat generally ends long before the BG stops breathing. Your statement goes too far.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

No one said anything about not having the ability to shoot to kill nor shooting with intent to harm.

You shoot to stop the threat. You stop shooting when the threat is over (not when there is 100% guarantee that the threat has stopped IE dead)

Shooting to stop the threat is not a liability to anyone else. I am not sure where that came from. You generally shoot 2 in the chest and if they don't stop after that then you shoot once in the head. Or you use the zipper method starting at the abdomen and working your way up until they stop.

Having the ability to shoot to kill doesn't mean you should shoot to kill. Death is something that may happen or not from you shooting them. Not your goal.

imported post

Cykaos wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

In answer to your first question. Know your target, your weapon's capabilities, and what is beyond your target.

In answer to your last question, please refer to my last bolded statement.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

... drop your false and vulgar pride long enough to learn it from those who have bothered to get educated...

Click to expand...

ok.

imported post

if it were justifiable....

I would shoot to stop, if they die that was their choice by committing a crime

imported post

I agree, I don't shoot to kill or to wound. My sole intent is to stop the threat. The most effective means of stopping the threat is by shooting at the largest target I can hit, the chest/stomach area. I'm not a sharp shooter, I don't trust my life to "aim for the foot" or other such nonsense. I trust myself to put all 5 of my bullets into the center of the attackers body. Once the threat is stopped, if he is dead or not is irrelevant. The intent was to stop the attacker. If he isn't dead, I intend to seek help for the attacker. These are all just nasty side results to stopping the threat.

imported post

C-D-P wrote:

SNIPthe only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing.

Click to expand...

I think there are other circumstances that = threat over before death occurs:

He's clearly leaving at the mere sight of your gun.

He's down, rolling on the floor in pain, weapon dropped beyond easy reach.

He's running, weapon dropped.

Unconscious.



Now that I think about it, how would you apply your method? If he's down,unless you can detect a hearbeat at a distance, I don't see how you will be sure he's dead. What would the solution be? Expend all available ammo into the target to be sure? A couple head shots once he's down?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

C-D-P wrote:

SNIPthe only way to guarantee that the threat ends is if he is no longer breathing.

Click to expand...

I think there are other circumstances that = threat over before death occurs:

He's clearly leaving at the mere sight of your gun.

He's down, rolling on the floor in pain, weapon dropped beyond easy reach.

He's running, weapon dropped.

Unconscious.



Now that I think about it, how would you apply your method? If he's down,unless you can detect a hearbeat at a distance, I don't see how you will be sure he's dead. What would the solution be? Expend all available ammo into the target to be sure? A couple head shots once he's down?

Click to expand...

Why does everyone assume that I am talking about blasting away until there is nothing left of the BG?

imported post

Why does everyone assume that I am talking about blasting away until there is nothing left of the BG?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'll just add one last tid bit to this post and hopefully conclude it. Most of us know the law and know our limits as to the proper use of force. The hard truth is that each situation where force may be necessary will be completely different and unique and should be treated as such.

The key here is to use good judgement and act accordingly. One of the reasons I believe LEOs are so edgy about ordinary citizens carrying firearms around is that they feel that they are the only ones with the proper training and authority to effectively and lawfully apply a firearm in a situation that may require deadly force while posing a minimum threat to bystanders, and the public in general, during the course and use of that force.

We need to show them that we are also trained and know the law and are well educated in how we may apply force in a way that is both effective and prudent to any given situation where force is necessary withrespect to the deployment and use of a firearm just as they do.

If our legislators and the law have reason to belive that a large number of people carrying these weapons are ignorant of the fact of law and have itchy trigger fingers, our rights will certainly be called into question and eventually taken away.

My conclusion: It only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone, especially if it is during an election year. We all know how some yuppy politician who hates guns would love to use it against us to win those votes. :exclaim:

Kevin

imported post

Thank you, that is near exactly where I was going with the whole escalation of force thing from earlier.

imported post

C-D-P wrote:

Thank you, that is near exactly where I was going with the whole escalation of force thing from earlier.

Click to expand...

You're welcome, :dude:

Kevin

imported post

shot em' in the face.

imported post

I don't think this poll helps either the OC or CC community - particularly in light of the answer choices:

[align=right]

Kill- No Double Tappin', that just ain't right!





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





Wound- Who cares, let him bleed..





Wait- Lets see what this guy does now....





This is the dumbest Poll ever Bro.[/align]
This type of rant only fuels the fire of the anti's and also tends to scare away those on the fence.

The only answer should be: shoot to stop the threat (to you, your family, a potential rape victim, etc.)

"Three in the chest, 1 in the head." would most likely get you a murder charge, etc.

We'd be best served if a moderator had taken this off the site.



my $0.03

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with Tucker.... Shoot to stop the imminent threat

imported post

C-D-P wrote:

Why does everyone assume that I am talking about blasting away until there is nothing left of the BG?

Click to expand...

Point taken. I withdraw the comments.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

C-D-P wrote:

Why does everyone assume that I am talking about blasting away until there is nothing left of the BG?

Click to expand...

Point taken. I withdraw the comments.

Click to expand...

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]Thank you. Looking back I can understand the confusion. So I must apologize if I was not clear on my stance. [/font]][/size]