Woman kills serial rapist with 12 guage shotgun.

Grapeshot said:

Not the way I would have said it.

Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.

Click to expand...

Hi Mate.
No disrespect meant to you and your opion. I do agree with the point made which is to immediately stop any threat to one's self.
Unfortunatly any woman facing a rapist does not know if she is the rapist's first victim? So what should she do? Should she just wound him only where possible and pray he will never rape again, especially as some rapists have been know to return and rape the same victim again, or should she kill him where possible?

Let me think, if I was a woman on my own, prepared to defend myself against possible rape, would I have my shotgun loaded with buck-shot, or 00's? Personally, I would probably be using solid 12 guage slugs!, if it was legal, down under. Sadly, in the land down under, self defence has been declared illegal, and many rapists continue to rape after rape and then rape again.

Ocassionally one is caught and they usually get a slap on the wrist and are released in a few weeks only to continue on their merry raping ways.

Its obvious to me personally, leathel force, (illegal down under), is often the only way to make a final end to it all. Regards, Haz.

eye95 said:

Oh, you always shoot center mass. That is the shot most likely to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, it is also the shot most likely to kill him. But, killing is not the goal. Stopping is.

We need need to keep chanting this mantra. It must be ingrained in our psyche. It must rule our actions in a self-defense setting. It must be our undoubted motivation when our actions are examined after a self-defense shooting.

Click to expand...

You can SAY that all you want, and it's your story so stick to it. I still say the guaranteed way to STOP the threat is take it out, permanently. No judge, or jury can determine how scared I was. "Your Honor I did not intend to empty the full 13 round magazine into the sumbitch, but he kept trying to get up"
As for me, it's a guarantee, I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by six.

since9 said:

The goal is to stop the threat. I was trained to use three shots to do so, a double-tap to the center body mass, and a third to the head, if possible. After that, reevaluate the threat and repeat as necessary until the threat has been stopped. I use the same caliber and type of firearm on which I was trained in the military.

Click to expand...

It's called a Mog drill Since9. It was used by our Rangers in Mogadishu sp? after they had the M1911's taken from them. Only sure way to stop a "skinny"

KansasMustang said:

It's called a Mog drill Since9. It was used by our Rangers in Mogadishu sp? after they had the M1911's taken from them. Only sure way to stop a "skinny"

Click to expand...

Hate to get all in a tizzy, but the Mozambique Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill came to us via Jeff Cooper who learned of it from one of his students. It's also taught to cops for those cases when they encounter BGs wearing armor.

There are lots of ways to stop a BG/VCA (Violent Criminal Actor), just as there are lots of different opinions on how the stopping should be accomplished. What we were presented with in the OP was one of those ways. Let us hope and pray that there are no legal or psychological repercussions for the woman who defended her life.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Hate to get all in a tizzy, but the Mozambique Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill came to us via Jeff Cooper who learned of it from one of his students. It's also taught to cops for those cases when they encounter BGs wearing armor.

There are lots of ways to stop a BG/VCA (Violent Criminal Actor), just as there are lots of different opinions on how the stopping should be accomplished. What we were presented with in the OP was one of those ways. Let us hope and pray that there are no legal or psychological repercussions for the woman who defended her life.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

+1

Grapeshot said:

Not the way I would have said it.

Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.

Click to expand...

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean WE, white man?"

Though from YOUR signature line, it would seem that Tonto could possibly be a distant relative.

Grapeshot said:

Not the way I would have said it.

Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.

Click to expand...

OldCurlyWolf said:

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean WE, white man?"

Though from YOUR signature line, it would seem that Tonto could possibly be a distant relative.

Click to expand...

We = us, the unacknowledged plural of "I." A collective grouping of individuals under a common banner.

"We" is the empirical form; thus we can say that we do not bring harm on our faithful friend - when one is harmed, so too is the other.

That is what "we" think.

A killing stoppage is superior to a non-lethal stoppage. It prevents repeat offenses. It's cheaper on the tax payer. A bullet costs 2 bucks. A single prison meal costs more than that. Everyone wins.

Maximum said:

A killing stoppage is superior to a non-lethal stoppage. It prevents repeat offenses. It's cheaper on the tax payer. A bullet costs 2 bucks. A single prison meal costs more than that. Everyone wins.

Click to expand...

It should not be the goal. The goal should be stopping. If your goal is to kill, and if you announce that in advance, you greatly increase your chance of a murder charge should the eventuality of your needing to use deadly to defend yourself.

The goal is to stop the attack AND stop repeat offenses. This is morally superior to the non-lethal stoppage.

Moral superiority doesn't do much good in jail.

Nor on a message board.

Moving on.

It does a good job of stopping the attack both present and future.

Haz. said:

Unfortunately any woman facing a rapist does not know if she is the rapist's first victim? So what should she do? Should she just wound him only where possible and pray he will never rape again, especially as some rapists have been know to return and rape the same victim again, or should she kill him where possible?

Click to expand...

A topic near & dear to my heart... BTDT, got the son to prove it. Never again. On this particular topic I'm pretty cold-hearted.

Proper response: shoot to stop him threatening me. If that takes half my magazine (.5x = 9 @ 9mm), well, I'm pretty rattled & he's a lucky little bugger. Once he's down, I'll tell him to stay still. Don't move, you don't get hurt. Very simple concept. You're allowed to breathe. Period.

Unless he's reaching for a weapon, I won't shoot him when he's down. If he reaches for a weapon, or if I THINK he's reaching for a weapon, I'll shoot him a few more times 'til he stops reaching for a weapon.

Doesn't matter to me if I'm his first or thousand-n-first (except from a disease transmission standpoint, if he actually touches me). I'm going to do my level best to stop him. If that means he dies, well, at least he won't attack anyone else.

Maximum said:

The goal is to stop the attack AND stop repeat offenses. This is morally superior to the non-lethal stoppage.

Click to expand...

Morally superior? I think not, sir.

It is NOT our job to stop repeat offenses. I find that reprehensible. We are neither , judge, jury nor vigilante. Our sole job in protecting ourselves or a loved one is to stop the threat. We have no license from the Queen to do otherwise.

The End................ finis

The way I see it, if a man is trying to kill me it's just become my job to stop his attack, and prevent him from attacking me a 2cd time.

I mean hell. Look at this story. The man came back to rape her a 2cd time. This is not a kindergardner stealing flowers. If you enjoy being repeatedly raped then bend over and spread your cheeks. I'll shoot for the kill thank you.

Maximum said:

The goal is to stop the attack AND stop repeat offenses. This is morally superior to the non-lethal stoppage.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Morally superior? I think not, sir.

It is NOT our job to stop repeat offenses. I find that reprehensible. We are neither , judge, jury nor vigilante. Our sole job in protecting ourselves or a loved one is to stop the threat. We have no license from the Queen to do otherwise.

The End................ finis

Click to expand...

Maximum said:

The way I see it, if a man is trying to kill me it's just become my job to stop his attack, and prevent him from attacking me a 2cd time.

I mean hell. Look at this story. The man came back to rape her a 2cd time. This is not a kindergardner stealing flowers. If you enjoy being repeatedly raped then bend over and spread your cheeks. I'll shoot for the kill thank you.

Click to expand...

First I was replying to the generality of your morally superior position which I hold it is not.

Secondly, I in no way implied the lady was not justified in using whatever means to defend herself.

Thirdly we discuss the topic, not make ad hominem attacks here, which incidentally are against the rules.

You are free to advocate as you will and alone will bear the responsibility for poorly chosen words.

Grapeshot said:

First I was replying to the generality of your morally superior position which I hold it is not.

Secondly, I in no way implied the lady was not justified in using whatever means to defend herself.

Thirdly we discuss the topic, not make ad hominem attacks here, which incidentally are against the rules.

You are free to advocate as you will and alone will bear the responsibility for poorly chosen words.

Click to expand...

+1

Folks, please search for and read posts regarding stating your intention to kill when you find yourself in a self-defense situation.

The rational advice you will read here will almost exclusively advocate shooting to stop the threat. That, depending on your abilities with a handgun, usually means putting rounds center mass until the threat is over. Such an action carries with it the near-certain possibility that you will kill the perp. That is a consequence that you will have to live with if it occurs, but shouldn't be your purpose in shooting. Your purpose in shooting should be, as almost all self-defense laws make clear, to protect yourself and, possibly, others.

The danger of shooting to kill, especially if you state that is your intent on a public message board, is that it could feed suspicion that you used too much force and crossed the line from self-defense to deliberate murder. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

So, please, do not put too much stock in message board bluster. Consider and communicate your positions on self-defense carefully. Think about how you will react in a self-defense situation before you find yourself in it. Know your State's self-defense laws. Try to act lawfully and rationally, even though your adrenaline will be working against your ability to think clearly.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm with maximun. I will shoot to stop the threat. He dies, he dies.

hogeater f6 said:

I'm with maximun. I will shoot to stop the threat. He dies, he dies.

Click to expand...

Your first sentence is odds with with the other two. I see three possibilities:

-- Shoot only to kill. (Maximum and your first sentence.)
-- Shoot to stop with the recognition that the perp will likely be killed. (Grapeshot, me, and your two last sentences.)
-- Shoot to wound. (No one in this thread.)

Maximum said:

A killing stoppage is superior to a non-lethal stoppage. It prevents repeat offenses. It's cheaper on the tax payer. A bullet costs 2 bucks. A single prison meal costs more than that. Everyone wins.

Click to expand...

I'll take that at face value if you have actually killed in SD before. Otherwise, I think it much more likely that you haven't thought this through as well as you should.

I'll throw my hat into the ring on 'we'. We shoot to stop, not to kill. Stopping often means killing, but that is not the goal. I use a .45 and not a .22 because it is more likely to stop the intruder, not because it is more likely to kill him, though it is. I don't shoot to maim because that would be less effective to stop, not to mention the legal implications.

hogeater, I don't think you are actually with maximum from what you wrote-he is advocating killing, whereas most of us are merely advocating stopping. Don't mistake this for an attempt to stop without killing. Killing simply isn't a goal. If he dies, I agree, so be it. But that is not what I am trying to do.