Kill, Stop, or Wound?

Forgive me if this has been polled before, but it is a current discussion and I wonder what the current sense is.

In a self-defense situation in which you shoot the perp, is the goal of your shooting him to kill him, to stop the attack, or to wound him?

Note: In any case, you may end up accomplishing one of the other possibilities, e.g. shooting to stop will likely result in killing. The question is, "What is your goal?"

The Goal should always be to stop the attack.


You don't shoot to wound, or shoot to kill, you shoot to 'stop the attack.' That is exactly what I would do, and that is exactly how it will get related upon questions.

None of the above, I only carry blanks and shoot warnings into the ground. I'm a non-violent person unlike everyone else who has voted.

I know that every class you take will tell you to shoot to stop the attack, but I shoot to kill, and this is why.

1. it's the surest method to stop an attacker, and
2. there is only one story to be told in court

The official answer would be to "stop the threat."

Saying you "shot to kill" probably would not be beneficial to you in Court.

To clarify to everyone, I'm guessing this thread was born of the discussion here, and actually warrants a poll. I'm curious of the outcome myself.

Nevada carrier said:

I know that every class you take will tell you to shoot to stop the attack, but I shoot to kill, and this is why.

1. it's the surest method to stop an attacker, and
2. there is only one story to be told in court

Click to expand...

What do you do when the attacker is clearly down, out of commission-but not dead?

I would shoot to stop. If down but still alive I would stay away from him but keep him , or her as the case might be , covered while waiting for the police to arrive. If the person were to become a threat to me and try to attack I would again shoot till they stopped.

I would shoot to stop the attacker or attackers..with the end result possibly being those suns o bitches not breathing ever again.

Shoot until they stop...if they die along the way, well, they had the opportunity to make the decision whether they wanted to end up on the business end of your sidearm or not.

Nevada carrier said:

I know that every class you take will tell you to shoot to stop the attack, but I shoot to kill, and this is why.

1. it's the surest method to stop an attacker, and
2. there is only one story to be told in court

Click to expand...

Here is the problem with your theory, there are more than one story to be told, even if the perp dies. Their body tells a story also. Bullet trajectory...entery/exit wounds...distance, etc. They are going to know if you shot the perp from five feet away while they were standing and when you shot the perp as they lay on the ground begging you not to kill them.

It is ALWAYS shoot to stop the threat! It is not for revenge. There is some anger involved but it is because someone forced me to use potentially deadly force to STOP THEIR USE OF POTENTIALLY DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ME OR SOMEONE IN MY PRESENCE!

My vote was to stop the attack. If that results in the death of the attacker, so be it.

sultan62 said:

What do you do when the attacker is clearly down, out of commission-but not dead?

Click to expand...

"Out of commission" = no longer a threat = Call 911 (and then your attorney), render first aid if possible and if safe to do so, wait for the police and EMS response.

If, by your question you are implying a "Bernard Goetz" approach by making certain the assailant* could never testify in court, then no, he/she does not get get shot again.

*he/she WAS an assailant, yes? That's why you "stopped the threat," yes?

To stop the threat. There is no such thing as shooting to kill in the context of using deadly force to stop a threat (civilian world, of course... not combat). And shooting to wound IF you are lucky enough to deliver a wounding shot, will most likely get you in legal hot water. You shoot to stop the threat.

INAL and this only applies to the state in which I reside.

sultan62 said:

What do you do when the attacker is clearly down, out of commission-but not dead?

Click to expand...

I would not continue to shoot once the threat no longer existed. then after all was said and done, hopefully I'm cleared of any wrongdoing and I'm not facing a civil suit, I would head to the range and get more practice because if someone survives a double tap from my 1911, my skills need improvement.

When I do double tap drills, I like to put a 4" peel and stick just a little to the right of the sternum approximating where the heart would be. They may be alive for a few seconds after they hit the ground, but a pair of ranger talons through the heart is beyond what a heart surgeon can repair.

What I really want to do is find a training course that will simulate an attacker rushing you to train myself to be able to draw and shoot a moving target, because as we know, shooting stationary targets is one thing, real life and death scenarios are often very different.

wrightme said:

The Goal should always be to stop the attack.


You don't shoot to wound, or shoot to kill, you shoot to 'stop the attack.' That is exactly what I would do, and that is exactly how it will get related upon questions.

Click to expand...

But not without my attorney present...

Nevada carrier said:

I would not continue to shoot once the threat no longer existed. then after all was said and done, hopefully I'm cleared of any wrongdoing and I'm not facing a civil suit, I would head to the range and get more practice because if someone survives a double tap from my 1911, my skills need improvement.

When I do double tap drills, I like to put a 4" peel and stick just a little to the right of the sternum approximating where the heart would be. They may be alive for a few seconds after they hit the ground, but a pair of ranger talons through the heart is beyond what a heart surgeon can repair.

What I really want to do is find a training course that will simulate an attacker rushing you to train myself to be able to draw and shoot a moving target, because as we know, shooting stationary targets is one thing, real life and death scenarios are often very different.

Click to expand...

They won't survive a single tap from my Mossberg 590 using 3" mag 00 buckshot @ 6 feet away when aimed at their head. Go ahead break into my home.


first call 911 leave an open line ( whisper to 911 dispatcher, that someone has broken into your home & that you are afraid for your life ) , then grab gun & investigate noise , upon confronting scum bag, yell really loud PLEASE DON'T HURT ME, PLEASE DON'T HURT ME ....IF you see weapon , then you Shoot to stop threat....then you grab phone & tell 911 dispatcher that heard everything, that you had to defend yourself, that you think think the thief is dead,please send an ambulance, tell 911 person that the gun you used to defend yourself is now unloaded and on the floor. You will be waiting outside with your hands up let them know what color shirt, jacket you are wearing. Hang up. QUICKLY GET DRESSED IF YOUR ARE NOT ALREADY - GO OUTSIDE CALL LAWYER. When police arrive SAY NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Eye95, please don't delete this thread!!!

I would be interested in seeing how the law differs from State to State on this very subject. The question has come up in regards to reciprocity with other States and having to abide by THEIR specific carry and use of force laws.

Use of force statute in Missouri is RSMO 563.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm

Unlawful use of a weapon in Missouri is RSMO 571.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c571.htm

The clincher in Missouri seems to be the phrase any part of RSMO 571 or 563 that constitutes intent to cause serious physical injury. If you're intending to wound rather than stop the threat then it appears as though your intent is not self defense as it could be argued that you may be the aggressor. The deciding factor in 563 is (snip)...situation created through no fault of the actor. I do not know of any cases that have gone to court in Missouri under this very issue, so I'm VERY interested to see what's out there in other States.

We all know it's just a matter of time before someone winds up in this boat, so let's get the information out there.

Personally, you "stop the attack". The words "kill", "wound", "shot", and others like them are dangerous in court. Remember, all 911 calls are recorded and it's vital that YOU identify yourself as the VICTIM!

If said BG happens to die as a result of injuries resulting from a GSW, then I hate it for the BG...but at least the shooter may get to go home to his or her family.

Shoot to stop the threat, CoM until there is no more threat.