• 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.

Kill, Stop, or Wound?

In a self-defense shooting, do you shoot to...

  • Kill?

    Votes: 41 24.1%

  • Stop?

    Votes: 127 74.7%

  • Wound?

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • Total voters
    170
F

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
Prosecutor: Mr. Catass, why did you shoot this man 13 times?
Catass: Based on my formal training, I felt 12 wasn't enough and 13 would have been too many, sir
 
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
sultan62 said:
What do you do when the attacker is clearly down, out of commission-but not dead?
Click to expand...

1. Remain on target until law enforcement arrives and takes over.

2. Have someone remove weapon(s), if able.

3. Have someone provide first aid, if able.

There's no way I'd do either 2 or 3 unless there was a confirmed good guy willing and able to take over my duty to maintain 1.

The technically, and legally correct answer is "shoot to stop." "Shoot to kill" presumes you have authority to kill. We citizens do not! We are authorized to use "deadly force" in some situations, but the phrase "to use deadly force" does not legally equate with the phrase "to kill."

Finally, saying "shoot to kill" can be spun into murder or attempted murder charges in many areas, depending on local laws. However, if we use deadly force and the perp dies, that's an "unintended and unfortunate consequence," nothing more, as our goal was "to stop."
 
Last edited:
D

daddy4count

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
All of the firearms training I have ever taken taught "shoot to stop"

The person I took classes from was one of the instructors for the police and SWAT shooting and tactical courses. She said she teaches the cops the same attitude.

It was beaten into us that if a situation arises where we choose to draw a weapon our only concern should be that the threat is STOPPED.

I do not think you have to consciously "shoot to kill" in order to stop a threat.

Put enough holes at center mass and whether they live or die, they will stop what they were doing. Whether or not they survive is a secondary concern to the safety of those threatened.
 
rushcreek2

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
I know that the correct legal answer is shoot to stop the threat. In reality the outcome of even a single bullet wound is a factor of luck or the lack there of on the part of the recipient. What I mean is that you don't really get to call the shot as to whether a bullet wound is going to be life threatening or not. Your intentions have little or nothing to do with the outcome. The path of the bullet will determine the outcome.

Despite all of the super-dooper, double looper magnum, +P, and shock & awe ammo on the market a single FMJ 9mm target round that succeeds in lacerating an aorta will kill. So if I shoot a person the real issue is going to be WAS I JUSTIFIED IN SHOOTING. My only thought process will be to shoot or not to shoot. To stop the threat to be sure, but more to the point perhaps - to preserve MY LIFE.
 
H

heresyourdipstickjimmy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
279
Location
Mo.
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...

It's better to just get away from ever using the phrase "shoot to kill) and practice using "stop the threat". That way we don't accidentally admit we killed another person to LEOs, the courts, or others.

I loved how one of the Navy SEALs put it in Afghanistan: I stopped the threat, nothing more. The person dying was just a side-effect that was beyond my control.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr.FiredUp

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
164
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA
I voted for shoot to stop. As many other bright people have said, it should not be our goal to kill another person. I am a very peaceful, easy going sort of guy. I bend over backwards to not offend people because I'd like to be treated with that same decency.

I also carry a firearm because I am a peaceful person. To some people that doesn't make sense. The reason it DOES make sense is because I try my best in every situation to keep things peaceful between myself and others. I also try to keep things between other people peaceful because I care about my fellow citizens. If a person disrupts a peaceful environment with or around me by attempting to take a life of someone innocent, I feel it is my duty to help out my fellow American and/or protect my own life.

A firearm is (to my knowledge) the most effective way to quickly stop a deadly threat. I would use mine for that purpose while hoping that the person would not die of the injuries they sustained. I would hope they would come away from the situation with an understanding that they are lucky to be alive and change the way they live to avoid being in a similar circumstance that would not afford them the same outcome.
 
Z

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
Simple put all of my rounds are fired to kill and here is why. The end goal is to stop the criminal and every shot I dispatch at the criminal is aimed to be a kill shot plain and simple. I am aiming for all of his vital organs to dispatch them immediately, if he dies because of my aimed shots so be it. So if it makes you feel better to say stop than shooting to kill than so be it. You always shoot to survive, we all know that if we are forced to fire that the person has forced US into a fatal corner. In dummy terms all of your shots you place should be fired as kill shots that will immediately stop the treat. I understand the reasoning for saying stop verses kill in your reports but quit sugar coating it, your shots should be fired and aimed as kill shots, because if they are not than I guess the threat to your life and others was not that immediate for you even using the gun in the first place. I am never looking to kill anyone but If i am put in a situation where my life in on the fine blade of life I will always make my shot to be kill shots. The poll should read are my shots fired to wound, kill. In either case the shots will stop the criminal, the question is will the rounds that I fired are aimed to truly stop the threat the quickest? If your shots are not aimed at vital organs(kill shots) than your truly not trying to stop the the threat. The whole stop and kill argument is political sugar coating, simply your shots should ALWAYS been kill shot because it will STOP the threat the fastest way possible. Saying shoot to kill is not a bad thing when your referring to how your aiming your shots at vitals that has the best possibly of stopping them. Your not trying to kill anyone but your rounds hitting their vitals have a nasty side effect of killing them with the positive of stopping them.

SO I hope my confusing post of what I mean but not trying to kill but your aiming at vitals organs with the side of effects that result in their death.
 
Last edited:
Z

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
eye95 said:
The poll is about your goal, not your aim. Is it your goal to kill?
Click to expand...

You are defending yourself in a self defense situation. You are hopefully in that position because you were forced to be by anther's actions. When in that situation, you point at the biggest target and keep pulling the trigger until the reason you felt the need to protect yourself or another by using possibly deadly force, is no longer there. That is the proper answer.

No one wishes or want to be forced to kill a person. I think everyone WILL agree with that point. Yet your shots need to be fired at the location with the Highest percentage of success and your not shooting to wound. My first shots are to the preps chest to attempt to stop the threat if that fails I will resort to whats called the Failure Drill(http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?65215-Failure-Drill-Changed) that will remove all the "if" of will it kill him. Sorry my mindset has always been a military one from the time I have served, I was always taught that when your raise any weapon your goal is to immediately incapacitate the enemy and our shots have always been fired to kill never to wound. Does that mean I intended on killing them no but my training as an Infantryman is designed to kill in the most efferent manner possible and to protect my team(family) as much as possible. No ones goal is to kill another person but the action of shooting a person is the act of deadly force. For deadly force to be constitutional, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed.
 
Last edited:
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you wish the question is something else, post a poll asking that question.

The question in this poll is, when you shoot for self-defense, is your goal to kill the attacker, stop the attack, or wound the attacker.

That's it.
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I was trained to shoot to stop the threat. It just happens that the fastest way to stop the threat is to kill.


As for guilt after the situation? Death is a side-affect of their actions. I doubt it will be so simple but hopefully it will be.


If by some miracle they're still alive then call 911 (which you should be doing anyway) and mention that he's still alive while you inform them of the situation. Personally I would not render aid for several reasons.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
zack991 said:
Simple put all of my rounds are fired to kill and here is why. The end goal is to stop the criminal and every shot I dispatch at the criminal is aimed to be a kill shot plain and simple. I am aiming for all of his vital organs to dispatch them immediately, if he dies because of my aimed shots so be it. So if it makes you feel better to say stop than shooting to kill than so be it. You always shoot to survive, we all know that if we are forced to fire that the person has forced US into a fatal corner. In dummy terms all of your shots you place should be fired as kill shots that will immediately stop the treat. I understand the reasoning for saying stop verses kill in your reports but quit sugar coating it, your shots should be fired and aimed as kill shots, because if they are not than I guess the threat to your life and others was not that immediate for you even using the gun in the first place. I am never looking to kill anyone but If i am put in a situation where my life in on the fine blade of life I will always make my shot to be kill shots. The poll should read are my shots fired to wound, kill. In either case the shots will stop the criminal, the question is will the rounds that I fired are aimed to truly stop the threat the quickest? If your shots are not aimed at vital organs(kill shots) than your truly not trying to stop the the threat. The whole stop and kill argument is political sugar coating, simply your shots should ALWAYS been kill shot because it will STOP the threat the fastest way possible. Saying shoot to kill is not a bad thing when your referring to how your aiming your shots at vitals that has the best possibly of stopping them. Your not trying to kill anyone but your rounds hitting their vitals have a nasty side effect of killing them with the positive of stopping them.

SO I hope my confusing post of what I mean but not trying to kill but your aiming at vitals organs with the side of effects that result in their death.
Click to expand...

You're not exactly correct in your assessment here and this is why (may depend upon the state in which one lives).

If you are of a mind that you are going to "shooting to kill", that could easily be twisted into an argument in court for anger on a victim's part. In my state, blind anger is never a justification for deadly force. This is a primary reason why the phrase, "shoot to stop", or "shoot to end" the threat, is used. Yes, your targets comprise vital internals that could result in the perp's death. But one's intent is to stop the threat as quickly as humanly possible so there is as little chance of harm from the perp(s).

Lastly, even if one is of the mind to "shoot to kill", one would be wise never to post this belief on a public forum.
 
Last edited:
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
SouthernBoy said:
You're not exactly correct in your assessment here and this is why (may depend upon the state in which one lives).

If you are of a mind that you are going to "shooting to kill", that could easily be twisted into an argument in court for anger on a victim's part. In my state, blind anger is never a justification for deadly force. This is a primary reason why the phrase, "shoot to stop", or "shoot to end" the threat, is used. Yes, your targets comprise vital internals that could result in the perp's death. But one's intent is to stop the threat as quickly as humanly possible so there is as little chance of harm from the perp(s).

Lastly, even if one is of the mind to "shoot to kill", one would be wise never to post this belief on a public forum.
Click to expand...
Well, better said that "the target comprises the center of mass, which provides the greatest chance of arriving effectively on target." This just happens to house many vital organs that may be collateral damage.
 
J

Jaxinc

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
21
Location
Albuquerque, NM
The saying has always gone "I'd rather have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

Being said, if it absolutely comes down to having to draw your sidearm, then there is obviously a serious threat that couldnt be dealt with otherwise.

Shoot to kill in self defense.

There is no telling what the other people might be jacked up on, I have seen cops FILL a guy with 30+ rounds and he was so jacked on drugs that even though he should have been dead, he didnt know he was shot(amazing thing the human mind) and kept going till he bled to death. Frankly, I carry 12+1/12/12 on me at all times, but if a guy on drugs can take that many rounds, I may not have time to reload twice, so shoot to kill.

I will say that there may be times that it isnt necessary to STK, say you had someone attempting to break into your home, but was no real threat to you. Although if he broke in you would be in every right to fire in self defense, a simple shot to the leg(s) would be enough to end that threat, unless he was armed.

In my opinion, if I was to draw my sidearm it means either I am grossly outnumbered and can not handle a fist fight, or the other person has a weapon of some kind(whether blunt force, knife, or firearm). In which case I will shoot to kill.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Jaxinc said:
I will say that there may be times that it isnt necessary to STK, say you had someone attempting to break into your home, but was no real threat to you. Although if he broke in you would be in every right to fire in self defense, a simple shot to the leg(s) would be enough to end that threat, unless he was armed.
Click to expand...

This is something you do NOT want to do. If you deliberately try to wound someone, what you are saying to the authorities is that you really didn't believe you were in imminent threat of serious bodily harm or worse. This could and probably will be used against you in a court of law. Not too mention that trying to hit someone in an extremity is not the simplest of tasks in an extreme situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top