Kill, Stop, or Wound?

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...

And do you think it will behoove you in that eventuality to have admitted planning to murder a hostile witness to prevent his testimony?

OldCurlyWolf said:

Both of which are either not readily available or nearly impossible to obtain by the public and actually quite difficult for criminals to obtain, for which law enforcement is quite grateful. It enhances their chances of making it home to their family at the end of shift.

Click to expand...

Is that how it works?

MikeB said:

First I voted, then I read the entire thread. Now I have to reevaluate my vote. I voted to "kill" but it seems the proper response is to stop. " Stop the threat", but to me stopping the threat with bullets, is trying to kill. I mean if I just wanted to stop the threat I'd use a different weapon.

I don't know. Handguns were really developed for one thing, killing people. With my screwed up logic, I think when you use a handgun the point is killing. One should not draw their weapon unless the threat is worth killing for. I understand the "Stop the threat" reasoning, but I'm using a weapon that is meant for killing. How can I justify "Stop the Threat" when I've train to target the areas of the body that will do the most damage. Doing the most damage, with the fewest bullets, is not about stoping the threat, but that's how I've trained.

Gee, have I used the word kill enough. I have to commit to memory "Stop the Threat", "Stop the Threat". I guess "Stopping the Threat" is what I'm really doing.
At least this thread got me thinking.

mb

Click to expand...

This gist of this is that, for you, it's more important to kill an assailant than it is to merely survive the assault, say by non-fatally stopping the assailant.

If your sole reason for selecting a gun is because they kill, and your aim is to kill, then I suggest you stop carrying a firearm.

A prosecutor could convict you based on this post, were you ever forced to defend yourself.

And, no, most handguns weren't designed to kill. The 1911 was designed for combat, and in combat, the aim is to stop your opponent. Once he is a casualty, alive is better than dead, and anyway the Geneva convention limits the use of weapons which are perceived as more effective at killing but no more effective at stopping.

The 1911, for example, was explicitly designed for the self-defense of the American soldier and officer. It wasn't designed as a covert assassination tool. While self-defense may result in killing, it is not guaranteed.

As a final point, you'll find that the methods and techniques for killing are different for self-defense. The garrote, for example, and unlike the handgun, was designed for killing. How many mob hitmen kill their victims in face-to-face confrontations? And how many people sneak up and garrote their assailant for self-defense?

The reason we use guns instead of other means is that, presently, there is still no more effective, safe, and reliable means of stopping a potentially-deadly human threat than shooting it with a firearm.

marshaul said:

This gist of this is that, for you, it's more important to kill an assailant than it is to merely survive the assault, say by non-fatally stopping the assailant.

If your sole reason for selecting a gun is because they kill, and your aim is to kill, then I suggest you stop carrying a firearm.

1A prosecutor could convict you based on this post, were you ever forced to defend yourself.

And, no, most handguns weren't designed to kill. The 1911 was designed for combat, and 2 in combat, the aim is to stop your opponent. Once he is a casualty, alive is better than dead, and anyway the Geneva convention limits the use of weapons which are perceived as more effective at killing but no more effective at stopping.

The 1911, for example, was explicitly designed for the self-defense of the American soldier and officer. It wasn't designed as a covert assassination tool. While self-defense may result in killing, it is not guaranteed.

As a final point, you'll find that the methods and techniques for killing are different for self-defense. The garrote, for example, and unlike the handgun, was designed for killing. How many mob hitmen kill their victims in face-to-face confrontations? And how many people sneak up and garrote their assailant for self-defense?

The reason we use guns instead of other means is that, presently, there is still no more effective, safe, and reliable means of stopping a potentially-deadly human threat than shooting it with a firearm.

Click to expand...

1 Its not that simple as you make it out to be, its not as simple as saying it came from his computer and so he wrote it. He would still have a hell of a time proving he was the one behind it doing the actually typing. That and most towns/cities in today's economy don't have the money or people to dig through thousands of pages looking for so called evidence. Readers digest did a real good article on it a month or so ago and in many cases fraud and that the evidence that looks so easy on the CSI show almost never works or happens. That prosecutors are having a hell of a time with even the so called hard evidence like foot prints and finger prints, DNA because of all the false positives and huge fraud that goes on in so many facility. If i can find the link I will post it.

As for number 2 the military trains its soldiers to shoot to kill every time, and as for the Geneva Convention not correct. We are denied any bullets or weapons that cause undo suffering to our enemies than necessary at completing our mission. Look through any of our FM's and it’s easy to see why, we want them to go down permanently so they don't get back up or have the ability to return fire, set off trigger deices,set off explosives ext. For example, FM 25-101 BATTLE DRILLS. When the assaulting fire team fights through enemy positions using fire and movement we are not shooting to just stop the threat, they only time we won’t shoot a combatant is if they surrender and do not have the means to fight. Once we cross over a downed enemy we can’t not fire any additionally rounds into them, if the soldier feels them to still be a threat to the team you kill them before you cross over their body. Ask your friends what the ROE is for soldiers, for example in Iraq if a person had certain banned weapons (RPG'S, mortars, ext) it would get you shot no matter if you pointed it at us or not.

wrightme said:

This poll isn't one about tactical responses. It IS about the liability.

It isn't about a response to a threat, it is about a response to subsequent questions.

Click to expand...

And.... if the correct response is not accepatable, the posts are deleted. If I have to pull that trigger... I'm gonna do it with the intent I was initially trained to do, did do and still train to do. The wussifcation of PC America isn't complete. Not yet. Not here... and not with me.

Sonora Rebel said:

And.... if the correct response is not accepatable, the posts are deleted. If I have to pull that trigger... I'm gonna do it with the intent I was initially trained to do, did do and still train to do. The wussifcation of PC America isn't complete. Not yet. Not here... and not with me.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the military has trained me to immediately incapacitate any enemy combatant, it has kept me and many of my friends alive from Iraq and Afghanistan and I will NEVER leave this mindset. If you looking to hurt me or my family you better hope what ever God you put trust in has mercy on you, cause I wont.

I shoot to stop. Of course this necessitates wounding someone, and this wound may result in the death of my assailant.

Ok so I am going to reply to this with 100% honesty. I dont care what liability I would face after shooting someone who is invading my home. If your concerned about the liability of shooting an invader (who by unlawfully entering your home means they have atleast acknowledged the idea of doing you harm) then you will hesitate to fire and probably get yourself and your family hurt or worse.

Myself personally I prefer stopping the attacker without use of lethal ammo. I have a shotgun with full of flashbang rounds(would really scare the crap out of you if you didnt see me coming) Pepper spray bags, and my .38 has shotshells. If none of these resisted the attack or the assailant escalated the situation my .45 or AR-15 would enter the situation. all are withing 5ft of my bed. When asked why i shot the assailant 30 times. I would inform them of my previous actions and then state "Yes I shot the assailant 30 times.. it was dark and I couldnt find my other magazines."

I can't remember what film it was but on the stand someone was asked why he shot someone six times, his reply was "my revolver doesn't hold seven rounds."

i go with: terminate the threat.

added on edit; kinda like the headline i saw recently where some official responded to a comment about someone being shot in a home invasion: well, if you dont want to get shot dont go breaking into occupied homes.

That someone would shoot to stop does not mean that there would be hesitation to shoot, nor does it mean that they would select a different target on the body or fire fewer rounds--or, for that matter, that the perp is any less likely to die.

It simply means that our intent, the reason we use deadly force, is to protect ourselves and not to punish the BG, exact retribution, or prevent future crimes, none of which are legal justifications for shooting.

DevinWKuska said:

If your concerned about the liability of shooting an invader... then you will hesitate to fire...

Click to expand...

No, no I really won't.

I'm truly shocked at the number of people that completely miss the point.

bom1911 said:

I'm truly shocked at the number of people that completely miss the point.

Click to expand...

Maybe a rephrase will help: If we shoot to stop, we are likely taking the exact same shots with the exact same timing as someone who shoots to kill. It's just that if we manage to stop the BG but, by some miracle, he lives, we will still consider our actions successful.

eye95 said:

Maybe a rephrase will help: If we shoot to stop, we are likely taking the exact same shots with the exact same timing as someone who shoots to kill. It's just that if we manage to stop the BG but, by some miracle, he lives, we will still consider our actions successful.

Click to expand...

No rephrase required. I wasn't suggesting you were missing the point.

bom1911 said:

No rephrase required. I wasn't suggesting you were missing the point.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I didn't mean to make it seem that you were. I thought the rephrase would help others understand that we are not trying not to kill, but neither are we trying to kill. Death is a [strike]possible[/strike] highly likely outcome of stopping, but the goal is still just stopping.

On this and other forums the idea of "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to wound" comes up rather frequently and garnishes the same responses time after time. In reality, there is no such thing as "shoot to kill" in a SD use of deadly force for several major reasons.

First is the target area. Anyone who has taken any sort of training in the use of a firearm for SD knows where rounds are to be sent. This just so happens to be the same area in the body that when suffering extreme trauma from gunshot has the very real potential of resulting in a fatality. Does this mean the victim "shot to kill"? Perhaps if another factor has entered the picture and this is not a good factor at all.

Bare fear is not justification for the use of deadly force. And if one exhibits and later admits to bare fear being their reason for firing on a perp, they are likely to face hell in a court of law. Saying that you would "shoot to kill" COULD be construed as an admission of such fear because it could also be taken as having acted in anger. And anger is NOT your friend in a SD shooting, either. This may not hold in every state so checking with one's state laws on the matter is always recommended.

Just a thought, and INAL.

A lot of people here bluster about 'killing the SOB', but I wonder if they realize there is a huge downside to that.

PTSD, guilt, nightmares, hearing trauma;
Civil suits;
Counter attacks (by the perp's relatives)
Other Legal hassles (you get 'put into the system' and if it happens again, you face heightened jeopardy, I'd think)

Though I've been training in martial arts and weapons since 1970, my ultimate goal is never to harm another human, especially in anger. (even in training, you don't want to injure your partner, though injuries happen)

Badger Johnson said:

A lot of people here bluster about 'killing the SOB', but I wonder if they realize there is a huge downside to that.

PTSD, guilt, nightmares, hearing trauma;
Civil suits;
Counter attacks (by the perp's relatives)
Other Legal hassles (you get 'put into the system' and if it happens again, you face heightened jeopardy, I'd think)

Though I've been training in martial arts and weapons since 1970, my ultimate goal is never to harm another human, especially in anger. (even in training, you don't want to injure your partner, though injuries happen)

Click to expand...

It depends on your state. WI has no such protection, where FL, IN, TX, etc do.

DevinWKuska said:

Ok so I am going to reply to this with 100% honesty. I dont care what liability I would face after shooting someone who is invading my home. If your concerned about the liability of shooting an invader (who by unlawfully entering your home means they have atleast acknowledged the idea of doing you harm) then you will hesitate to fire and probably get yourself and your family hurt or worse.

Myself personally I prefer stopping the attacker without use of lethal ammo. I have a shotgun with full of flashbang rounds(would really scare the crap out of you if you didnt see me coming) Pepper spray bags, and my .38 has shotshells. If none of these resisted the attack or the assailant escalated the situation my .45 or AR-15 would enter the situation. all are withing 5ft of my bed. When asked why i shot the assailant 30 times. I would inform them of my previous actions and then state "Yes I shot the assailant 30 times.. it was dark and I couldnt find my other magazines."

Click to expand...

What are you smokin'? SD isn't a game of escalation. "Wait... let me get my non-lethal gadgets out to scare you first..." The idea is to kill 'em... not piss 'em off. Any wounding is accidental in the real world.