Shoot to wound or kill??

[Chris1760]

imported post

:banghead: OK Im not to sure what this poll is but stupid and gives the wrong idea all together......

1. If you are forced to used your gun in the defence of your life then you shoot till the threat is not a threat anymore.

2. Make sure that you are loud about your warrining if possibe.

3. Call 911 now this is a doubble edge sword here ..... A. Make sure that the threat isnt a threat. B. Put your gun in your holster, dont want to have an LEO that is jacked up because its a shooting call get there and shoot you because you have a gun in your hand.

4. Your going to want to talk, Explain to the officer that you " were in fear for your life and you defended your life." You want to speak to your Attoreny before answering any questions...... <~~~~~ Please follow this simple thing... Here in MD LEO's have 72Hrs to make a statement after speaking with the union rep and legal Counsel. you Should have a lawyer present at all questions



Just my .02



PS find a Lawyer that you like and that has experience in these matters and have a retainer.... kinda like insurance

 

[Alwayspacking]

imported post

I did not select anything on the poll because my answer is not there. But knowing me I think I would fire one round to the chest or head with my .45 and .357 but with the .40cal I am more apt to double tap to the chest. If the threat continues I will act accordingly. He may be lucky, or his luck may have just ran out. As long as my family and I are alive and safe when it is all over is what counts to me, I could not care any less about the BG, he should have found God before he found me.

 

[timf343]

imported post

Outsider wrote:

You know my answer with this phrase: "Dead man tell no tells."

They don't sue you either.

 

[timf343]

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.

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

Rhetorical Question:

You hear a bad guy in your house. You shoot him, he's still breathing.

Do you turn your back to him while you make sure his buddies aren't hiding elsewhere in the house?

Do you turn your back to him while you go to the phone to dial 911?

I'm not an expert on biology so I don't know if the single chest shot has neutralized the threat or if he still has the capacity to draw and fire upon me. I'm not an expert on drugs so I don't know if he's high on something that would cause him to continue to be a threat.

I agree SHOOT TO STOP, but the question in my mind is how sure I am that he is actually STOPPED. And after a nighttime intruder invades my home and I've fired, that's a rather difficult conclusion to reach. Better safe than sorry.

 

[timf343]

imported post

Chris1760 wrote

<snip>
4. Your going to want to talk, Explain to the officer that you " were in fear for your life and you defended your life." You want to speak to your Attoreny before answering any questions...... <~~~~~ Please follow this simple thing... Here in MD LEO's have 72Hrs to make a statement after speaking with the union rep and legal Counsel. you Should have a lawyer present at all questions

Absolutely agree! When the police arrive, comply with their requests but do not answer questions. It will likely result in being taken into custody for a few hours till they sort out the situation. You shot to protect yourself. Keep your mouth shut to do the same. It's better to spend a night of inconvenience than months defending yourself because you said the wrong thing, and even worse, a lifetime because you were somehow convicted.

 

[Loneviking]

imported post

You shoot to stop. The most effective way to do this is to put multiple bullets into multiple critical systems such as the brain; heart; lungs; hepatic/aortic/femoral artery. If you do this, odds are that the BG will be stopped because he will be DEAD!

 

[thx997303]

imported post

Yes, which is an unfortunate side effect.

 

[Alwayspacking]

imported post

On my way home from work last night I was thinking about the answer I gave to this question. In giving some thought about it my answer. I will just shoot until the attack on me or my family is over. The reason why I say double tap with the XD is because I have more rounds in that gun then the 1911and the .45ACP is a very powerful round. ( I also know that just because I hit the target does not mean it stopped the attack so it is best to double tap). Really the situation will all come into play on how many times I pull the trigger. If he has a gun or knife, if there are multiple attacker, if they are high on drugs. I have to factor in all that, even to how many layers of clothes the attacker has on and the material they are made from. But I will not shoot for the arm or leg, I aim for chest and head, and I carry powerful rounds, so they may complete my answer. I really hope I never have to shoot anyone. But the way the world is, I don’t rule it out.

 

[Aegis]

imported post

Bottom line....you shoot until theySTOP or RUN AWAY....if they die because they forced you into a position where youhad to protect yourself or othersits unfortunate, but the criminal made that decision for you by behaving in asocialy unacceptable manner, such as attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, etc; .....you get the idea.

Death is generally a normal side effect of high velocity airborne lead poisoning, and is to be expected.

Its been said before, but it bears repeating.....Better to be tried by 12 men then carried by 6....

 

[LovesHisXD45]

imported post

Alwayspacking wrote:

On my way home from work last night I was thinking about the answer I gave to this question. In giving some thought about it my answer. I will just shoot until the attack on me or my family is over. The reason why I say double tap with the XD is because I have more rounds in that gun then the 1911and the .45ACP is a very powerful round. ( I also know that just because I hit the target does not mean it stopped the attack so it is best to double tap). Really the situation will all come into play on how many times I pull the trigger. If he has a gun or knife, if there are multiple attacker, if they are high on drugs. I have to factor in all that, even to how many layers of clothes the attacker has on and the material they are made from. But I will not shoot for the arm or leg, I aim for chest and head, and I carry powerful rounds, so they may complete my answer. I really hope I never have to shoot anyone. But the way the world is, I don’t rule it out.

These are great observations. The standard protocol, at least the way I was taught, is to "stop" the attack or felony with a double tap to the chest. Then observe the effect to determine whether more force is necessary. If it is determined that the threat continues and further force is warranted, then a head shot is always the recommended final and last resort to totally incompasitate the agressor and end the threat. This is what my instructor taught and it's how I practice at the range when I go shooting. Itis so common to me now, that it is almost second nature. Bang Bang, pause....Bang.

Kevin

 

[Citizen]

imported post

timf343 wrote:

SNIP I agree SHOOT TO STOP, but the question in my mind is how sure I am that he is actually STOPPED. And after a nighttime intruder invades my home and I've fired, that's a rather difficult conclusion to reach. Better safe than sorry.

I'm not sure there is a perfect answer to this.

I have a similar uncertainty with regard to when a bad guy turns to run. Is he really leaving the fight, or moving to cover? Once he gets even with that only car at the curb a little ways down fromour sidewalk encounter, is he going to turn and shoot from better cover? Is it perhaps better to keep shooting even though he isliterally moving away?

I think it has to do with whether the common law recognizes certain tactical considerations or not. Have they come up before? If not, there may not be a clear cut rule in the common law. Also, what would the jury think? Can they be persuaded that guy might have killed me if he did start shooting from behind the car while I'm still exposed on the sidewalk? Will I be able to afford expert witnesses to testify on my behalf to educate the jury on a much-less-than-obvious tactical point?

 

[Cykaos]

imported post

several gunshot wounds to the back would make for a hard case for self defense. I guess it depends on what you think is necessary at the time and hope a jury can see it from your point of view. Your best bet is to get an actual lawyer who knows about gun law and self defense and ask them for their professional opinion/legal advice. I am not a lawyer and I don't think anyone on this board is a lawyer either.

 

[pitythefools]

imported post

I think that removing the threat is the best way.

 

[brokenarrows]

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.

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

I second this.
I believe that the only legal use of force is to stop the threat. To waiver on this brings far more into the equation. just my humble opinion.