Shoot to kill or stop the threat?

[eells]

Originally Posted by jcabin

I had a conversation with a retired army ranger/state trooper just after I received my LTCF on the topic of wounding shots etc. He said something along the lines of "if you draw your weapon you better make sure there was no other way of getting out of the situation, and if not you better kill him because if you dont he's going to argue in court that you didn't have to and then you're fucked". Then he said in almost every self defense shooting the victim was brought to civil court by the assailant(dead bad guy)'s family.

I think my immediate reaction if someone was attacking me directly would be to aim for center mass and stop the threat against my life.
I would not bother sighting up for a leg shot because nomatter where you shoot, you're using lethal force.

That being said, if you used lethal force and crippled the assailant he can now take you to civil court and sue you for his medical bills, having a shitty life, etc.

It seems you would be better off just shooting center mass.

beat me too it. ill shoot to kill, no questions asked, if i believe my life to be in danger and and left balls to the wall in a dead end alleyway, fire til he drops. im not gonna give him the chance to personally try and sue me for medical bills, mental anguish, being handicapped, etc, whatever else he might try for money. i think id have a better chance beating the bgs family in court where they have no witnesses than vs the bg himself. of course i have another 3 years before ill really have to worry about this, but hey

[jahwarrior72]

i'm going to start by saying: i have read absolutely none of the replies to the OP.


okay, having said that, if i had to draw down on someone, and they forced me to shoot, it's not going to be a kneecap, or a foot, or anything except the head or center of mass. why? because in order for me to pull the trigger, i would absolutely have to be in mortal fear. that means, i have to believe beyond a doubt that they're going to kill me. i won't shoot because they're being rude, or because they're making terroristic threats, or because they're drunk and rowdy, or because they're wearing an Obama t-shirt. if they got shot, it's because they were going to kill me, or someone else. and if i shoot them, it will be their own fault.

i've been involved in violent situations before, so when i started carrying a gun, i realized that one day, even though would never want to, i may be forced to use it. if ever that day comes, it will be because the other guy chose to get shot.

shooting to stop is shooting to kill. saying anything else if foolishness.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

i'm going to start by saying: i have read absolutely none of the replies to the OP.


okay, having said that, if i had to draw down on someone, and they forced me to shoot, it's not going to be a kneecap, or a foot, or anything except the head or center of mass. why? because in order for me to pull the trigger, i would absolutely have to be in mortal fear. that means, i have to believe beyond a doubt that they're going to kill me. i won't shoot because they're being rude, or because they're making terroristic threats, or because they're drunk and rowdy, or because they're wearing an Obama t-shirt. if they got shot, it's because they were going to kill me, or someone else. and if i shoot them, it will be their own fault.

i've been involved in violent situations before, so when i started carrying a gun, i realized that one day, even though would never want to, i may be forced to use it. if ever that day comes, it will be because the other guy chose to get shot.

shooting to stop is shooting to kill. saying anything else if foolishness.

There are exceptions for every rule. lol Seriously i am just kidding. Very good post , would rep you but need to spread the love.

[gnbrotz]

I would shoot to "stop the threat". IMO, center-of-mass is the most effective way to do this. Any death that occurs is just a 'side-effect' of stopping the threat, not the intent.

[Brown-Bear]

I say the ramifications are depndant on the age old addage that " dead men tell no tales". I'm shooting to kill. Its what I was trained to do in my past expierience. Plus when the cops do show up I want my story the only one they get a chance to hear

[pirateron]

Shoot to kill. If I need to pull my gun out, it ain't gonna be to maim so I have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder waiting for retribution.

[slinkwc2k]

If I am in a position that I need to draw my gun on someone, then I already am not having a good day and all else has failed with respect to resolving the conflict peacefully. But to answer the question at hand, I will shoot to stop the SOB from harming myself, or my loved ones. And if they happen to die in the process of me stopping them, well, then that's the bad guy's problem.

[Joe Smith]

Kill and Wound are beside the point of the question. Killing and wounding are difficult to control when using a firearm in defense. You shoot someone because they are doing something that is severely harmful or fatal towards you and you want them to stop doing it. Plain and simple. And anyone who lists the goal as "kill" is misguided. Killing is not something to be taken lightly, and killing has an air of wrong about it. It sounds like it was planned, intended, or welcomed. I don't want to kill someone, it would haunt my conscious for as long as I lived and draw my family into a living hell. However I will use as much force as I am capable of to stop a threat to myself or family. And if by doing that the attacker dies that is something I have no control over.

Understand, we shoot center of mass because it is an effective way to stop someone, far more than aiming for a leg, shoulder, or even head. It is also an easy target when you are under stress. Wounding should not be on the table because we can't plan for every aftermath of defense. Stop the threat and be done.



I have a new thread idea...

~Brian

[melD]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

I would shoot to "stop the threat". IMO, center-of-mass is the most effective way to do this. Any death that occurs is just a 'side-effect' of stopping the threat, not the intent.

+1 I think that is the best mind set to have.

Mel

[General Geoff]

Killing the target is, as mentioned, just a (possible) side effect of stopping said threat. For the threat to be grave enough to use lethal force, well, death is an acceptable side effect for prevention of what they were going to do had they not been stopped.