Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/11/2005 5:34:25 PM EDT
When faced with a situation where civil authority is non-existant and armed assailants are either looting property or activley shooting at you, is it best to only try wound them or to inflict a mortal injury?

In other words, if you manage to hit a guy in the leg or arm, and he is limping away, do you finish him, or let him go away?
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:35:12 PM EDT
With a .308 he will bleed to death sooner or later regardless.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:35:19 PM EDT
If it's worth pulling the trigger, it's worth killing.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:35:19 PM EDT
Dead men don't sue.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:36:10 PM EDT
Use the level of force needed to stop the threat.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:36:16 PM EDT
Kill body's can't use guns , wounded people can.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:37:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlammO:
If it's worth pulling the trigger, it's worth killing.



Exactly. If lethal force is justified then one does not shoot for the pinky toe.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:38:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:
Dead men don't sue.



but the familys do!
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:38:29 PM EDT
Is this a serious question?

If I EVER shoot another human being in self defence, shooting to kill is my only option.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:38:29 PM EDT
Exactly...........remember kiddies, CYA!


Originally Posted By Kharn:
Use the level of force needed to stop the threat.

Kharn

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:38:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:41:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:45:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
In other words, if you manage to hit a guy in the leg or arm, and he is limping away, do you finish him, or let him go away?



Let him go; the threat in no longer present.

But if there's a chance he may come back as a then yeah, I'll keep plugging him.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:48:30 PM EDT
Shoot to stop the threat. 2 shots center mass, if he dies than it was a fatal shooting, if not then he was wounded.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:49:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Someone stealing a cold cheese steak samish - I'm not going to sentence someone to death for that.

Someone shooting at me - two to the center of mass, re-evaluate, head shots if needed.



Absolutely.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:50:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 5:55:35 PM EDT by txgp17]

Originally Posted By BlammO:
If it's worth pulling the trigger, it's worth killing.


Originally Posted By DOW:
Dead men don't sue.


AMEN

I recall an old wive's tale of a police officer emptying a Beretta 96 into an assailant who was on top of him with a knife. The officer had been blinded by Pepper Spray after he tried using that while the guy was on top of him, then all the pepper spray came back after gravity took hold.

In the "internal" investigation, he was asked why he shot the guy 12 times (a full mag+1). His answer was: Because I had problems getting another magazine in the gun while he was on top.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:51:11 PM EDT
Shoot to stop the threat, Usualy two to the chest and if necessary another to the head will do it
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:51:56 PM EDT
I made this comment (or at least a similar one) on the CA forum in response to the listing of handcuffs or readi-ties in bug out bag supplies. (BTWm the consensus of opinion is that in most of SoCal, you better be prepared to hole up where you are because you ain't gonna get out of town. Many think I am a closet liberal for my less sanguinary outlook on some issues.

Just because you can either legally or morally kill somebody doesn't mean you need to or should, and there are some kyboard commandoes here that are of the shoot firt and keep shooting school for any infractions more serious than riding a bike on the wrong side of the street.

But if it really is a bonafide SHTF, I ain't gonna shoot looters, if they are being kept interested and happy by somebody else more power to him and them, and some would arrest bg's. Not me, ain't my job and it ties up resourdes better used elsewhere.

I being an officer and a gentleman prefer to take a more cavalier attitude. If the people are ol men, women and children and I can help, it would be both un-Christian and unmanly to not protect and aid others worse off.

If it is a young ish predator (say from 60 -14) and he evinces a predatory attitude, is old enough to know better, and he should know better, I would likely kill him and stack the body as a warning sign. Younger and appearing that they might learn from an object lesson, disable him with an extremity shot and point him to the nearest aid station.

If it really really really is a bonafide SHTF, and you are in that period between the event and the return of lawful authority, then you need to do the right thing and protect you and yours.

But wounding means that precious assets are going to be used on a dirtbag, others need those resources more.

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:53:01 PM EDT

Like my Granpappy always said................. "Shoot to Kill"
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:54:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Paul:
Someone stealing a cold cheese steak samish - I'm not going to sentence someone to death for that.

Someone shooting at me - two to the center of mass, re-evaluate, head shots if needed.



Absolutely.



I wanted to think about this for a minute.

Considering the scenario that AyeGuy presented, IE civil authority is gone and armed assailants are shooting at me, looting, and some mofo tries to steal my cold cheese steak samish - which just happens to be the only samish I have for me and mine...then yeah, I'll plant him.

That being said, in a non-SHTF scenario, I'm not gonna shoot some guy because he's stealing the wheels from my vehicle at night.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:55:37 PM EDT
Shoot 10 yards off taget an apologize.

It's the only way to be sure to rid yourself of legal fees in the aftermath.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:55:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 5:57:21 PM EDT by _disconnector_]

Originally Posted By DOW:
Dead men don't sue.



+1

When civilization returns, I don't want to face the bastard in front of some dumb ass liberal judge.

Two to the chest and one to the head would be the rule.

Disconnector
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:55:43 PM EDT
How about we just try to reason with the maurauding hoardes?
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:57:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:
Dead men don't sue.



Dead men don't sue: or tell any tales!
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:01:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:04:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
How about we just try to reason with the maurauding hoardes?




Especially since your firearms will have been confiscated for your own safety

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:08:41 PM EDT
If you have to shoot someone, and it's righteous, then shoot-to-kill. There's no in-between.

HH
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:19:08 PM EDT
"Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men.”... St. Augustine

“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.” – Mohandas Gandhi

That being said: Three shot burst. Two to the chest one to the head.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:20:08 PM EDT
ALWAYS shoot to STOP.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:22:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlammO:
If it's worth pulling the trigger, it's worth killing.



+1
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:25:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
When faced with a situation where civil authority is non-existant and armed assailants are either looting property or activley shooting at you, is it best to only try wound them or to inflict a mortal injury?

In other words, if you manage to hit a guy in the leg or arm, and he is limping away, do you finish him, or let him go away?



Shooting is using deadly force. Shooting to wound is the use of deadly force in a careless manner. In Texas, shooting to wound will get you put in jail, shooting to kill an intruder, attacker, etc will not.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:27:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 6:28:09 PM EDT by Currahee]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
ALWAYS shoot to STOP.



+1 and the only way to do that is center mass until they're laying on the ground not moving.

As to the person who said they wouldn't shoot someone over a sammich, there has been at least one person in my county shot this week siphoning gas. Someone who will take your sammich will be back later to take more.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:31:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Shooting is using deadly force. Shooting to wound is the use of deadly force in a careless manner. In Texas, shooting to wound will get you put in jail, shooting to kill an intruder, attacker, etc will not.



That's the most beautiful thing I've heard today.


In a situation where food is limited and people are raiding others for supplies then shoot to kill is the true only option if someone's trying to take your supplies.


So in a true SHTF senerio I say shoot to kill, that's one less looter you have to worry about.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:32:16 PM EDT
I do not/will not shoot to kill. I shoot to stop the threat to my safety, and once the threat is stopped, any further outcome is of no consequence.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:34:54 PM EDT
take a lesson learned from the Isreali boys, and shoot them in the "jimmy".....that way if they don't die and manage to get away they can't procreate.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:39:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
I do not/will not shoot to kill. I shoot to stop the threat to my safety, and once the threat is stopped, any further outcome is of no consequence.



Seems like the exact legal def to me.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:41:35 PM EDT
Ohh, keep some lime handy too. Bodies start to bloat and stink after a few days.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:46:26 PM EDT
Shooting to wound is a ridiculous premise. If you are going to pull the trigger on someone...given that you have just cause, then you have...or should have a single intent: To remove the imminent threat to yourself, your loved ones or another human incapable of self protection. The ONLY sure way to do that is to take the life of the enemy. That logic is pure and inescapable.

To do otherwise is illogical and foolish.

Never shoot unless you absolutely have to...but then make sure you shoot to kill.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:53:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Ohh, keep some lime handy too. Bodies start to bloat and stink after a few days.



Which is why I think you should just finish them. Since it may be a while until civil order is restored and bodies examined for forensic evidence, Nature will erase or obscure ant damning evidence that you did a "socially unacceptable" act.

So don't cover them with lime; leave 'em sitting out in the sun...
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:54:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Ohh, keep some lime handy too. Bodies start to bloat and stink after a few days.



Which is why I think you should just finish them. Since it may be a while until civil order is restored and bodies examined for forensic evidence, Nature will erase or obscure ant damning evidence that you did a "socially unacceptable" act.

So don't cover them with lime; leave 'em sitting out in the sun...



You have never been around dead bodies obviously.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:56:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 6:58:12 PM EDT by Bullitt3401]
Always shoot to kill. I'll agree...dead men don't sue.

Just ask Bernie Goetz. He's being garnished for the rest of his life because he didn't kill the sharpened-screwdriver wielding trash that were harassing him.

Scott

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:10:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlammO:
If it's worth pulling the trigger, it's worth killing.



And thats all there is to say about that.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:10:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:
Dead men don't sue.



But thier families do!
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:13:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Use the level of force needed to stop the threat.

Kharn



+1
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:19:48 PM EDT
If you only wound him, he will come back with his buddies to finish you off. Stop the threat now, or stop the threat later.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:22:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 7:25:50 PM EDT by KlubMarcus]
Wound, let him show the other punks your wrath. You might not have enough ammo to hold back the tide, but a human leaking blood can stop a mob in its tracks. With luck, he'll eventually bleed to death w/o hospital care in front of the other looters!
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:29:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

You have never been around dead bodies obviously.



Not dead humans obviously, but dead animals, yeah. And a blated, rotting, stinking corpse might serve as a caution to prospective looters...


Originally Posted By mejames:
If you only wound him, he will come back with his buddies to finish you off. Stop the threat now, or stop the threat later.



I was also thinking that.

Also: say you wound this fellow. A while after the shooting is over, people come out and see him lying there wounded...what do you do then? As the guy who shot him, they might look to you as being responsible for him...So, do you expend valuable and scarce resources on taking care of him?
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:30:35 PM EDT
I am going to use whatever force is neccessary to stop the threat. Be it kill or wound doesn't matter to me as long as the threat is stopped.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:35:59 PM EDT
If I shoot, its not to hurt, its to get the job done.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:36:02 PM EDT
Shoot to kill, scalp for bounty, stainless steel bore brush for denialibility.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:40:39 PM EDT
The real question is, are they combatants or non-combatants? If they shoot at you they are combatants. Once you are designated as a combatant you only become a non-combatant when you are dead or surrender. Surrender can be by an overt act or by incapacitation that prevents you from participating in further action.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top