In reading NAKED-GUNMAN’s post, there was a reply from one member about shooing to kill. I think he said that it was his dad that told him that if you have to shoot someone that you need to shoot to kill. Well that is my question. Should you really shoot to kill? A buddy of mine took a class once that was instructed by a highly respected SWAT trainer, he told the class to shoot to kill. I guess the SWAT guy had to shoot someone in the line of duty and wasn’t shooting to kill and injured the person very badly. A month later the guy he shot came back and sued him and almost won. Then a couple months ago I was talking to a guy on the ol ham radio that was on his way into Denver for additional SWAT training. I asked him that question and he responded with, “Never shoot to kill, always shoot to stop!” What do you guys think? I personally think that that if I was ever in a situation were I had to fire on someone, it would be to kill, especially if my family was in danger. But then again I guess I’ll never know unless that does take place.

Diesel

"I shot to stop the threat" is what you will tell the grand jury.

Riddle me this, Batman: what the fastest and surest way to stop the threat?

I agree. "shoot to stop the threat". If that means that you put two in the heart and one in the head, so be it. Shoot to kill sounds bloodthirsty. "He shot to kill my client with that hairtrigger black Glock combat assault pistol, suited for nothing but combat killing"...

Of course, a Ranger instructor of mine always said, "Take no prisoners" and "Never leave witnesses".

In our CHL class, the instructor really emphasized that we should only shoot to stop the aggression. If in the process the perp dies, then tough luck!

IMHO, if you are reduced to shooting someone, it is because you desperately need them to [b]stop doing what they are doing[/b].  For me, this would require a situation which threatens my safety or the safety of those I love.  In my mind, shooting to stop is more important than shooting to kill.  You're not hunting in a situation like this.  It is not acceptable to wound the bad guy and hope he bleeds out so you can field dress him and drag him home to put in the freezer.  [b]You want him to stop.  [red]Now.[/red][/b]  That requires 1) trauma to the central nervous system ([red]best[/red]) or 2) catastrophic blood loss (aorta, carotid arteries) which very quickly results in unconsiousness ([orange]better than nothing[/orange]).  You don't stop shooting until the bad guy stops moving.

The same applies in fighting without a firearm.  If it's important enough to get in a fight over, you don't half-ass it.  You stop fighting when the other guy can't move.  Fortunately, it's easier to "fight to stop" without killing someone than it is to "shoot to stop" without killing them.

In my CCW class, we were taught to SHOOT TO KILL. Mainly because if you actually have the presence of mind to pull out that tricked-out 1911-or-whatever of yours, take careful aim, and shoot the kneecaps off the perp, AND ACTUALLY BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT YOU "SHOT TO STOP THE THREAT, NOT KILL THE THREAT" YOU WILL BE ARRESTED FOR MAIMING THE INDIVIDUAL. You WILL end up in jail and court. If you actually pull off successfully stopping the perp with a well-placed knee or thigh shot, when asked, proclaim, "I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE, SO I SHOT. I WAS SHOOTING TO KILL. I'D LIKE TO TALK TO MY LAWYER NOW". So what if the LEOs give you shit for lousy shooting. NEVER ADMIT THAT YOU SHOT TO DISABLE YOUR ASSAILANT. At least that's how it is here in AZ. [pistol]

The source that told you to shoot to stop was correct.  Shooting to stop does not imply attempting to "wing" the attacker.   Shooting to stop means shooting at the center of the vital area, until the attacker stops his violent activity.  If he's dead, dying, or  maimed, too bad.  The point is YOU stopped using deadly force at the point he was no longer a threat.  

It's a fact of life, if he lives, you will most likely be sued in civil court.  Demonstrating that you know, and correctly applied the laws regarding use of deadly force is your best defense in that situation.

If you keep a gun for self defense, you need to accept that using it for that purpose WILL change your life as you know it (and not in a positve way.)  

Weigh that againt not using it, and changing the lives of your loved ones in just as dramatic a way, when you are yanked out of their lives.

"Shooting to kill" would imply walking over to the downed, but still living, former attacker and popping two more in his head.  That makes you the aggresor and guilty of using excessive force, if not outright murder.

To add to Aimless' comments on what to say to Police I would add:

That man attacked me (Cops only see victims and perps, you MUST claim the mantle of victim despite the bloody mess you've left lying in the hall)

I was in fear of my life, he had (insert a means of inflicting death, or grave bodily harm)and he was atempting to hit/shoot/cut me with it.  (To legally use deadly force, the attacker must have the means and intent to cause grave bodily harm or death.)

This person, that person, and that person there were witnesses.  (if appliciable.  If there are witnesses they will be interviewed anyway.  It won't hurt for you to identify those you know saw what transpired.)

Officer, you know how serious this is.  I will continue to cooperate with you, but would like to have my lawyer present before saying anymore.

I'd then get a lawyer, and have them hire Mas Ayoob as an expert witness.  He can point you to lawyers that have defended self-defense shooting cases.

Let's face it.  Most lawyers only have experince getting guilty people off and will not know how to handle you standing up in court saying :I shot him, and under the same circumstances, I'd shoot him again."  

Most Lawyers have far more experience using the  SODDI/TODDI defenses that are not open to you having survived a self defense shooting.

Did the assaliant have opportunity ? ability ? were you in jeopardy ? and did you exaust your means of escape ?

If you can answer yes to those questions, no jury in the world will convict you(except maybe a SF jury) Still, always say shoot to stop or disable, even if you did intend to kill.(I was attempting to disable the subject when I emptied a full mag into his torso)

i say if you shoot at them, kill em. not only for the law suit thing. if i guy breaks into my house, he has a bat, and i shoot him say in the leg. well, cops come, and on the way to the hospital this Ahole dies. bleeds to death (think blackhawkdown). now i go to court, and i obviously didnt belive my life was in enough danger to justify taking a life (that seems to be the requirment in lot of states), however, the guy is dead by my hand. basicly, shooting him in the leg said "deadly force wasnt justified" but i still ended up killing him. after a leanthy court battle with some libral pig using the leg shot as ammo, you in up in OZ bunking with a neo-nazi that makes a playground in your ass.

if you had just shot the guy centermass, hew threateded you, you feared for the lives of you and your family, and now hes dead.

IMHO

well, in a walking-on-the-street siutation, if i have to pull my firearm for protection, it's as a last resort.  it means every other thing i've done to avoid being a target/victim has failed.  if i have to pull that firearm, my life and limb or that of someone else is in imminent danger.  at this point, i'm shooting to kill.

in a home invastion situation, an intruder found in my home [i]will be FOUND in my home[/i], if you get my meaning.

however, if i heard a bump in the garage or outside the home, and showing my firearm was enough to stop the intrustion/theft/vandalism, that's good enough for me.  ideally, i'd be able to keep the bad guy there for the police, but if he went running away, so be it.  while i'd love to rid this world of one less thug, i'm not sure it's my right to do so in this kind of situation.  even if the law says i can.

Thanks everyone for all the info. I was just currious what you all had in mind when in came down to it. Thanks again!!!

Diesel

If I ever have to do it, and I hope that day never comes, that assnugget wont ever be found. Why involve the law and have to put up with their shit? Find a secluded spot and bury that turd. Of course you'd have to live in the sticks like me. I aint risking any law suit.

Oh yeah. Don't bother to tell me how wrong I am and how the boogey man/police are gonna make it worse on me if I get caught. I aint buying it.

In Texas the law allows for the use of deadly force to protect one's property at "night".

Dusk to Dawn I guess?

Interesting though during daylight hours it's only justified to protect one's life. (or maybe other innocents)

Exactly.  It's all in the wording...

As I told my girlfriend....the time to stop shooting is when the hammer falls on empty air.......

hound: Ditto here. My girlfriend carries a .380 but has "automatic fever" anyway, so she ALWAYS shoots 'til it's empty. You oughta see the smile on her face when she shoots the AR with a 30 rounder in it....priceless!

I'm glad I live in Texas...

People have mentioned justification, and that is key to not being prosecuted in the event that you have to use deadly force.  Be sure that if you're going to carry a firearm (CCW or not) or if you're even going to have one ready at home for self defense, that you KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS regarding the use of deadly force.

In Texas, I like the way it is, in that, when someone enters your residence against your will, all bets are off.  You can kill them on the spot.  Reason being is that you CANNOT retreat, and within your own home, you should not have to wait for any further justification.   There are some other nice justifications in Texas too, but I need to brush up on them.  Hopefully I'll be doing my CHL stuff soon, so I'll definitely learn the right stuff there.  

M@

You should have seen psyren shooting donR's m-16 or the MP-5............

Shot to the central nervous system (hard to do under stress)?

A shot that breaks the pelvis will also instantly render the bad guy unable to walk (easier to do under stress).  

I don't know If I am allowed two answers but there you have it.

On the street, you shoot to kill. In the courtroom you say "shot to stop". No difference except the wording.