“Shoot to Wound” vs. “Shoot to Stop” vs. “Shoot to Kill.”

[NightShade]

http://bearingarms.com/shoot-to-wound-vs-shoot-to-stop-vs-shoot-to-kill/

I have heard a lot of things said on the subject. . . two in the chest, one in the head. . . fire till the mag is empty. . .

So what is your opinion? Someone is coming towards you and you have the right to use deadly force in defense of your life. What do you do?

 

[Rod Snell]

You stop the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury. When the threat is stopped, you stop shooting and call 911. This is the law in Oklahoma.
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2013.pdf

 

[tRidiot]

It's a simple question for me.

Shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. If a man is rushing me with a knife and I shoot him twice in the chest and he goes to the ground and drops his knife, then the threat to my life has been substantially reduced. If I then shoot him twice more while he is on the ground, well, he was no longer an imminent threat to me at that point in time - i.e., I may have just committed murder. See: Jerome Erstland.

However, if he drops to the ground, drops his knife, then gets back up and rushes me again, well, then the threat to my life has been restored. Yes, even without the knife in his hand! Plenty of instances out there where a single punch from an "unarmed" attacker has killed or completely incapacitated a victim. See: The Knockout Game. Therefore, if I am being rushed by someone of significant physical means to cause me harm, I have to assume that a single punch could incapacitate me and leave me helpless and at their mercy. See: Sgt. Mohammed Deen. I don't want to end up in that situation, therefore, from my professional (dare I claim "expert"?) medical opinion, a punch from a full-grown attacker IS equivalent to deadly force.

So I don't feel I have to wait until someone has a weapon, if they put me in fear of my life AND expresses a PHYSICAL movement toward me, I feel perfectly justified in using deadly force to counter. If you're within a reasonable distance, have given me reason to fear for my safety (not just life... remember, death OR significant bodily harm!) and attempt to convert that threat into any form of physical action, I am within my right to protect my life.

To stop the threat, but not beyond.

 

[EhlerDave]

I agree with the shoot to stop, I do not plan to shoot to kill but the biggest target in center mass. I am not medically trained but I think that is where the old pumper is located.

Now if the bad guy goes down, true he is not a threat, unless he is armed with a gun of any type, being down and not being a threat are different, thats for sure. If the bad guy can use the gun then he needs more attention.

 

[okietom]

If an attacker is dead the threat has stopped.

What I want to know is where do you aim on an attacker if you are shooting to stop? If you aim at the center of the body mass isn't that the area most likely to kill? It seems to me that the only difference is how you say it and not how you would do it.

Wait, I know, if you are shooting to stop you use a 9mm, if you are shooting to kill you use a .40 or .45. The FBI taught us that.

 

[tRidiot]

If an attacker is dead the threat has stopped.

What I want to know is where do you aim on an attacker if you are shooting to stop? If you aim at the center of the body mass isn't that the area most likely to kill? It seems to me that the only difference is how you say it and not how you would do it.

Killing is stopping. If you stop the threat before they are dead, then stop shooting. Personally, I'd like to think I had enough concentration and mental fortitude to pump 4-5 rounds of .45 (my most-frequent carry caliber) into center mass before they went down... aka rapid, controlled-fire.

Then the issue becomes a moot point. Overwhelming and instant force WILL stop the threat 99% of the time... the fact that the end result is death on top of stopping the threat is... well... moot. I don't subscribe to the "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" mentality, because I think the majority of the time you can do 4-5 rounds to center mass in the time it would take you to do 2+1. With better surety of your target. And probably be about equally as effective (as the 2+1).

I personally only know of one situation where someone took 5 (or was it 6?) rounds of .357 Magnum to center mass and still remained enough of a threat to kill the trooper who shot him. Paralyzed, laying on his back in a ditch, he still managed to kill the trooper after that with a .22 Derringer.

RIP

 

[Kid Glock]

I may be wrong but I've decided that if I'm justified in shooting someone, I'm justified in killing them.
Hope I never have to make that determination.

 

[Okie4570]

Until the threat is no longer a threat...........sometimes I carry a .380, sometimes a .45.........the number of times that I may have to pull the trigger could vary. Hopefully I never have to pull a trigger ever in that situation.

 

[saddlebum]

http://bearingarms.com/shoot-to-wound-vs-shoot-to-stop-vs-shoot-to-kill/
Someone is coming towards you and you have the right to use deadly force in defense of your life. What do you do?

you have the right to use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat up to and including deadly force if that is what is necessary

 

[Bhargrin]

When I unholster my weapon I prepare for the worse but expect the best. I am fully prepared to take a life if I am in danger, but I am also prepared to render aid if there is no danger to me.