Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
And so it begins!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ethan N" data-source="post: 3218199" data-attributes="member: 29267"><p>Oh I’m not saying you should not use the most effective means to end a threat. Certainly, going out of your way to try to only <em>injure</em> an attacker is not an effective way to stop their attack. Defending yourself with a weapon in a way that’s likely to stop an attack unfortunately requires causing wounds that are likely to result in death. But death is not the goal. It’s just sometimes the outcome. When the threat stops, your use of force must also stop, even if (or especially if) the attacker is still breathing.*</p><p></p><p>In my last post I was referring to people who go around talking about “shooting to kill” in a way that really says “if someone attacks me, I’m going to make sure they pay for it with their life.” That’s what we call “murder.” We’ve all heard those guys talk. They’re more interested in being badass than understanding the concept (and limits) of legally justified use of force. But sometimes some of us who aren’t so ignorant and do actually have a good grasp of justified force will use the phrase “shoot to kill” as a sort of shorthand for shooting in such a way as to physically incapacitate an attacker, likely resulting in their death. The problem with that is when the general public, a DA, or possibly a jury, hear “shoot to kill,” they will hear “make sure he’s dead,” not “make sure he’s stopped.” They will hear “murder,” not “self-defense.” So it’s wise to choose your words carefully to avoid any misunderstanding about your intent. Perception is reality to many people, unfortunately.</p><p></p><p>I am certainly willing to cause injuries that may result in death when that’s necessary and legally justified to stop an attack, but like I said in my last post, I don’t ever <em>want</em> or <em>intend</em> to kill someone. All I would ever set out to do is stop an attack.</p><p></p><p>* I’m not suggesting a victim should check for signs of life after defending against an attack. <img src="/images/smilies/eek.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":eek:" title="EEK! :eek:" data-shortname=":eek:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ethan N, post: 3218199, member: 29267"] Oh I’m not saying you should not use the most effective means to end a threat. Certainly, going out of your way to try to only [I]injure[/I] an attacker is not an effective way to stop their attack. Defending yourself with a weapon in a way that’s likely to stop an attack unfortunately requires causing wounds that are likely to result in death. But death is not the goal. It’s just sometimes the outcome. When the threat stops, your use of force must also stop, even if (or especially if) the attacker is still breathing.* In my last post I was referring to people who go around talking about “shooting to kill” in a way that really says “if someone attacks me, I’m going to make sure they pay for it with their life.” That’s what we call “murder.” We’ve all heard those guys talk. They’re more interested in being badass than understanding the concept (and limits) of legally justified use of force. But sometimes some of us who aren’t so ignorant and do actually have a good grasp of justified force will use the phrase “shoot to kill” as a sort of shorthand for shooting in such a way as to physically incapacitate an attacker, likely resulting in their death. The problem with that is when the general public, a DA, or possibly a jury, hear “shoot to kill,” they will hear “make sure he’s dead,” not “make sure he’s stopped.” They will hear “murder,” not “self-defense.” So it’s wise to choose your words carefully to avoid any misunderstanding about your intent. Perception is reality to many people, unfortunately. I am certainly willing to cause injuries that may result in death when that’s necessary and legally justified to stop an attack, but like I said in my last post, I don’t ever [I]want[/I] or [I]intend[/I] to kill someone. All I would ever set out to do is stop an attack. * I’m not suggesting a victim should check for signs of life after defending against an attack. :eek: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
And so it begins!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom