General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Rules for a gun fight
JTH:
--- Quote from: depserv on January 06, 2015, 12:25:02 PM ---I agree with all this, except that you stop them by putting a bullet (or knife or whatever) into a vital organ like the heart or brain, or hit him with multiple bullets, because killing the person is the most likely and immediate way to stop him. If being wounded stops him, then he is no longer a threat. Saying that you are shooting to stop a threat instead of shooting to kill sounds like doublespeak. Even though your purpose is to stop the threat, you stop it by using what is called lethal force (maybe we should call it stopping force). The phrase kill or be killed has been used for a long time, and is not commonly used now because of our politically correct culture.
--- End quote ---
Huh. I don't think of it as being politically correct at all. I don't shoot to kill--because I couldn't care less if they die or not. That's completely immaterial to what I'm trying to do. (It is called lethal force because of the possibility of what it may do, not because of what the goal is. After all, rape is also defined as lethal force in many states, even though subject death is not what occurs.)
I "shoot to stop" because 1) my goal is to stop them, and 2) it tells me exactly when I've reached my goal.
If I were to say "Shoot to kill" that would be a different goal, and a very different set of criteria for when my goal is met. After all, using my method, if one shot wounded them and they stopped, then I'd stop. Using your goal, if one shot wounded them and they stopped, you'd keep shooting because you have a different goal than I do.
When they attacked me creating a lethal force situation, it means I don't care if they live or die---that's immaterial to the outcome I wish. I want to stay safe, and have them stopped. If stopped is defined as them dying, okay. If "stopped" ends up happening under other circumstances, that's good too.
I'm not acting to kill anyone. If they die, maybe they shouldn't have created a situation in which I'd be shooting at them. If they don't die, great, they stopped doing what was making me shoot at them.
Either way---I see no reason to "shoot to kill." If that's not my goal, and that's not my limit, then it isn't what I'm doing. I'm shooting to stop the attack and keep myself safe. I'll keep shooting until that goal is met. I'll stop when it is met.
If I was shooting to kill, I'd act very differently. (I note also that using a knife is a bad idea if you want to stop someone. Kill, sure, but stopping someone quickly with a knife is really difficult to do. Most knife wounds are not immediately incapacitating, even if they are lethal.)
Looking back at what you said again, this struck me:
--- Quote ---killing the person is the most likely and immediate way to stop him
--- End quote ---
Actually, no. Going by what all the research says, it is neither the most likely nor the most immediate way to stop someone who is attacking.
Sure, once he's dead he'll be stopped. But since killing him takes awhile, and lots of other things may happen before then, I'll stick with acting until he is stopped, instead of acting until he is dead. ("Acting" defined probably as putting rounds into the high torso area in most lethal force situations.)
These days, most people who are shot survive. Granted, not a lot of people aim well...
That kinda turned into an exercise in word-wrangling, but the my main point really hasn't changed: I don't "shoot to kill" because I don't care if the attacker dies or not. I care if they are stopped. Therefore, my process is to shoot to stop the attacker, which gives me a goal that works and a built-in action limiter that keeps me out of jail.
Mali:
--- Quote from: depserv on January 06, 2015, 12:25:02 PM ---The phrase kill or be killed has been used for a long time, and is not commonly used now because of our politically correct culture.
--- End quote ---
And there is the crux of the argument. If you say you are "shooting to kill" then you are looking to lose the court battle but if your intent is to "shoot to stop", even if the result is the same either way, then you are less likely to lose the court battle because you are not the "cold blooded killer" that "shoot to kill" would lead the jury to believe (thanks to the prosecuting attorney).
As much as I would love to have everything be black and white it seems that we are stuck being VERY careful about what we say because it "...can and will be used against you in a court of law."
depserv:
All good points, and I agree more than it might seem. But saying that you are shooting to stop and not shooting to kill still looks to me like a denial of what you are doing. There's a reason it's called lethal force and not stopping force. If you don't have a reason to kill a person, you don't have a reason to be pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger. If you know that you are shooting to kill, you fully understand and admit the severity of what you are doing, and I think that's really important, even though there is no doubt that your purpose is to stop the threat, and everything you do is oriented toward that end, and when the threat is no longer a threat you no longer have a reason to use lethal force, so you stop. I don't think it does any good to try to cover up the ugliness of what you are doing, no matter how justified it is.
I agree about what you say in court or to the police being important.
Mudinyeri:
I think some of the difference, besides semantics, is in the approach. Here's an extreme example of the difference:
Shooting to Kill - force the perp to kneel and put a round in the back of their head
Shooting to Stop the Threat - fire, most likely at the largest presented target (center mass), until the perp is no longer moving
The difference goes to intent. Was my intent specifically to kill the individual or to defend myself (recognizing that, in defending myself, I may end up killing the individual)?
JTH:
--- Quote from: depserv on January 06, 2015, 02:19:36 PM ---All good points, and I agree more than it might seem. But saying that you are shooting to stop and not shooting to kill still looks to me like a denial of what you are doing.
--- End quote ---
I can't stop how you take what I'm saying. I'm not "shooting to kill." That phrasing states a goal. That isn't my goal, therefore that's not what I'm doing.
If they happen to die, that happens. But that's not the goal. If you think that "shooting to stop" and "shooting to kill" have the same goal, I can't help that.
--- Quote --- There's a reason it's called lethal force and not stopping force.
--- End quote ---
As I said already, it is called lethal force because of the potential for death or serious bodily harm. (Which, I'll note, is NOT death, but we still call it lethal force.) It has nothing to do with "wanting to kill" or "expecting to kill."
And as I said, rape is considered to be a lethal-level crime, even though it has nothing to do with killing. As such, "lethal force" does not mean "killing force."
--- Quote --- If you don't have a reason to kill a person, you don't have a reason to be pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger.
--- End quote ---
Hm. And yet, that's not really precise. After all, "a reason to kill" is not the same thing as "reason to act that might cause them to end up dead." Those do not equate.
--- Quote --- If you know that you are shooting to kill, you fully understand and admit the severity of what you are doing, and I think that's really important, even though there is no doubt that your purpose is to stop the threat, and everything you do is oriented toward that end, and when the threat is no longer a threat you no longer have a reason to use lethal force, so you stop. I don't think it does any good to try to cover up the ugliness of what you are doing, no matter how justified it is.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't aware that a specific stated goal that clearly includes the possibilities of death someone covers up anything. But again, I can't stop how you decide to take what I'm saying, as clear as I'm trying to make it.
It does sound like you are adding a lot of additional meaning to my words that doesn't actually exist, though. Saying things like "If you know that you are shooting to kill, you fully understand and admit the severity of what you are doing" seems to attempt to claim that saying "I'm shooting to stop" means I don't fully understand the seriousness of what I'm doing, or that I'm somehow trying to hide from "the ugliness."
It means nothing of the sort. Matter of fact, I'm thinking it means I understand clearly what is going on--and that instead of shooting until the other person is dead, I clearly understand that my goal is to stop the other person, not kill them.
Especially since "shooting to kill" in no way is actually the goal--nor does it in any way actual admit any understanding of your phrase of "when the threat is no longer a threat you no longer have a reason to use lethal force, so you stop."
My stated goal does.
When I say "Shoot to stop" it says exactly what I mean. It is clear, gives the correct goal with the correct limiter, and in no way evades any responsibility for any actions. After all, it says "shoot" and thus admits to using lethal force.
Yeah, I'm thinking that is pretty clear. If you happen to think it means something different than what it says, I can't really help that, and if you think it means the person says it hasn't taken emotional responsibility for their actions, I can't help that either.
Oddly enough, though, I tend to think it means exactly what it says.
--- Quote ---I agree about what you say in court or to the police being important.
--- End quote ---
And elsewhere. After all, things stated publicly are admissible in court.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version