Rules for a gun fight

[JTH]

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. 

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:

killing the person is the most likely and immediate way to stop him

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]

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. 

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]

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.

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.

There's a reason it's called lethal force and not stopping force.

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."

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.

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.

  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 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.

I agree about what you say in court or to the police being important.

And elsewhere.  After all, things stated publicly are admissible in court.

[JTH]

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)?

Well put.  Was the goal killing them, or stopping them?  Which did you intend to do?

[Dan W]

Stating the "intent to kill" may prove an escalation of force or in some cases  premeditation, either of which can make a good shoot turn very very bad. We have many cases recently where a good initial shoot ended up in a murder conviction when the initial victim did not stop using lethal force when deemed reasonable and proper by a jury

[Mudinyeri]

Well put.  Was the goal killing them, or stopping them?  Which did you intend to do?

The apocalypse is near.  Thomas and I agree on something. 

[JTH]

The apocalypse is near.  Thomas and I agree on something. 

It is kinda different, isn't it? 

[SS_N_NE]

Semantics....lethal force is...lethal.  Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them. Even a shoot that may not normally be lethal could result in bullet fragment travel or other complications leading to death.
It is unfair that mincing of words somehow changes a situation of defense.
(Yeah...mostly for the sake of discussion.

[Mudinyeri]

Semantics....lethal force is...lethal.  Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them. Even a shoot that may not normally be lethal could result in bullet fragment travel or other complications leading to death.
It is unfair that mincing of words somehow changes a situation of defense.
(Yeah...mostly for the sake of discussion.

Rather than viewing it as "mincing of words" view it as accurately expressing your primary intent.  If, indeed, your primary intent was to kill someone ... then, by all means, clearly communicate that.  "He needed killin'" 

[sjwsti]

Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them.

Not really. Depending on the study referenced the mortality rate from gunshot wounds ranges from 20-30%. So between 70-80% of people who suffer GSWs survive. There are a number of reasons for this. The primary being that there are more places on your body that you can add an extra hole that wont kill you than will. Another is better emergency medical treatment. We regularly transport patients who have suffered previous gunshot wounds and lived to tell about it.

- Shawn

[JTH]

Semantics....lethal force is...lethal.

Actually, not normally.  (Most people who are shot don't die.)  Not really important to the argument at hand, but if people are going to keep saying that lethal force means killing (which it doesn't as a definition, as I said clearly before) I thought I'd at least point out that use of lethal force mostly DOESN'T kill anyone.

Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them. Even a shoot that may not normally be lethal could result in bullet fragment travel or other complications leading to death.

"May" kill someone and "is likely to" kill someone are two very different things, and both are wildly different from "will kill" someone.

You'd be surprised how often people DON'T die from gunshot wounds.  Non-fatal gunshot injuries from violent assaults occurred about 55,500 times in 2011, according to (fairly poor) CDC estimates.  And those are the ones that the CDC could find reports on based on a small sample size, so it is highly likely the number is far higher.

It is unfair that mincing of words somehow changes a situation of defense.

You know, if people can't tell the difference between a stated
A) goal of killing someone else
versus a
B) goal of stopping someone else from harming or killing them

...then you are correct, there isn't much else to say.

I personally don't find it to be mincing words, and find that not only is there a semantic difference, I find important conceptual and goal-oriented differences between those two statements.

Apparently, not everyone does. 

Sure, MY goal may end up with me killing my attacker.  Stated the other way, however, the goal will result in a person killing their attacker, even if it wasn't necessarily justified at the time.  I personally find that a bad way to set goals, plan for situations, and train.

[GreyGeek]

Not really. Depending on the study referenced the mortality rate from gunshot wounds ranges from 20-30%. So between 70-80% of people who suffer GSWs survive. There are a number of reasons for this. The primary being that there are more places on your body that you can add an extra hole that wont kill you than will. Another is better emergency medical treatment. We regularly transport patients who have suffered previous gunshot wounds and lived to tell about it.

- Shawn

And the probability is that between 20-30% of the patients you transport are dead.    From my POV 20-30% IS a significant chance.   If, when you went to the airport to fly somewhere, the ticket agent told you that there was a 20-30% chance your plane may crash and kill all on board would you fly anyway?  I wouldn't.

As it turns out, the survival rate of civil plane crashes, which include fatalities and is  carrying ten or more passengers,  is also between 20-30% since 1950.  The odds of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 19.8 million for the top 39 airlines and 1 in 2 million for the bottom 39.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

[dkarp]

Yes of course, shoot to stop the threat, and I guess if the person you shoot happens to die it's a totally unrelated and unfortunate coincidence.  I think this says something about our so-called justice system.

So if shooting a person in the leg might stop the threat, is that what's recommended?

Or maybe a warning shot will stop the threat, because it shows that you're really really serious about pulling the trigger.  Kind of like drawing a red line.  So should warning shots be encouraged?

More power to you if you have the presence of mind to aim and hit someone's leg or other extremity, when the adrenaline is pumping. I don't think any self defense instructor encourages "shoot to wound". What if you hit a major artery, what do you tell the police then? "I wasn't in fear of my life enough to kill him/her, just enough to shoot to wound."  It ain't like TV, folks.

[SS_N_NE]

Semantics....lethal force is...lethal.  Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them.

Like I said: for the sake of discussion.  I guess I should have said something like shooting a person has as much of chance killing them as intentionally wounding them in the sense that you can't really choose, much as you train or try. Although you may choose to stop a thread by shooting them in the leg, you could just as easily inflict a fatal wound by a leg shot (severed artery), missing and hitting a different vital area, the bullet simply picking a different path through a body or a fragment later traveling to a critical area in the blood stream.  Point being that a firearm is a lethal weapon. No matter how good you might think you are, you can not predict the end result of shooting a person. Stats DO NOT apply to your shot, your shot becomes a statistic after it is determined what became the final result.  To imagine any shot you take against a person will fall inside some sort of percentage is not how data collection works.