Shoot to Disarm vs. Shoot to Kill

[TheWall]

When you say , shoot to disarm, I assume the other person has a weapon. Unless you are the worlds best shot, I suggest you shoot center mass to kill. Shooting the weopon out of a persons hand, or hitting them in a place that disables them isn't likely. If you miss you're dead meat. Even a person shot center mass could get a shot off. So don't just stand there. Move away and be prepared to shoot again. When you think it's safe, then disarm them and render aid.

[knightRider]

bam bam bam . hello 911 i just shot an intruder could you please send aid.

[gunney_m]

Shoot to kill, better to be tried by12 then carried by6.

[lefty o]

if you decide you are in enough trouble that you are required to pull the trigger, you shoot to terminate the threat. a wounded person can still do serious harm to you.

[burd1959]

if you make me pull it your getting shot and not to wound either no hard feelings but my life or the perps im going out shooting

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Originally Posted by Triggerjerk

If you are following the laws of engagemant in your state, that is probably not a felony.

I would hold them, if possible, with force; however if they ran not much you could really do but run after them.

Then call the police immediately and report the situation. Even if they beat you to the phone and report you for pulling on them you can counter this with your statements and it beats walking down the street and being manhandled by the cops because you felt it wasn't necessary to bother them with paperwork.

[neophyte]

triggerjerk: Sir; ambiguous as it seems; that is the way the NC Law is written. Away from your property; your first line of defense is to take a step away;
not given that ability; what-ever means available to you. Warning shot; a Felony; shooting to wound; a Felony; covering without pulling the trigger; a Felony.
Immanent Threat? [perceived?] is the Law; to Self Defense

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Originally Posted by neophyte

Warning shot; a Felony; shooting to wound; a Felony; covering without pulling the trigger; a Felony.
Immanent Threat? [perceived?] is the Law; to Self Defense

Can you post the law please?

You may only use deadly force to prevent death or harm from coming to yourself or others. Once you pull the gun; if the threat is eliminated by the mere sight of the weapon then you have no duty to fire and will be committing a felony if you do so. I believe your law may be referring to pulling your weapon on someone when there is no immediate threat; for instance showing off or grandstanding.

[cubbieman]

Originally Posted by jashoffa

Good point Spocahp Anar, I was going to say something along the same lines. The fact of the matter is that most training teaches shoot center mass. That is the biggest target, that is likely to end in death so I checked shoot to kill on the post.

i did the same. I'm not going to be shooting at someone's arm, if they are a threat you don't know how you will react in that situation, and if you shoot at limbs there is the possibility of hitting something in the background you didn't intend to hit, i think most of us could hit a chest, that is the biggest target, and also the thickest, which could be nice for someone who likes the .40 like TT

[neophyte]

SPOCAHP: Sir; go to NC DOJ.org;
Ambiguous as it seems; the law is clear.
1. Pulled gun doesn't imply covering
2. shooting to wound? leaves much to "immanent" threat interpretation.
3. immanent threat? open for interpretation.
"perceived immanent threat" is the answer, and question

Statue 14-51-1 it is even stated ambiguous
Statue 14-277.1 Communicating a Threat or perceived?
other statues are available

[gunney_m]

I think shoot to kill comes in when there is a shooter or a knife weilding maniac(crackhead), tried by 12 then carried by 6.

[Windwalker]

Shoot until the threat is eliminated. Then call EMT, the police, and your lawyer. Don't discuss the shooting with the police or Anyone Else without your attorney present and give him time to advise you whether or not to answer the question before you start to talk.

[TexasT]

Originally Posted by cubbieman

i did the same. I'm not going to be shooting at someone's arm, if they are a threat you don't know how you will react in that situation, and if you shoot at limbs there is the possibility of hitting something in the background you didn't intend to hit, i think most of us could hit a chest, that is the biggest target, and also the thickest, which could be nice for someone who likes the .40 like TT

I would never think about shooting for somebody's limb. My concern is whether to shoot in the abdomen or aim at the chest where the most damage could be done (where the heart is).

[Triggerjerk]

Neophyte, if everything's a felony as you say...and I have no reason to doubt that NC laws are written poorly...some are, you need to move to NH. This is a "shall issue" state and the laws are pretty clear. If you're in reasonable fear for your life or seriously bodily harm, here, and you cannot safely retreat, as required by NH law, it's not a felony, here, to pull your gun. Move up here, brother.

New Hampshire was chosen by the Free State Movement as the state that they all pledged to move to because of our non-intrusive political climate. That got me a good gun attorney from NJ who moved here.

[samuel]

Why are we consentrating on shooting people and where is best place. All we have to do is make sure we can hit a paper target.From experience I know people have trouble even shooting at all when in a life threatening situation.And then if they do the shots go all over.When we dwell on shooting someone and where, it looks like we are running around trying to find someone to shoot and what the safest way is to do it. Others are intitled to their opinion but this is mine. sam.

[Longshot]

If I have to pull a weapon, training will kick in and he'll be dead not me.

[Triggerjerk]

samuel, I respect your opinion. In an open forum like this, many of us will have to agree to disagree, because there are a lot of different opinions and personalities. We have not agreed on several technical areas like the .357/.38 thread, and my .410 shotgun post. They are better threads by having all of our opinions for the members to consider.

[ezearln]

It's a question of semantics I believe, and I believe in all reality there should have been a third option in the poll. In the mid to late 70's for reasons still unclear to me the Navys rules of deadly force where ammended as follows:

Deadly Force: Deadly Force is that force which a person of reasonable intelligence and understanding uses knowing it may cause death or serious bodily harm, it is used as a means of last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Warning shots are neither authorized nor desirable, shots shall be directed so as to disable rather than kill but if circumstances preclude such precision it shall not preclude the use of Deadly Force.

Then in I believe it was late 1982 or early 83 they were ammended again this time someone with a larger slice of sense was doing the writing.

Deadly Force: Deadly Force is that force which a person of reasonable intelligence and understanding uses knowing it may cause death or serious bodily harm, it is used as a means of last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Warning shots are neither authorized nor desirable, shots shall be directed so as to stop the subject, shots shall not be taken if innocent bystanders would be jeopardized by such fire, however in protection of Nuclear Weapons or Materials such consideration does not preclude the use of Deadly Force.

I think it important to note that even the Department of the Navy felt a need to change the wording in order to clarify the INTENT of the use of deadly force, we as vets and civilians in todays ever more litigious enviroment, especially those of us who lawfully carry under a CCW permit or carry or conceal weapons within and/or about our homes and property to be used against those who would harm us need to completely understand what the INTENT is when using Deadly Force in defense of ourselves or others in immediate peril. Our Intent is to protect ourselves and loved ones and STOP our assailant from completing his or her unlawful attack preventing our own or our loved ones death(s) or serious bodily injury.

While we may not appreciate the sepentine minds of todays Lawyers, we do need to be certain we are on solid legal ground any and every time we even consider that Deadly Force is required and if we (God Forbid) find ourselves without any other recourse than to defend ourselves and our families from a violent attack then we shoot to stop and only to stop, directing fire at what many of us here have been trained to do professionally, Center-of-Mass and once the threat IS stopped we stop firing and get medical assistance for our assailant(s) and summon Law Enforcement as soon as possible.
If our assailant dies as a result of HIS or HER unlawful acts, we regret being forced to defend our own but we didn't Intend to kill our Intent was to Stop the attack and prevent our or others serious injury or death.

[rondog]

My personal opinion is exactly the same as Spocaph Anar's. Shoot to stop the threat, that's all. You're not trying to kill, wound, or capture, you're trying to prevent injury or death to yourself or another innocent person. Defense against a threat. We're not cops or vigilantes, just citizens with weapons permits to defend ourselves, our families, or other innocent people in life-threatening danger.

If he dies, oh well.

And DON'T try to be a crime-fighter! If you're in a store and an armed robber comes in, you have NO authority to try and stop him, unless he fires first or hurts somebody. Just my opinion, but I'd really like to hear a definitive answer on that one from some of the LEO's/lawyers here.

[Triggerjerk]

Unfortunately, in Massachussetts you have to evacuate your home if an intruder comes in. You cannot defend it. In NH you are required to retreat if at all possible on the street, but you can stay and defend your home. State laws vary.