Shoot to Disarm vs. Shoot to Kill - Page 3

ezearln · 10-08-2007, 07:52 PM

Unfortunately rondog should you be so unlucky as to be in a store or gas station or bank during a robbery chances are about 50-50 you're on the victims list already and it may be wholly out of your hands whether or not you become "Involved"

GoodAim · 10-08-2007, 08:02 PM

Well, I for one will fire my gun until I feel no longer threatened. Once I feel safe and sure that the person will not attack me then I will stop check for a pulse and call 911. I feel that it will be difficult no matter what you decide to do in this situation. If you shoot someone and they live you better have a damn good lawyer. Nuf Said.

Calvin · 10-08-2007, 08:49 PM

Shoot to remove the threat! Then call 911. Upon arrival of the police, state you want to see a doctor and consult your attorney. End of discussion for at least 10 days so you have time to get your story buttoned up and everything in order.
Rondog, in Ohio any citizen may make a citizen's arrest as long as there is a felony in progress. As far as intervening in a robbery attempt, only if you can articulate your actions to the grand jury. The Good Samaritan Law does preside here and will protect you (for the most part) in attempting to stop/prevent a felony.
However, you have to make absolutely certain that you know what you're doing and know for 100% it is a legit felony! There are many wonderful stories of citizens "aiding" someone they thought was getting the snot kicked out of them by goons and the "goons" were actually undercover cops in the middle of a raid!
My advice, as an LEO, is this- unless it's actually happening to you, try not to interfere in those circumstances. Observe, call the police and advise of the situation. If you are 110% sure an innocent is about to have serious bodily harm/death, then you can act accordingly. Just be prepared to go to a grand jury and have your lawyer on standby. The cops will try to tear your story apart (it's part of the job) and look for any inconsistencies in your statements. For God's sake, if you acted in what you honestly thought was the best/most appropriate way and something (God forbid!) goes horribly wrong, DO NOT LIE ABOUT ANYTHING to try to relieve some of the pressure on you!!! People hang for that every day!! Tell the truth no matter what!!! You may not skate, but it will be a lot easier on you-trust me!!!

DrBoomBoom · 10-08-2007, 09:36 PM

Excellent info Calvin, thanks.

I didn't vote, because neither killing nor disarming would be my goal. You can kill a man but not stop him from killing or hurting you before he expires, you can stop a man but not necessarily disarm him or kill him. I agree with my CCW instructor, as well as several of y'all here: shoot the center of mass until the treat is stopped. Whether this happens to kill or disarm is insignificant

ezearln · 10-08-2007, 10:30 PM

TJ fortunately for us in Texas the Castle Doctrine is now the law (Thank God), many counties and local juristictions had been observing it without the formality of a State Statute. How ever now we as lawabiding citizens no longer have to retreat or flee or abandon either our homes or vehicles before we defend ourselves. We can order the attacker from our homes property and if the attack continues can use force as necessary to resolve the threat (that doesn't automatically imply deadly force) but again our intent is to stop/resolve the threat at hand, not to kill or injure.

neophyte · 10-09-2007, 05:55 AM

Triggerjerk; Sir; thanks for the invite. NC law is what it is. We can defend ourselves, using the ambiguity of the law.
The misconception/misunderstanding comes in with
"perceived imminent threat" now what the h$ll does that mean? 12 reasonable neighbors in the same situation; what would you do? Jury's are bound by 'reasonable' What does that mean?
As a card carrying CC, law abiding, neighbor; my response shouldn't have to take into account the ramification of "perceived"
The subsection @DOJ continues on from the ones I posed earlier. Reading them will cause you alarm, with any thought of helping a neighbor.
Defend 'yourself/neighbor'
Remove the 'threat'
'reasonable intelligence'
'clarify intent'
I could go on: Having been in hostile situations; watching my comrades; each made decisions; would/should/will I react/perceive the same threat? Most do not know how they would handle hostile situations; we can only imagine our response. If you have time to think through any given situation; you may be in violation of the law.
Bizzare as it may seem; the more you prepare the more likely you will put yourself into the "perceived" group.

2b41 · 11-30-2007, 02:58 PM

Shoot to stop.

gunney_m · 11-30-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2b41

Shoot to stop.

Why? They put there self in that position.

SilentSoul · 11-30-2007, 03:16 PM

Because you can not legally "shoot to kill" in some states you have to shot to stop the threat. Weather you want to kill him or not. Go in to court and tell them you shot him to kill him. That will go over great.

damage855 · 11-30-2007, 03:18 PM

shoot to stop the action. if you dont beleive me ask the guy who you shoot lawyer.

shoot to disharm... must have not been that dangerous.
shoot to kill... what are you some ninja assain.
shoot to stop... well uh uh uh i quess you where uh uh.

gunney_m · 11-30-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentSoul

Because you can not legally "shoot to kill" in some states you have to shot to stop the threat. Weather you want to kill him or not. Go in to court and tell them you shot him to kill him. That will go over great.

I wont tell them that but if they are in the house thy're paid for.

BattleRifleG3 · 11-30-2007, 04:40 PM

The only reason to shoot to wound/disarm is if you're a highly skilled agent of LE or military and need someone alive. You risk yourself or innocents being killed, and the only reason to take that risk is if the person knows something that may harm many more innocents.

Shooting in self defense, while not having killing in mind, should be aimed where it is most likely to hit - center of mass, which happens to have a good chance of being lethal. If you have the choice to shoot for limbs you probably have an equally good chance to run away.

gunney_m · 11-30-2007, 05:01 PM

Well the way I see it is it's me or him.....

two-70 · 11-30-2007, 05:17 PM

shoot till the threat has ceased

gunney_m · 11-30-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by two-70

shoot till the threat has ceased

Exactly, it may or may not call for deadly force.

K75RT · 11-30-2007, 06:38 PM

When I worked in the Bureau of Prisons our firearms training was on reduced targets at 100yds. We were told to "shoot to disable the threat" very simple and very unoffensive in court. Our handgun and shotgun training was on targets at point blank, 7 yds, 15 yds, 25 yds. Again were were told to shoot to disable the threat. I like the term as it is not "macho" and it really tells what you are trying to do. Any one who says in a court of law that they are shooting to kill will lose

HEMI · 11-30-2007, 07:12 PM

Everyone that carrys a gun or uses one for personal protection needs to know the law and take a good lethal force defence course. Shoot someone even if you did everything by the book YOU WILL END UP IN COURT YOU MAY BE CHARGED YOU MAY BE SUED BY THE ASSAILANTS FAMILY. This is a fact.I didn't take the poll because Shoot to stop the threat wasn't there, and it is the only choice we as the law abiding have. If the assailant dies that is an unfortunate outcome but it was his choice.
If you answered the poll at all you need to re-evaluate why you have a gun for self defence!!!!

gunney_m · 11-30-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEMI

Everyone that carrys a gun or uses one for personal protection needs to know the law and take a good lethal force defence course. Shoot someone even if you did everything by the book YOU WILL END UP IN COURT YOU MAY BE CHARGED YOU MAY BE SUED BY THE ASSAILANTS FAMILY. This is a fact.I didn't take the poll because Shoot to stop the threat wasn't there, and it is the only choice we as the law abiding have. If the assailant dies that is an unfortunate outcome but it was his choice.
If you answered the poll at all you need to re-evaluate why you have a gun for self defence!!!!

Ooook?

HEMI · 11-30-2007, 07:24 PM

Gunney what don't you understand?

Dookiebutt · 11-30-2007, 08:53 PM

Seems easy to me. Take the threat out. I am neither shooting to kill or shooting to disarm.

View Poll Results: What would you do?
Shoot to disarm	2	1.87%
Shoot until the threat is eliminated	104	97.20%
Hadn't thought about it	1	0.93%
Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll

10-08-2007, 07:52 PM	#41
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	Unfortunately rondog should you be so unlucky as to be in a store or gas station or bank during a robbery chances are about 50-50 you're on the victims list already and it may be wholly out of your hands whether or not you become "Involved" __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

10-08-2007, 08:02 PM	#42
GoodAim Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Beaumont Tx Posts: 383	Well, I for one will fire my gun until I feel no longer threatened. Once I feel safe and sure that the person will not attack me then I will stop check for a pulse and call 911. I feel that it will be difficult no matter what you decide to do in this situation. If you shoot someone and they live you better have a damn good lawyer. Nuf Said. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Power is useless with out Direction.

10-08-2007, 08:49 PM	#43
Calvin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,000	Shoot to remove the threat! Then call 911. Upon arrival of the police, state you want to see a doctor and consult your attorney. End of discussion for at least 10 days so you have time to get your story buttoned up and everything in order. Rondog, in Ohio any citizen may make a citizen's arrest as long as there is a felony in progress. As far as intervening in a robbery attempt, only if you can articulate your actions to the grand jury. The Good Samaritan Law does preside here and will protect you (for the most part) in attempting to stop/prevent a felony. However, you have to make absolutely certain that you know what you're doing and know for 100% it is a legit felony! There are many wonderful stories of citizens "aiding" someone they thought was getting the snot kicked out of them by goons and the "goons" were actually undercover cops in the middle of a raid! My advice, as an LEO, is this- unless it's actually happening to you, try not to interfere in those circumstances. Observe, call the police and advise of the situation. If you are 110% sure an innocent is about to have serious bodily harm/death, then you can act accordingly. Just be prepared to go to a grand jury and have your lawyer on standby. The cops will try to tear your story apart (it's part of the job) and look for any inconsistencies in your statements. For God's sake, if you acted in what you honestly thought was the best/most appropriate way and something (God forbid!) goes horribly wrong, DO NOT LIE ABOUT ANYTHING to try to relieve some of the pressure on you!!! People hang for that every day!! Tell the truth no matter what!!! You may not skate, but it will be a lot easier on you-trust me!!! __________________ If you don't like cops, call your local crackhead for help next time!

10-08-2007, 09:36 PM	#44
DrBoomBoom Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Nashville TN Posts: 93	Excellent info Calvin, thanks. I didn't vote, because neither killing nor disarming would be my goal. You can kill a man but not stop him from killing or hurting you before he expires, you can stop a man but not necessarily disarm him or kill him. I agree with my CCW instructor, as well as several of y'all here: shoot the center of mass until the treat is stopped. Whether this happens to kill or disarm is insignificant __________________ NRA member Gun rights voter Moderator at Pro Guns forum

10-08-2007, 10:30 PM	#45
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,175	TJ fortunately for us in Texas the Castle Doctrine is now the law (Thank God), many counties and local juristictions had been observing it without the formality of a State Statute. How ever now we as lawabiding citizens no longer have to retreat or flee or abandon either our homes or vehicles before we defend ourselves. We can order the attacker from our homes property and if the attack continues can use force as necessary to resolve the threat (that doesn't automatically imply deadly force) but again our intent is to stop/resolve the threat at hand, not to kill or injure. __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

10-09-2007, 05:55 AM	#46
neophyte Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 3,629 Blog Entries: 2	Triggerjerk; Sir; thanks for the invite. NC law is what it is. We can defend ourselves, using the ambiguity of the law. The misconception/misunderstanding comes in with "perceived imminent threat" now what the h$ll does that mean? 12 reasonable neighbors in the same situation; what would you do? Jury's are bound by 'reasonable' What does that mean? As a card carrying CC, law abiding, neighbor; my response shouldn't have to take into account the ramification of "perceived" The subsection @DOJ continues on from the ones I posed earlier. Reading them will cause you alarm, with any thought of helping a neighbor. Defend 'yourself/neighbor' Remove the 'threat' 'reasonable intelligence' 'clarify intent' I could go on: Having been in hostile situations; watching my comrades; each made decisions; would/should/will I react/perceive the same threat? Most do not know how they would handle hostile situations; we can only imagine our response. If you have time to think through any given situation; you may be in violation of the law. Bizzare as it may seem; the more you prepare the more likely you will put yourself into the "perceived" group. __________________ Craig By the standards of most

11-30-2007, 02:58 PM	#47
2b41 Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 16	Shoot to stop.

11-30-2007, 03:16 PM	#49
SilentSoul Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 603 Images: 1	Because you can not legally "shoot to kill" in some states you have to shot to stop the threat. Weather you want to kill him or not. Go in to court and tell them you shot him to kill him. That will go over great.

11-30-2007, 03:18 PM	#50
damage855 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North Carolina / Lake Norman Posts: 931 Blog Entries: 1	shoot to stop the action. if you dont beleive me ask the guy who you shoot lawyer. shoot to disharm... must have not been that dangerous. shoot to kill... what are you some ninja assain. shoot to stop... well uh uh uh i quess you where uh uh. __________________ If total goverment control will make us all safer, then why are prisons so dangerous?

11-30-2007, 04:40 PM	#52
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	The only reason to shoot to wound/disarm is if you're a highly skilled agent of LE or military and need someone alive. You risk yourself or innocents being killed, and the only reason to take that risk is if the person knows something that may harm many more innocents. Shooting in self defense, while not having killing in mind, should be aimed where it is most likely to hit - center of mass, which happens to have a good chance of being lethal. If you have the choice to shoot for limbs you probably have an equally good chance to run away. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

11-30-2007, 05:01 PM	#53
gunney_m Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Muskogee,Ok Posts: 1,931	Well the way I see it is it's me or him.....

11-30-2007, 05:17 PM	#54
two-70 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: ponca city, oklahoma Posts: 1,778	shoot till the threat has ceased __________________ What Would Jesus Do ????? Just Ask Him.

11-30-2007, 06:38 PM	#56
K75RT Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 331	When I worked in the Bureau of Prisons our firearms training was on reduced targets at 100yds. We were told to "shoot to disable the threat" very simple and very unoffensive in court. Our handgun and shotgun training was on targets at point blank, 7 yds, 15 yds, 25 yds. Again were were told to shoot to disable the threat. I like the term as it is not "macho" and it really tells what you are trying to do. Any one who says in a court of law that they are shooting to kill will lose

11-30-2007, 07:12 PM	#57
HEMI Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 728	Everyone that carrys a gun or uses one for personal protection needs to know the law and take a good lethal force defence course. Shoot someone even if you did everything by the book YOU WILL END UP IN COURT YOU MAY BE CHARGED YOU MAY BE SUED BY THE ASSAILANTS FAMILY. This is a fact.I didn't take the poll because Shoot to stop the threat wasn't there, and it is the only choice we as the law abiding have. If the assailant dies that is an unfortunate outcome but it was his choice. If you answered the poll at all you need to re-evaluate why you have a gun for self defence!!!!

11-30-2007, 07:24 PM	#59
HEMI Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 728	Gunney what don't you understand?

11-30-2007, 08:53 PM	#60
Dookiebutt Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: America's North Coast Posts: 1,164	Seems easy to me. Take the threat out. I am neither shooting to kill or shooting to disarm.