What is your objective in a self-defense shooting?

[eapking]

Unless you go for the arm/leg shot. seems like your shooting to kill to me. Call it what you want.

This is "shooting to injure" which is not the same concept as "stop the threat". NEVER SHOOT TO INJURE!

"Stopping the threat" is the concept in HCP training (classroom). Aiming for center-mass is the goal in HCP testing (range).

If I happen to kill someone in trying to stop the threat (while aiming for center mass) - then so be it.

[Guest crotalus01]

Stupid poll. The intent when drawing is ALWAYS to shoot to kill. At least, it should be if you train. You never shoot at a person with any intent but to kill, thats why we train to aim center mass. Arm/leg shots are ultra low percentage shots even when not under the stress brought on by a shootout.

I shoot to kill. If I wing him and he gives up thats awesome. If I miss and he runs away thats awesome. If I ventilate him and he dies, thats awesome too.

To clarify - if you are scared for your life, and you have even remedial training, when you draw and shoot you are aiming center mass with the initail intention to kill, regardless of the outcome.

edit to add I pray every night that I am never in a situation where I have to make that decision, but if I am I am prepared.

[Punisher84]

There's a whole big bag of dumb sitting in this thread. YOU DO NOT SHOOT TO KILL. YOU DO NOT SHOOT TO WOUND. YOU SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT.

You guys that are sitting here saying your intent is "to kill" may find yourself in a very unsatisfactory light to a jury using that terminology.

[daddyo]

Stupid poll. The intent when drawing is ALWAYS to shoot to kill. At least, it should be if you train. You never shoot at a person with any intent but to kill, thats why we train to aim center mass. Arm/leg shots are ultra low percentage shots even when not under the stress brought on by a shootout.

I shoot to kill. If I wing him and he gives up thats awesome. If I miss and he runs away thats awesome. If I ventilate him and he dies, thats awesome too.

To clarify - if you are scared for your life, and you have even remedial training, when you draw and shoot you are aiming center mass with the initail intention to kill, regardless of the outcome.

edit to add I pray every night that I am never in a situation where I have to make that decision, but if I am I am prepared.

What's stupid about it? How is the question not legitimate?

And, if your primary objective is to shoot to kill, then you really don't need to be carrying.

[daddyo]

Deadly force is either authorized or not folks. You are either justified to use it or not. If you are not justified you are screwed either way that you answer this poll. If you are justified then it doesn't matter how you answer this poll.

You can play semantics all you want, but it really doesn't change facts: you were either justified or not.

Deadly force is justified in a real life self defense situation (where you fear for your life). But someone who thinks that they MUST kill the attacker to survive needs to re-evaluate their reasons for carrying.

If the attacker flees when I draw my weapon, then I have stopped the threat. If he continues his attack, and I fire and put him down, then I have neutralized the threat regardless of whether he lives or not.

But if one keeps shooting after the threat has been stopped, then that's murder, plain and simple.

[E4 No More]

Deadly force is justified in a real life self defense situation (where you fear for your life). But someone who thinks that they MUST kill the attacker to survive needs to re-evaluate their reasons for carrying.

If the attacker flees when I draw my weapon, then I have stopped the threat. If he continues his attack, and I fire and put him down, then I have neutralized the threat regardless of whether he lives or not.

But if one keeps shooting after the threat has been stopped, then that's murder, plain and simple.

If by drawing the attacker flees then you are no longer justified now are you? I believe that I made that distinction when I said that you are either justified or not.

If you are justified you cannot be sued, so your intent doesn't matter regardless of what you post on a gun forum. Deadly force is deadly force, and you were either justified or you weren't when you use it. End of story.

[lowbud]

If by drawing the attacker flees then you are no longer justified now are you? I believe that I made that distinction when I said that you are either justified or not.

If you are justified you cannot be sued, so your intent doesn't matter regardless of what you post on a gun forum. Deadly force is deadly force, and you were either justified or you weren't when you use it. End of story.

You are not correct here. Family can file wrongful death case against you justified or not. Anyone can sue for anything.. Remember that..

[E4 No More]

You are not correct here. Family can file wrongful death case against you justified or not. Anyone can sue for anything.. Remember that..

Wrong. Argue that with the lawyers on the forum. I've already asked Stegall about it.

[lowbud]

Wrong. Argue that with the lawyers on the forum. I've already asked Stegall about it.

Interesting.. So I wonder how people who have been acquitted of murder been sued for wrongful death. For example, OJ..

Seems to me any case will go to court if someone is willing to persue it.

Maybe not.. I have no idea.. Don't want to find out either...

[Guest db99wj]

Interesting.. So I wonder how people who have been acquitted of murder been sued for wrongful death. For example, OJ..

Seems to me any case will go to court if someone is willing to persue it.

Maybe not.. I have no idea.. Don't want to find out either...

1. You can be taken to court.

2. If determined that it was justified, no lawyer in their right mind would pursue this thing, Judge would kill it.

3. Don't want to find out either.

The family could pursue it on their own, file the papers, etc, but it would not end up like they want. I would like to think that the judge would make them pay for your expenses, not sure if they could or not.

INAL so YMMV

I do not want to kill anyone, I will stop them at all costs, until the threat is neutralized.

[daddyo]

Wrong. Argue that with the lawyers on the forum. I've already asked Stegall about it.

It happens all the time. If a judge is willing to hear the case, then it will go to court.

[Guest Letereat!]

I dont think you should have any illusions, if you are gonna discharge your firearm at onther person you should assume they are going to die.

[Guest David865]

To kill or to stop the threat?

The op question is short and simple. He didn't ask any other question such as if your attacker runs away when you draw or if you wound them and they stop should you continue firing. If the situation is a true self defense shooting your only goal is to stop the threat.

[Guest db99wj]

I think what many are failing to understand, that the ones that are saying "Shoot until the threat is stopped" are saying that they will shoot, until the threat is gone, and if the threat dies, then so be it. But their INTENT is not to KILL someone.

Like I have said, I have no problems stopping a threat and if they die because of them being stopped, so be it. I don't want to kill anyone, I will stop the threat.

For those that say "To Kill", you need to think about that kind of statement in court. If there is a question on it being justified and your stance is "To Kill", then I could see a lawyer/prosecutor tearing you a new one. If your stance is "to eliminate the threat" than that takes away the to kill someone avenue which I don't think anyone of us wants to go down

[Guest don_m]

1. You can be taken to court.

2. If determined that it was justified, no lawyer in their right mind would pursue this thing, Judge would kill it.

Need to consider that the standard is much lower in a civil suit:

Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt

Civil = preponderance of the evidence (could be 50.01%)

It's entirely possible (like OJ) to be acquitted and lose everything. You're at risk unless the civil suit is barred by the law as it is in some states -- but even then it may not apply if the prosecutor simply declines to file charges rather than explicitly deeming the shooting "justified." If a lawyer sees $$$ in it (your house and 401(k) for example), it's gonna get expensive even in the best of circumstances.

[lowbud]

Need to consider that the standard is much lower in a civil suit:

Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt

Civil = preponderance of the evidence (could be 50.01%)

It's entirely possible (like OJ) to be acquitted and lose everything. You're at risk unless the civil suit is barred by the law as it is in some states -- but even then it may not apply if the prosecutor simply declines to file charges rather than explicitly deeming the shooting "justified." If a lawyer sees $$$ in it (your house and 401(k) for example), it's gonna get expensive even in the best of circumstances.

exactly..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think what many are failing to understand, that the ones that are saying "Shoot until the threat is stopped" are saying that they will shoot, until the threat is gone, and if the threat dies, then so be it. But their INTENT is not to KILL someone.

Like I have said, I have no problems stopping a threat and if they die because of them being stopped, so be it. I don't want to kill anyone, I will stop the threat.

For those that say "To Kill", you need to think about that kind of statement in court. If there is a question on it being justified and your stance is "To Kill", then I could see a lawyer/prosecutor tearing you a new one. If your stance is "to eliminate the threat" than that takes away the to kill someone avenue which I don't think anyone of us wants to go down

Without any legal hocus-pocus that's what I meant when I voted kill.

If you have to draw a weapon to fire it, it's already gone too far to worry about whether they live or die. It's got to do with protecting yourself.

This poll should have been worded differently.

I would only say to the officer, "I was in fear for my life. I wish to talk to my lawyer".

[E4 No More]

It happens all the time. If a judge is willing to hear the case, then it will go to court.

As I said, argue that with the lawyers. The law is pretty clear: If the shooting was justified they cannot sue you. Mr. Stegall says they'd have a pissant's chance in hell of finding someone who would take their case to challenge it without all the cash up front, and then they'd end up paying your costs too.

[Volzfan]

I was looking for an option that was simply for me and all that are with me to survive.

[Smith]

It happens all the time. If a judge is willing to hear the case, then it will go to court.

Really? All the time?

I just don't understand why this has turned into some high moral argument.

Define deadly force. Define the purpose of a gun.

If you shoot, the intent is to kill. There is no argument about that. That is the base principal behind all this. Now, trying to word this as if there are HCP holders out there looking to kill somebody is exactly what the anti's try to do. I seriously doubt anyone here, myself included, every wants to take a life but if I draw and fire that is exactly what I'm ready to do.

I'm sorry if there are those who think guns are LTL tools, because if they do they will probably be the ones who end up in court. Not those of us who understand the potential and seriousness of self preservation and protection.

[Guest db99wj]

Need to consider that the standard is much lower in a civil suit:

Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt

Civil = preponderance of the evidence (could be 50.01%)

It's entirely possible (like OJ) to be acquitted and lose everything. You're at risk unless the civil suit is barred by the law as it is in some states -- but even then it may not apply if the prosecutor simply declines to file charges rather than explicitly deeming the shooting "justified." If a lawyer sees $$$ in it (your house and 401(k) for example), it's gonna get expensive even in the best of circumstances.

Exactly, that is why I put in their "if their is a question about it being justified or not", if you are saying to kill, than you have a hard road ahead of you.

I'm not saying you can't be sued, I'm saying, that if I am being questioned, I'm in court being questioned by an opposing attorney, I would much rather be on record of saying, "I feared for my life, I fired to eliminate the threat" versus "I killed".

Either way, be prepared to spend some money, whether it is directly, or indirectly (loss of work time)

[robbiev]

my 2 cents: My only objective in a self defense situation is to go home alive and unhurt. As long as the immediate threat has ended, I'm fine with that, regardless of how it ended.

Edited May 5, 2010 by robbiev

[daddyo]

Really? All the time?

If you shoot, the intent is to kill. There is no argument about that.

If I shoot, the intent is to stop the threat. It is NOT synonymous with taking someone's life. Period.

What training have you had? I want to avoid it at all costs.

[Smith]

If I shoot, the intent is to stop the threat. It is NOT synonymous with taking someone's life. Period.

What training have you had? I want to avoid it at all costs.

So far you haven't answered anything just thrown out ignorance and naive theory. If you want PC speak you will find many to accommodate you and ease your sensitive emotions. This thread was started on out of context statements and raw assumptions that had nothing to do with your characterization. My views and ideas are well represented through numerous threads. I again go back to my first comment that you use proper context, search function, and reading comprehension. At 55 I would hope these things haven't eluded you.

I have never said they are synonymous, but reality is what it is. Define deadly force. Define the purpose of a gun. Define SD shooting. Quote the NRA safety rules. All those encompass the deadly nature of the tool and the proper mentality to use them. If you think using or carrying a gun is anything less than a lethal tool, you are a fool. I understand it as such and respect it as such.

[Smith]

DaddyO, I also find it odd that you keep going on about this yet in your profile I see you carry a .45 and under Carry #2 you say anything but a mousegun. If you're so intent on preserving life in a shooting, shouldn't you be carrying a small caliber that would greatly reduce the risk of a fatality. After all, you intent is only to stop the threat. Wouldn't a .32 or .22 do that just as well?

Maybe you can get your choral group to sing Kum ba ya with you and ease your mind a bit.