Lethal force means killing - THR
Lethal force means killingTHR > Social Situations > Legal > Lethal force means killing
CosmolineJuly 17, 2003, 05:37 PMI've seen this error repeated many times on many gun boards, and even in magazines. The contention is that one should avoid using firearms that are "too" lethal for personal defense. This might include shotguns, rifles, big handguns and the like. The reasoning is that in a trial, you would be grilled for trying to kill someone with your firearm rather than "stop" them.
THIS IS BUNK. Make no mistake, if you take up lethal force and use it to defend yourself, you had better not be surprised if you kill the person. Lethal means lethal. A .22 handgun is lethal force, as is a .500 Nitro Express. The business about "shoot to stop, not to kill" seems to have emerged from certain gun writers with no legal training. They were probably confusing the lethality of force with the proper use of lethal force. You must cease using lethal force the moment there is no longer an imminent deadly threat. So in this sense, you must "shoot to stop," or rather you must stop shooting the second you no longer need to kill or be killed.
For example, if you start shooting a BG who has a knife, and he tosses the knife, you must stop shooting. Ditto with the BG who drops his gun, or even the one who turns to run away. The bottom line--there is NOTHING wrong with picking a tool for defense with the best chance of killing in one shot. If you dont' think you really need to kill, DO NOT USE DEADLY FORCE. Don't try to avoid the issue by using force you wrongfully feel to be "not quite as deadly."
If you enjoyed reading about "Lethal force means killing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sdJuly 17, 2003, 05:49 PMLethal Force is that amount of force that can kill, but doesn't actually have to. There is nothing wrong with the concept of "shoot to stop". The logic being, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. If the BG happens to die as a result, too bad. If he doesn't die, then he's very lucky. "Shoot to Stop" is essentially the politically correct form of "Shoot to Kill".
No matter what you call it, if you were not justified in the use of deadly force, you are in deep poopoo.
PATHJuly 17, 2003, 06:30 PMNecessary Force is the issue I believe. Deadly Physical Force may be responded to in kind. The use thereof varies from state to state. If someone throws a punch at you it would be inappropriate to respond with a head shot. Deadly force may be used against others using such force against you or others. Some states allow its use in defense of property. Always check the law in your locale. The bottom line is that your life comes first! Always!
El TejonJuly 17, 2003, 07:00 PMNo, lethal force does not mean "killing."
spacemanspiffJuly 17, 2003, 07:53 PMtheres a different mindset that responsible gun-owners have, one that insists our efforts are solely to ensure the safety of ourselves or other innocents.
it is not about killing a BG, or even being a hero. it is about being human, and doing what it takes to survive. the 'shoot to kill' mentality is most often associated with anti's who are ignorant of a guns designs, and will hastily make remarks like "if i carried a gun, i'd shoot anyone who got in my way, therefore everyone will act the same way so thats justification for why all guns should be banned".
our 'shoot to live' mentality is because none of us have a desire to take another persons life. thats why we refer to our firearms as 'our last line of defense', that occassionally have to be used as the first means, depending upon the circumstances.
El TejonJuly 17, 2003, 08:00 PMspace, projection is a problem of the antis but can also be problem in the gun culture.
Ours is the culture of life; theirs is the culture of death. We must take care to ensure this distinction.:)
Standing WolfJuly 17, 2003, 08:08 PMour 'shoot to live' mentality is because none of us have a desire to take another persons life.
"Shoot to live" says it very well!
sanchezeroJuly 17, 2003, 08:36 PMI think about this topic alot, both in respect to firearms and HTH.
I believe there is often a semantic problem that can carry over into a performance problem. Typically, when people speak of HTH training they call it self-defense training. While this is all well and good, I noticed in my own training that this defensive mindset was a contributing factor in my lack of ability to close the gap and to hit hard.
It took a good deal of concentrated effort on my part to retrain myself to be aggressive in the fight. Self-defense is the action you take before the fight - being aware, leaving iffy situations, absorbing verbal abuse and the like. But once the fight is on, it's just fighting, pure and simple and it needs to be handled with as much brutality, power and aggression as you can muster.
I feel the same way about shooting. Now, before you take umbrage, understand that the decision to take violent action must be the absolute last resort for this very reason. Stopping a fight for one's life will often necessitate the taking of another's or at least the bringing of one right to the threshhold of death's door. It is for this reason that I've never understood those people that go out looking for a brawl.
Navy joeJuly 17, 2003, 10:18 PMShoot to kill when neccesary I guess is my take. I still think that a lot of the shoot to stop the threat advocates are avoiding thinking about killing another in some way. My psyche doesn't need to be spoon fed.
Lethal force. Force which the user knows or should know will cause death or serious bodily harm if employed. I kinda figure that means killing. I see no problem with your original idea of selecting enough gun for the task. There really isn't such a thing as too lethal. I'm sure if the situation involved a legal self defense shooting you would be no more in the wrong for using a .300Win mag than you would a .38Spl. Where the problem starts is if you can be portrayed somehow as malicious, like say keeping a SPAS-12 behind the door loaded with flechette. If an attorney can portray you as bloodthirsty he will. The difference is between wanting to kill and being willing to kill. I surely don't want to, hope I never do, but I'm perfectly willing. That would be my story to the jury too. If I get penalized for honesty, so be it.
SRYnidanJuly 17, 2003, 10:53 PMShoot to stop is not the same as shoot to kill, ask Gernhart Geotz(sp). The concept of shooting to stop means we will shoot in the most effective manner possible until our adversary stops doing what it was that required us to shoot in the first place. If they die as a result of this we must realize that they chose to start the engagement.
Shooting to kill prepares one mentally to keep shooting until we know or believe that our adversary is dead. This frequently results in shoots being fired when both moral and legal necessity have been exceeded.
NapAttackJuly 17, 2003, 10:55 PMI believe the distinction here falls into the same category as when I was taking and teaching Yoshukai. Yoshukai is a full-contact traditional Japanese hard-style of karate. It is extremely aggressive. However, we still considered it a defensive art. We described it as the defense of breaking the other person's bones before they break yours. We were taught to strike hard, fast and with as much force as possible, the idea being to stop the fight, if at all possible, with that first strike. If the fight continued beyond that first strike then there was the possibility you could get injured.
Shoot to kill leaves some interpretation as to who started the aggression. Shoot to stop makes it plain and clear that your attacker started the fight. No possibility that you did. Were it necessary to explain this to a jury I would use the same explanation, I used a weapon sufficient to be sure that I could stop the aggression with one shot if at all possible. If there were a nonlethal force that could do this as effectively as a firearm I would use it. But it's been proven that nonlethal methods are not as effective as a firearm. I have no interest, no desire to kill but I must stop the aggressive actions and a firearm of sufficient power is the most effective way to do so.
MeekandMildJuly 17, 2003, 11:14 PMI recall some years ago I was on a murder jury in Alabama. The DA brought forth the legal precidents then in effect which said that if a person used a gun OR KNIFE against another to kill them without being in fear of their life and without having retreated yada yada yada they were guilty of murder. I am not at all a fan of the false concept of 'duty to retreat', but I was impressed by the idea that in Alabama a knife was considered as 'bad' as a gun.
BlackhawkJuly 18, 2003, 12:32 AMMinor quibble with your examples, Cosmoline:For example, if you start shooting a BG who has a knife, and he tosses the knife, you must stop shooting. Ditto with the BG who drops his gun, or even the one who turns to run away.They suggest mandatory equivalence of force. BG dropping his gun doesn't mean he's no longer a lethal threat to you. Maybe it jammed and he's going to take yours away from you to use on you. Maybe he dropped his knife to get his gun.
The test is whether or not you're STILL in fear for your life after the BG takes some action. Your justification for shooting in the first place isn't whether the BG has a gun or a chunk of soap carved to look like a gun with black shoe polish on it. It's that you were in fear for your life based on a reasonable assessment of the instantaneous situation you perceived.
A guy turning around and walking away with his hands out of sight could be a much greater threat than you realize because you might tend to relax just a hair. Don't shoot, but keep him covered in case he tries to do a wheel and fire on you.
brownie0486July 18, 2003, 10:31 AM"Shoot to kill"= premeditation, predisposition to kill mindset
"Shoot to stop"=defensive reaction to a perceived lethal threat.
One is against the law, the other is not. Brownie
CosmolineJuly 18, 2003,
Lethal force means killing - THR
Lethal force means killingTHR > Social Situations > Legal > Lethal force means killing
CosmolineJuly 17, 2003, 05:37 PMI've seen this error repeated many times on many gun boards, and even in magazines. The contention is that one should avoid using firearms that are "too" lethal for personal defense. This might include shotguns, rifles, big handguns and the like. The reasoning is that in a trial, you would be grilled for trying to kill someone with your firearm rather than "stop" them.
THIS IS BUNK. Make no mistake, if you take up lethal force and use it to defend yourself, you had better not be surprised if you kill the person. Lethal means lethal. A .22 handgun is lethal force, as is a .500 Nitro Express. The business about "shoot to stop, not to kill" seems to have emerged from certain gun writers with no legal training. They were probably confusing the lethality of force with the proper use of lethal force. You must cease using lethal force the moment there is no longer an imminent deadly threat. So in this sense, you must "shoot to stop," or rather you must stop shooting the second you no longer need to kill or be killed.
For example, if you start shooting a BG who has a knife, and he tosses the knife, you must stop shooting. Ditto with the BG who drops his gun, or even the one who turns to run away. The bottom line--there is NOTHING wrong with picking a tool for defense with the best chance of killing in one shot. If you dont' think you really need to kill, DO NOT USE DEADLY FORCE. Don't try to avoid the issue by using force you wrongfully feel to be "not quite as deadly."
If you enjoyed reading about "Lethal force means killing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sdJuly 17, 2003, 05:49 PMLethal Force is that amount of force that can kill, but doesn't actually have to. There is nothing wrong with the concept of "shoot to stop". The logic being, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. If the BG happens to die as a result, too bad. If he doesn't die, then he's very lucky. "Shoot to Stop" is essentially the politically correct form of "Shoot to Kill".
No matter what you call it, if you were not justified in the use of deadly force, you are in deep poopoo.
PATHJuly 17, 2003, 06:30 PMNecessary Force is the issue I believe. Deadly Physical Force may be responded to in kind. The use thereof varies from state to state. If someone throws a punch at you it would be inappropriate to respond with a head shot. Deadly force may be used against others using such force against you or others. Some states allow its use in defense of property. Always check the law in your locale. The bottom line is that your life comes first! Always!
El TejonJuly 17, 2003, 07:00 PMNo, lethal force does not mean "killing."
spacemanspiffJuly 17, 2003, 07:53 PMtheres a different mindset that responsible gun-owners have, one that insists our efforts are solely to ensure the safety of ourselves or other innocents.
it is not about killing a BG, or even being a hero. it is about being human, and doing what it takes to survive. the 'shoot to kill' mentality is most often associated with anti's who are ignorant of a guns designs, and will hastily make remarks like "if i carried a gun, i'd shoot anyone who got in my way, therefore everyone will act the same way so thats justification for why all guns should be banned".
our 'shoot to live' mentality is because none of us have a desire to take another persons life. thats why we refer to our firearms as 'our last line of defense', that occassionally have to be used as the first means, depending upon the circumstances.
El TejonJuly 17, 2003, 08:00 PMspace, projection is a problem of the antis but can also be problem in the gun culture.
Ours is the culture of life; theirs is the culture of death. We must take care to ensure this distinction.:)
Standing WolfJuly 17, 2003, 08:08 PMour 'shoot to live' mentality is because none of us have a desire to take another persons life.
"Shoot to live" says it very well!
sanchezeroJuly 17, 2003, 08:36 PMI think about this topic alot, both in respect to firearms and HTH.
I believe there is often a semantic problem that can carry over into a performance problem. Typically, when people speak of HTH training they call it self-defense training. While this is all well and good, I noticed in my own training that this defensive mindset was a contributing factor in my lack of ability to close the gap and to hit hard.
It took a good deal of concentrated effort on my part to retrain myself to be aggressive in the fight. Self-defense is the action you take before the fight - being aware, leaving iffy situations, absorbing verbal abuse and the like. But once the fight is on, it's just fighting, pure and simple and it needs to be handled with as much brutality, power and aggression as you can muster.
I feel the same way about shooting. Now, before you take umbrage, understand that the decision to take violent action must be the absolute l
ast resort for this very reason. Stopping a fight for one's life will often necessitate the taking of another's or at least the bringing of one right to the threshhold of death's door. It is for this reason that I've never understood those people that go out looking for a brawl.
Navy joeJuly 17, 2003, 10:18 PMShoot to kill when neccesary I guess is my take. I still think that a lot of the shoot to stop the threat advocates are avoiding thinking about killing another in some way. My psyche doesn't need to be spoon fed.
Lethal force. Force which the user knows or should know will cause death or serious bodily harm if employed. I kinda figure that means killing. I see no problem with your original idea of selecting enough gun for the task. There really isn't such a thing as too lethal. I'm sure if the situation involved a legal self defense shooting you would be no more in the wrong for using a .300Win mag than you would a .38Spl. Where the problem starts is if you can be portrayed somehow as malicious, like say keeping a SPAS-12 behind the door loaded with flechette. If an attorney can portray you as bloodthirsty he will. The difference is between wanting to kill and being willing to kill. I surely don't want to, hope I never do, but I'm perfectly willing. That would be my story to the jury too. If I get penalized for honesty, so be it.
SRYnidanJuly 17, 2003, 10:53 PMShoot to stop is not the same as shoot to kill, ask Gernhart Geotz(sp). The concept of shooting to stop means we will shoot in the most effective manner possible until our adversary stops doing what it was that required us to shoot in the first place. If they die as a result of this we must realize that they chose to start the engagement.
Shooting to kill prepares one mentally to keep shooting until we know or believe that our adversary is dead. This frequently results in shoots being fired when both moral and legal necessity have been exceeded.
NapAttackJuly 17, 2003, 10:55 PMI believe the distinction here falls into the same category as when I was taking and teaching Yoshukai. Yoshukai is a full-contact traditional Japanese hard-style of karate. It is extremely aggressive. However, we still considered it a defensive art. We described it as the defense of breaking the other person's bones before they break yours. We were taught to strike hard, fast and with as much force as possible, the idea being to stop the fight, if at all possible, with that first strike. If the fight continued beyond that first strike then there was the possibility you could get injured.
Shoot to kill leaves some interpretation as to who started the aggression. Shoot to stop makes it plain and clear that your attacker started the fight. No possibility that you did. Were it necessary to explain this to a jury I would use the same explanation, I used a weapon sufficient to be sure that I could stop the aggression with one shot if at all possible. If there were a nonlethal force that could do this as effectively as a firearm I would use it. But it's been proven that nonlethal methods are not as effective as a firearm. I have no interest, no desire to kill but I must stop the aggressive actions and a firearm of sufficient power is the most effective way to do so.
MeekandMildJuly 17, 2003, 11:14 PMI recall some years ago I was on a murder jury in Alabama. The DA brought forth the legal precidents then in effect which said that if a person used a gun OR KNIFE against another to kill them without being in fear of their life and without having retreated yada yada yada they were guilty of murder. I am not at all a fan of the false concept of 'duty to retreat', but I was impressed by the idea that in Alabama a knife was considered as 'bad' as a gun.
BlackhawkJuly 18, 2003, 12:32 AMMinor quibble with your examples, Cosmoline:For example, if you start shooting a BG who has a knife, and he tosses the knife, you must stop shooting. Ditto with the BG who drops his gun, or even the one who turns to run away.They suggest mandatory equivalence of force. BG dropping his gun doesn't mean he's no longer a lethal threat to you. Maybe it jammed and he's going to take yours away from you to use on you. Maybe he dropped his knife to get his gun.
The test is whether or not you're STILL in fear for your life after the BG takes some action. Your justification for shooting in the first place isn't whether the BG has a gun or a chunk of soap carved to look like a gun with black shoe polish on it. It's that you were in fear for your life based on a reasonable assessment of the instantaneous situation you perceived.
A guy turning around and walking away with his hands out of sight could be a much greater threat than you realize because you might tend to relax just a hair. Don't shoot, but keep him covered in case he tries to do a wheel and fire on you.
brownie0486July 18, 2003, 10:31 AM"Shoot to kill"= premeditation, predisposition to kill mindset
"Shoot to stop"=defensive reaction to a perceived lethal threat.
One is against the law, the other is not. Brownie
CosmolineJuly 18, 2003,