General Forums >> The Lobby >> Shoot to kill?

+6

Shoot to kill?

4,082 Views
105 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Tribal_cat_tattoo__2__max50

1910 posts

back to top

Posted about 5 years ago

 

I was always told that if you carry a weapon, or even have one in your home for protection, and you are in danger for you life, you should shoot to kill.  Is that correct? 


"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." - Ronald Reagan

Loneliness_max50

51 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Depends, for the most part yes you should shoot to kill, reason being you shouldn't be shooting someone unless your life or the life of another is in danger and the only way to prevent harm to yourself or that other is to use deadly force. However if you do shoot and don't kill, as long as the person stopped doing whatever it was that caused you to use deadly force then you must stop....or something like that, sorry I'm tired and it's the end of my day.


Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss)

Deck_102__large___small__max50

149 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I would never say "shoot to Kill."   One should shoot to remove the threat and once that threat is gone, then there is no reason to continue shooting.  Now where do you shoot to remove the threat?  The biggest piece of meat you can hit. normally center mass as that's going to be easy to hit under stress.  The old saying of double tap to the belly and one to the head is outdated and will get you in trouble with the courts.  IMHO


PC

-380 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Porkchop123 says ...



I would never say "shoot to Kill."   One should shoot to remove the threat and once that threat is gone, then there is no reason to continue shooting.  Now where do you shoot to remove the threat?  The biggest piece of meat you can hit. normally center mass as that's going to be easy to hit under stress.  The old saying of double tap to the belly and one to the head is outdated and will get you in trouble with the courts.  IMHO


PC



Shoot to eliminate the threat, aim center mass and keep firing til the threat is down. +1

Gregoffice_max50

18 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

You shoot to stop the agression or threat. Your aim should be the biggest part of the body = center mass. In a stressful incident you will miss an arm or leg. Anyone who has a gun for protection must be ready to take a life. If you can not do that get rid of the gun. Guns are not for bluffing. I teach that to my rookies, if you pull a gun you have to be mentally prepared to use it in a hostile enviroment. if you are not, it is you who will get hurt or dead.

-380 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

if we are talking range drills, I always shoot in drug and armor drills....even when not doing tactical shooting, and always when i am unless Im being instructed on a different drill


While I always pump two to the chest, I RARELY tap one to the head. Its hard enough to hit a target in the head at 15-25 meters, imagine trying to do it with the stress of a critical incident as well....ie that target shooting back at you, both you and the target moving, elevated heart rate and all that comes with it...etc etc.


I much prefer the pelvic target over the head. Aim small miss small...bigger target to hit, and like mentioned above, that perp is going to drop if you tap his pelvic.  Even if we are talking a target hopped on narcotics, a broken pelvis will not support the body's weight.

021_max50

60 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

GOOD MORNING IN TOTAL AGREEMENT ...WITH YOU ON THIS SUBJECT WE MUST COME FROM THE SAME SCHOOL OF TRAINING, ....'SHOOT UNTIL THE THREAT IS ELIMINATED.....DRUG AND ARMOR!!!  I TEACH THE SAME SYSTEM.....WITH HANDGUN AND LONG GUN....


"BRING THE STREET TO THE RANGE, NOT THE RANG TO THE STREET"..........KEEP IT REAL!!


STAY SAFE!!

Photo_user_blank_big

83 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I would be careful when using the term "shoot to kill" most LEO's understand we have been given instructions from the Supreme Court to use what ever force necessary to gain compliance. So at my department we are careful to always use them term "eliminate the threat"


 


For example (this is a crazy one but bare with me) lets say you encounter an armed subject and you engage him and shoot him once. That one shot eliminates the threat because the subject drops his weapon and he can no longer get to it, but he is still alive. If the guy has been shot once and no longer has acess to a weapon AND can no longer present himself as a threat to you or anyone you are not going to finish filling him up with bullets. Just like detective_metro said.

1979_max50

3264 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

You NEVER shoot to kill. You ALWAYS shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is gone you are no longer allowed to use deadly force. Now the easiest way to stop the threat is to shoot at 'center body mass' which is the middle of the chest, and you keep shooting until the subject falls down and is no longer a threat. If the subject dies, that's just too damn bad.

1979_max50

3264 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

shockusmc87 says ...



Porkchop123 says ...



I would never say "shoot to Kill."   One should shoot to remove the threat and once that threat is gone, then there is no reason to continue shooting.  Now where do you shoot to remove the threat?  The biggest piece of meat you can hit. normally center mass as that's going to be easy to hit under stress.  The old saying of double tap to the belly and one to the head is outdated and will get you in trouble with the courts.  IMHO


PC



 


I dont know why you think Two to the chest and one to the head or the Mozambique is outdated?


We still use it and when I was a Combat Markmanship Instructor is was the base fundamental of engagament techniques we tought. No other method proves as effective as this one for quick and precise shooting. Now as for the courts, well have no idea, just commenting on the outdated part.


Respectfully,


Shock


 


Shock,


     The fact that you are military is the difference. You are allowed to shoot and kill an armed combatant, even if they do not immediately pose a threat to you. Rules of warfare. We are talking civilian law enforcement which is very much different.


-809 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

A quick question, should this be out in the open forums???

-380 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



shockusmc87 says ...



Porkchop123 says ...



I would never say "shoot to Kill."   One should shoot to remove the threat and once that threat is gone, then there is no reason to continue shooting.  Now where do you shoot to remove the threat?  The biggest piece of meat you can hit. normally center mass as that's going to be easy to hit under stress.  The old saying of double tap to the belly and one to the head is outdated and will get you in trouble with the courts.  IMHO


PC



 


I dont know why you think Two to the chest and one to the head or the Mozambique is outdated?


We still use it and when I was a Combat Markmanship Instructor is was the base fundamental of engagament techniques we tought. No other method proves as effective as this one for quick and precise shooting. Now as for the courts, well have no idea, just commenting on the outdated part.


Respectfully,


Shock


 


Shock,


     The fact that you are military is the difference. You are allowed to shoot and kill an armed combatant, even if they do not immediately pose a threat to you. Rules of warfare. We are talking civilian law enforcement which is very much different.




Yep, law enforcement and combat zone military action in a foreign land are two totally different animals. Very little similarity.

-91 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Shoot to neutralize the threat.

Inst_generic_max50

180 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

 Correct! Neutralize the threat.


Grant
General Partner
www.raidontactics.com
www.orionsynergygroup.com
www.range37.com

“The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire.”
Ferdinand Foch (1851-1929);
French Soldier, Theorist

Tribal_cat_tattoo__2__max50

1910 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

DrHämmie says ...



A quick question, should this be out in the open forums???



I ask the question simply from a standpoint for the following scenario:  I am at home and I have a weapon, someone comes into my house who is going to hurt me.  I state that I have a weapon out loud and tell them if they come any closer I will have to use deadly force.  The subject comes closer with the intent of hurting me.  Ok, so do I shoot to kill that person?    I was told by other officers that I have talked to that if I was in serious danger, to use deadly force and don't try to just injure the criminal.  I think that this is an important question for people that have weapons in their home or carry for protection to undertstand what the law is and what their rights are. I suppose this is what I am asking.  The phrase "shoot to kill" is one that I used because that is the answer I am looking for.  Do I or don't I? given what I have been told.  It is a scary thing to think about the possiblity of having to kill someone if one is in serious danger.  I would not want to do it.  I would just want to injure that person to stop him/her. 


"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." - Ronald Reagan

-380 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Two good posts catwoman, this one and the one concerning Glocks and HKs.....youre posting more LE specific topics, that are yielding good LE specific talk, than much more than even the LEOs on this site are.


Good job. Keep em coming. PL gets very interesting to me when there is good LE specific talk. 

Tribal_cat_tattoo__2__max50

1910 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

PSD_TEAM_LEADER says ...



Two good posts catwoman, this one and the one concerning Glocks and HKs.....youre posting more LE specific topics, that are yielding good LE specific talk, than much more than even the LEOs on this site are.


Good job. Keep em coming. PL gets very interesting to me when there is good LE specific talk. 



Thank you!


Michelle


"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." - Ronald Reagan

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I was taught, mind you it was blackwater and at a-school, you shoot center-mass of what you can see. if all you can see is shoulders up, then you aim at the nose and slack,pause, squeeeeeezzzeeee.... yep.

-91 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 5 years ago

 

The use of deadly force topic is the most scrutinized aspect of law enforcement, so you may not get a whole lot of folks wanting to respond to this thread. Keep in mind that this site is open for the world to see (to include attorneys) and we generally do not discuss things such as tactics on the open boards.


I think you have asked a legitimate question, however the replies you receive may end up being vague at best. If you want to discuss the 'what ifs' it may be better to take the conversation to the groups, or over the sites PM feature.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

shockusmc87 says ...



Justification of Deadly Force= Deadly force is only justified as a last possible resort when all lesser means have failed or can not reasonably be employed. Also a hostile act had to been commited which is defined as an act in which a reasonable or prudent person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.


This is how define in the Marines.



I have to have it memorized and say it at every board I have....


Armed Forces Definition ( mind you above is about the same, Armed Forces like to rewrite things biannual to make sure someone has a desk job.)


Deadly force is that force a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know, would have a substianal risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. The use of Deadly Force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.


 


Also there are rules in order to use deadly force, you must have the triangle, meaning the person must show show signs of capability, oppurtunity and intent- they must have all 3 to be justified in using deadly force.


 


Mind you we memorized this, because if we do have to use force, we will go to court, and we will have to tell them a definition and explain why we used the force we did. 


Very hot topic in the military as well.

Quickley-b240_max50

9451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

DrHämmie says ...



A quick question, should this be out in the open forums???



No trade secrets are being given out.


"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, do nothing." Dante

MODERATOR #2
PL Mentoring Team Member

Photobucket Honoring Our Fallen

-380 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 5 years ago

 

bill9823 says ...



DrHämmie says ...



A quick question, should this be out in the open forums???



No trade secrets are being given out.



Bingo....my acorn detector didnt pick up any secret squirrel activity....

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

All the things I posted are on the internet already. And they aren't tactics so I think I'm safe.

Quickley-b240_max50

9451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

PSD_TEAM_LEADER says ...



bill9823 says ...



DrHämmie says ...



A quick question, should this be out in the open forums???



No trade secrets are being given out.



Bingo....my acorn detector didnt pick up any secret squirrel activity....



It is good to discuss some things so that all can learn as long as we all observe opes/sec and don't give away trade secrets.


"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, do nothing." Dante

MODERATOR #2
PL Mentoring Team Member

Photobucket Honoring Our Fallen

Deck_102__large___small__max50

149 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Lawyer:  Officer why did you shoot my client 14 times?


Officer:  Because my duty weapon only holds 14 rounds and while I was reloading your client dropped to the ground and became unconscious.  There by removing the threat. 


Lawyer:  Officer what did you do then?


 


 Officer:  I radioed dispatched and advised them of the situation.


 


Lawyer:  What happened next?


 


Officer:  Started CPR.


Lawyer:  What happened then?


Officer:  He started to bleed out.


Lawyer:  What did you do then. 


Officer:  Stopped CPR.


Lawyer:  What happened then?


 


Officer:  My chief sent me to remedial firearms training.


 

Fish_014_max50

478 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

No we don't shoot to kill we shoot to live

Tribal_cat_tattoo__2__max50

1910 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

3466 says ...



No we don't shoot to kill we shoot to live



This is not about LEO's shooting to kill.  I know LEO's try not to kill.  So right!  Shooting to live would be the point... but you shoot to live to minimize the threat, correct?  What would you suggest I do if I am in my house, have a weapon for protection, someone breaks in, I tell that person I have a weapon and to leave while I dial 911,  I tell the subject to leave and not to approach any further, the subject comes closer and does not stop, I tell them I will shoot, subject still comes closer and closer.  I would be shooting to live also... but what if we go to court and the criminal says that he was just simply there to steal stuff (because that does not warrent a shot)?  What if I shot the criminal and paralyzed him?  I stopped the threat!  I shot to live!  But, now I am being sued because MY life was in danger and the criminal is testifying that I shot him for no reason.  I understand that one can not just shoot someone because they are in your home and trying to perform a criminal act.  That act could be just to steal.  But what if that act is to kill or do other bodily harm to me? I do realize that LEO's don't shoot to kill; I am asking what to do, given a specific situation. 


"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." - Ronald Reagan

Quickley-b240_max50

9451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

In Florida if someone is in your house that broke in you can shoot them, they have no business in your house. Your home is your castle, it is known as the castle law.


 


A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_law&ei=ILFHSvy6IofCNu7v4KoB...">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_law


Florida gives you the right to shoot someone and other states do too.


"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, do nothing." Dante

MODERATOR #2
PL Mentoring Team Member

Photobucket Honoring Our Fallen

-91 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Two things come to mind here.


What would a 'reasonable and prudent' person believe? Do you feel that his actions placed you in imminent and immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury?


Also, you can not testify to what his 'intent' is.

Tribal_cat_tattoo__2__max50

1910 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

GTS197 says ...



Two things come to mind here.


What would a 'reasonable and prudent' person believe? Do you feel that his actions placed you in imminent and immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury?


Also, you can not testify to what his 'intent' is.



In this scenerio, I would be in imminent and immediate fear of death to me or someone else, and I would be in danger of serious bodily injury.  I would never shoot a person unless I felt that way... I would know whether or not it was either him or me.  Keep in mind, I hope I never come across this situation.  But, people need to know how the law works, given this situation.  So many people go out and purchase a gun for protection and don't know how to use it.  They don't know if they should shoot to kill or just try to shoot to slow them down.  I think it is important for us to know.  Some of these things are only taught in a classroom where someone who purchases a gun ELECTS to go.  They don't HAVE to go.  (I for one, think that is crazy, but that is beside the point in this discussion) 


BTW... thanks all of you for the comments on this subject.


"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." - Ronald Reagan

Next Page >