[SittingElf]

Good video from Fox News on Shooting to Kill vs Shooting to Wound.

A lot of people need to understand the concept discussed in this video!

Guns 101: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound| Latest News Videos | Fox News

 

[rstanek]

Good video, the instructor does a good job explaining the reality of a self- defense scenario.

 

[sideKahr]

People without training, military or otherwise, feel that it's just too bloodthirsy to try to kill someone. They live lives where hurting someone is unthinkable. It's hard to change gears for them when the situation becomes 'him or me'.

Good film.

 

[Illini Warrior]

stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - center mass until the danger is ABSOLUTELY over ...

no better demonstration of what it takes - Office Wilson vs Mikey Brown down in Ferguson . go ahead and start wasting your magazine on total BS and old Mikey gets to squash your gourd ....

 

[PCH5150]

Good video, right to the point.

 

[Chipper]

You shoot to kill. A corpse won't sue, testify against you, or come back years later to even the score.

 

[dwight55]

stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - center mass until the danger is ABSOLUTELY over ...

I could not have said it better under 99% of situations.

I leave the 1 % out there for some weird or off base situation wherein someone might be involved.

Columbus, Ohio had one several years ago where a person was having some kind of issue that involved his having a gun and making some kind of threat.

The SWAT team came out, . . . and the sniper told his boss that he thought he could shoot the gun hand if the opportunity presented itself. He got the go-ahead, . . . and about an hour or so later, . . . the subject did just that. BOOM, . . . no gun, . . . and probably less of a hand than a few seconds before.

But that is a whole different situation than most of us will ever face, . . . so for our purposes, . . . second button down from the neck, . . . pop, pop, bang, bang until the treat is no longer a threat.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Yeti-2015]

When I took my concealed carry class the instructor was an ex cop and told us that if we get to the point of having to shoot shoot to kill. Dead bodies cant tell any stories.

 

[AquaHull]

stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - .

It's prudent to know how to hit the arms and legs if that's all that's available.
Think body armor

 

[Targetshooter]

When I went for my CC the instructor told me if you wound the threat then you will most likely be shot back or dead ,, so make your shot count ,, you have no second chance .

 

[Kauboy]

Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.

Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
Self defense is about one thing, "DEFENDING YOURSELF". If you carry for any other reason, you are a dangerous menace waiting for their chance.

You NEVER shoot to kill. You NEVER shoot to wound.
You shoot to STOP THE ATTACK.
Period. End of discussion. Game over.

Each and every one of you that thinks they ooze machismo by stating "dead guys can't sue", or some other such nonsense, are not aware of the larger implications of taking a life. Immediately following the ordeal, you will be in shock. When the police arrive, you'll be struggling to remember what happened. When your lawyer meets with you(you do have a lawyer, don't you?), he will want to know everything that happened, and everything you may have said to the police. Your case will go to a grand jury no matter how it plays out. Only *THEN* will it be determined to be justified or not. If ANYONE gets a whiff from you that your intention was to "shoot to kill", your ass is grass. Every damn post you make on the internet stating how you "shoot to kill", and that "dead guys can't tell their side" is just stacking the deck against your stupid ass.
If your case goes to full trial, the prosecuting attorney is going to turn you into the worst sub-human piece of garbage he can, and your own words will do half of the work for him.
That's not to even mention the civil trial that the dead guy's family will inevitably file for.

You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period.

Geez... some of you are just dumb sometimes.

EDIT: For those who may need it spelled out a bit more, shooting to stop means you shoot, assess, and shoot again if the attack has not ceased. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."

 

[darsk20]

Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.

Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
Self defense is about one thing, "DEFENDING YOURSELF". If you carry for any other reason, you are a dangerous menace waiting for their chance.

You NEVER shoot to kill. You NEVER shoot to wound.
You shoot to STOP THE ATTACK.
Period. End of discussion. Game over.

Each and every one of you that thinks they ooze machismo by stating "dead guys can't sue", or some other such nonsense, are not aware of the larger implications of taking a life. Immediately following the ordeal, you will be in shock. When the police arrive, you'll be struggling to remember what happened. When your lawyer meets with you(you do have a lawyer, don't you?), he will want to know everything that happened, and everything you may have said to the police. Your case will go to a grand jury no matter how it plays out. Only *THEN* will it be determined to be justified or not. If ANYONE gets a whiff from you that your intention was to "shoot to kill", your ass is grass. Every damn post you make on the internet stating how you "shoot to kill", and that "dead guys can't tell their side" is just stacking the deck against your stupid ass.
If your case goes to full trial, the prosecuting attorney is going to turn you into the worst sub-human piece of garbage he can, and your own words will do half of the work for him.
That's not to even mention the civil trial that the dead guy's family will inevitably file for.

You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period.

Geez... some of you are just dumb sometimes.

EDIT: For those who may need it spelled out a bit more, shooting to stop means you shoot, assess, and shoot again if the attack has not ceased. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."

Kauboy for the win.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[rstanek]

Self defense means neutralizing a threat, it doesn't say anything about killing, once the threat is neutralized , you cannot take any further action. Another shot to kill will be murder. If the threat dies resulting from the first shot, no problem....

 

[csi-tech]

I'm with Kauboy all the way on this one. Shoot to stop the threat. The only reason to evoke deadly force is if you are faced with force that is likely to cause serious injury or death anyway so aiming center mass just makes sense.

 

[paraquack]

I understand that a threat may be "neutralized" and in a SHTF event, I am not going to go over and check him, but what about in today's society?
Do you go and check to see if the perp is dead or? What about if the perp plays possum?

 

[SittingElf]

Florida CC class strongly discourages Shoot to Wound. Pull your weapon...be ready to Kill.

 

[AquaHull]

Shoot For Thrill

Sorry ,I just had to

 

[New guy 101]

Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.

Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
Self defense is about one thing, "DEFENDING YOURSELF". If you carry for any other reason, you are a dangerous menace waiting for their chance.

You NEVER shoot to kill. You NEVER shoot to wound.
You shoot to STOP THE ATTACK.
Period. End of discussion. Game over.

Each and every one of you that thinks they ooze machismo by stating "dead guys can't sue", or some other such nonsense, are not aware of the larger implications of taking a life. Immediately following the ordeal, you will be in shock. When the police arrive, you'll be struggling to remember what happened. When your lawyer meets with you(you do have a lawyer, don't you?), he will want to know everything that happened, and everything you may have said to the police. Your case will go to a grand jury no matter how it plays out. Only *THEN* will it be determined to be justified or not. If ANYONE gets a whiff from you that your intention was to "shoot to kill", your ass is grass. Every damn post you make on the internet stating how you "shoot to kill", and that "dead guys can't tell their side" is just stacking the deck against your stupid ass.
If your case goes to full trial, the prosecuting attorney is going to turn you into the worst sub-human piece of garbage he can, and your own words will do half of the work for him.
That's not to even mention the civil trial that the dead guy's family will inevitably file for.

You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period.

Geez... some of you are just dumb sometimes.

EDIT: For those who may need it spelled out a bit more, shooting to stop means you shoot, assess, and shoot again if the attack has not ceased. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."

On the advice of counsel....I shoot to hit where I am aiming...I aimed to hit where It will stop the attack the fastest. And to LEOs...I'm sorry I cannot answer questions without my attorney present.

But I still ooze machismo...
,,,
,,,,
,,,,

See it?

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk

 

[dwight55]

Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.................You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period............. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."

I'm going to call a semantic foul on the above statements as well as the parts I deleted.

Shooting to kill / stopping the threat are similar to "fry the steak till it's done".... VS.... "10 minutes on 450 deg F." The semantics are different but the result is the same.

I have absolutely zero qualms of sitting on the witness stand stating for the jury and the record that the guy with the meat cleaver who had cursed, swore, and fully threatened to cut me up like minute steaks, . . . was threatening my life, . . .

I defended my life the best way I knew how, . . . by stopping him with the appropriate number of well placed .45 caliber ACP, 230 grain bullets, . . . on the second button down on his shirt, . . . full well knowing and intending that such action would indeed take his life.

But it would spare mine, . . . which is much more important to me.

I don't want to say "I shot to stop the threat", . . . as that opens the door for the lawyer to make a stupid, arrogant, un-knowledgeable comment, . . . "Well, if you only wanted to stop the threat, . . . why didn't you shoot the cleaver out of his hand, . . . or only shoot him in the knee???" That type of comment could easily poison the thought pattern of many if not all of the jurors.

I would rather just let it be said from the gitgo, . . . I was afraid for my life, . . . so I stopped his. Then all we have to do is prove that I was not the initial aggressor.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Kauboy]

I'm going to call a semantic foul on the above statements as well as the parts I deleted.

Shooting to kill / stopping the threat are similar to "fry the steak till it's done".... VS.... "10 minutes on 450 deg F." The semantics are different but the result is the same.

I have absolutely zero qualms of sitting on the witness stand stating for the jury and the record that the guy with the meat cleaver who had cursed, swore, and fully threatened to cut me up like minute steaks, . . . was threatening my life, . . .

I defended my life the best way I knew how, . . . by stopping him with the appropriate number of well placed .45 caliber ACP, 230 grain bullets, . . . on the second button down on his shirt, . . . full well knowing and intending that such action would indeed take his life.

But it would spare mine, . . . which is much more important to me.

I don't want to say "I shot to stop the threat", . . . as that opens the door for the lawyer to make a stupid, arrogant, un-knowledgeable comment, . . . "Well, if you only wanted to stop the threat, . . . why didn't you shoot the cleaver out of his hand, . . . or only shoot him in the knee???" That type of comment could easily poison the thought pattern of many if not all of the jurors.

I would rather just let it be said from the gitgo, . . . I was afraid for my life, . . . so I stopped his. Then all we have to do is prove that I was not the initial aggressor.

May God bless,
Dwight

I feel you've missed the point. My proclamation is directed toward those who gladly express that they "shoot to kill". This is a tactical mistake, as it *WILL* be used against you in a court of law.
Any bad lawyer might try to make your "shoot to stop" claim something other than it is, but any decent defender will be able to slap that down in a heartbeat with a simple expert witness (ie, any officer).
Your description of the "weapon of death" and "method of execution" you chose to murder with will make the prosecutor's chops slather with drool. With your statement, you would go to jail. Seriously, don't make that statement.

Shooting to stop covers all outcomes. If the attacker lives, you're fine. If the attacker dies, you're still fine. Either way, you stopped the threat to your life.
This information came directly from a police officer instructor who gives the same advice to officers involved in shootings.