On Killing (or not killing)

This is a discussion on On Killing (or not killing) within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by limatunes So this guy had two instances where he could have been justified in shooting two people and he didn't but says ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: On Killing (or not killing)

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post


    So this guy had two instances where he could have been justified in shooting two people and he didn't but says he would now.... okay. I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback him too much but he outright admits that he used poor tactics in both scenarios... maybe the answer here is not whether or not he should have shot two people but whether or not better tactics would have kept him from being in a position where it was necessary. Either way, he still didn't have to shoot either of them so it's sort of a moot point.

    You call it Shoot to kill. I call it shoot to stop (in public). A rose by any other name rots as fast.
    limatunes, I don't think what he is saying is that tactics were wrong other than he drew his gun and talked instead of pulling the trigger. In both cases he was justified to shot as there was a justified threat. And I agree with those thought, if I draw and show my gun it is only to shoot the other person. I don't show gun to try and force someone to do my will, my gun is to make them do my will, which is to stop their action that is a threat to me or mine.

    I am also sorry but any time you shoot someone COM you are trying to kill them! That is a KILL shot nothing more or less. Yes you are trying to stop a threat of life (yours) but and kill shot is a kill shot. If the BG doesn't die it was his lucky day.

    What is the best way to stop a threat? You kill it! That's the only way you know for sure it doesn't come back to life and kill or hurt you or yours. The PC crowd wins only if we let them tell us how and what to say. The more we give in to them the more they will want. That's why we are in the fix we are in with our Country right now, we let those who want to change what we started with have their way. It's time to tell them NO.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,148
    Maybe we should start calling them stopping force scenarios instead of lethal force scenarios.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Maybe we should start calling them stopping force scenarios instead of lethal force scenarios.
    It's lethal force (by the legal definition) whether or not one actually intends to kill. I realize you are being funny, but still.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill MO View Post
    limatunes, I don't think what he is saying is that tactics were wrong other than he drew his gun and talked instead of pulling the trigger. In both cases he was justified to shot as there was a justified threat. And I agree with those thought, if I draw and show my gun it is only to shoot the other person. I don't show gun to try and force someone to do my will, my gun is to make them do my will, which is to stop their action that is a threat to me or mine.

    I am also sorry but any time you shoot someone COM you are trying to kill them! That is a KILL shot nothing more or less. Yes you are trying to stop a threat of life (yours) but and kill shot is a kill shot. If the BG doesn't die it was his lucky day.

    What is the best way to stop a threat? You kill it! That's the only way you know for sure it doesn't come back to life and kill or hurt you or yours. The PC crowd wins only if we let them tell us how and what to say. The more we give in to them the more they will want. That's why we are in the fix we are in with our Country right now, we let those who want to change what we started with have their way. It's time to tell them NO.
    Forget "the PC crowd" and any perceived thing "they" are trying to get you to say..
    I'm saying that if I ever have to shoot someone my intent isn't to kill them, it's to make them stop their unacceptable behavior as quickly as possible. If they die as a result, so be it, but that isn't my goal.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    Every now and then someone rolls out one of these "Be ready to Kill" articles and everyone starts shuffling their feathers on "shooting to stop" vs "kill."

    Yes, there are people who take the semantics a little too far to the point where they have not accepted that shooting to stop is really shooting to kill with a much more PC sound to it. But one has to balance that with a temperance that doesn't have people out there with itchy trigger fingers.

    So this guy had two instances where he could have been justified in shooting two people and he didn't but says he would now.... okay. I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback him too much but he outright admits that he used poor tactics in both scenarios... maybe the answer here is not whether or not he should have shot two people but whether or not better tactics would have kept him from being in a position where it was necessary. Either way, he still didn't have to shoot either of them so it's sort of a moot point.

    You call it Shoot to kill. I call it shoot to stop (in public). A rose by any other name rots as fast.
    I disagree that saying you are shooting to stop and not to kill is PC. It's the reason I don't carry a .22... it's an effective killer, but IMO not an effective stopper. I realize and accept that if I am ever forced to shoot someone in SD that they quite possibly will die, but my GOAL in shooting them would be to make them stop whatever they were doing in the first place.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    It's lethal force (by the legal definition) whether or not one actually intends to kill. I realize you are being funny, but still.
    No funnier than the absurdity of the distinction.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    No funnier than the absurdity of the distinction.
    Less so, even.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  9. #23
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    I disagree that saying you are shooting to stop and not to kill is PC. It's the reason I don't carry a .22... it's an effective killer, but IMO not an effective stopper. I realize and accept that if I am ever forced to shoot someone in SD that they quite possibly will die, but my GOAL in shooting them would be to make them stop whatever they were doing in the first place.
    But Brad by shooting them in what would be called the kill area, how are you trying to stop them if not kill them. Deer season is now on in my state I shoot my deer in the same area which is the kill zone area and I am not trying to just stop him I'm trying to kill him.

    Yes if I shoot someone who is threatening me I am trying to stop that threat but by where I target I'm trying to kill him too. No matter what words you use to try and make it sound PC you can't change the facts of what you are doing.

    Life isn't always made of roses and wine there's time its just plane cruel, we need to learn to accept those facts.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  10. #24
    Member Array GetSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    340
    If walk into my home to find somebody rapeing my wife or abduct my child my intent is to KILL them. I dont want them comming back through the revolving door of our justice system for revenge. If I pull my gun for SD it is to stop a threat with LETHAL force. If I want to modify there behavior to stop them from making me feel threatened I use LESS THAN LETHAL FORCE (pepper spay). If you pull a gun you better be ready to use it quick and accept the fact of KILLING somebody. Sure with modern medicien lots of shooting victims will live. If I pull my gun in self defense and the BG lives its due to the doctors effort no my lack of trying to KILL them.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    589
    Let's put some context to this. First, i agree with Brad. Play this out. As a civilian CCW holder, you are generally authorized to use deadly force to prevent death or grave bodily harm to yourself, and in some cases others. So look at the probable sequence of events. First, you are confronted with a threat. What then is the primary mission? To me, to survive the encounter. That's the mission. When is the mission accomplished? When the threat is not longer viable. How is that mission accomplished? By using whatever means necessary, including deadly force. What is the result of accomplishing the mission? First and foremost that I have survived the encounter by neutralizing the threat. What may be a consequence of this? The BG may die. But that at no time is part of the mission. At no time is that my specific intent. This is my "what, when and how" approach. The result of these will be what it will be. And no, this is not a matter of semantics. Our intentions do matter. Do I realize that at double tap to COM has a high probability of killing the BG? Of course. But that was a situation brought on by the BG. If the "what" of the mission is accomplished and the BG survives, I am delighted. I believe that this is not only the best legal position to take, but more importantly, the only true ethical position to take.

    As to timing, I agree with some others. Once I make the decision to draw my weapon, it probably is not to engage in friendly discussion. It will be to engage the BG. At this point, everything comes down to my training.
    Brad426 and tcox4freedom like this.
    Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
    --Wyatt Earp

    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
    -- Wyatt Earp

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    I am the one who took Kel to task about shooting to kill. And I still feel the same way as I did then. Gaius is right. This is more than mere semantics. It's a matter of mindset, and if you don't get it then you just don't get it. If I am attacked, and I have the opportunity to deploy my sidearm in my defense, I will most certainly do so, knowing that my actions may result in the death of my attacker, but that is not my goal. I am willing to use lethal force in the defense of myself and my family. I will put two COM holes into the attacker, but I would be just as happy (even more so) if the other person lived, as long as (s)he is no longer posing a threat to me. That's the difference, and it is much more than semantics.
    Brad426 and tcox4freedom like this.

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinFool View Post
    I am the one who took Kel to task about shooting to kill. And I still feel the same way as I did then. Gaius is right. This is more than mere semantics. It's a matter of mindset, and if you don't get it then you just don't get it. If I am attacked, and I have the opportunity to deploy my sidearm in my defense, I will most certainly do so, knowing that my actions may result in the death of my attacker, but that is not my goal. I am willing to use lethal force in the defense of myself and my family. I will put two COM holes into the attacker, but I would be just as happy (even more so) if the other person lived, as long as (s)he is no longer posing a threat to me. That's the difference, and it is much more than semantics.
    Very well said. You captured the essence of what I couldn't find the right words to say.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill MO View Post
    But Brad by shooting them in what would be called the kill area, how are you trying to stop them if not kill them. Deer season is now on in my state I shoot my deer in the same area which is the kill zone area and I am not trying to just stop him I'm trying to kill him.

    Yes if I shoot someone who is threatening me I am trying to stop that threat but by where I target I'm trying to kill him too. No matter what words you use to try and make it sound PC you can't change the facts of what you are doing.

    Life isn't always made of roses and wine there's time its just plane cruel, we need to learn to accept those facts.
    If you can't see the difference in what your goals are when firing in SD and hunting I won't be able to make you get it. Read the posts two below yours... they get it.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,395
    I think we will have to agree to disagree. You see your goal as what is in your head, I see them as by your action and where you place the shots. I see the gun as a deadly weapon and the use and goal of that weapon is to kill, nothing more or less. As any hit with a gun can cause death.

    I see it as mind games, I see it as what can happen and don't really care if it does happen, you see it as what you hope doesn't happen and will most likely be troubled if it does happen. I lost the fear of death during my Nam years, I fear not their or my death, I do not want either death but I don't fear them either.

    (See my last sig line)

    I shoot no one because I want to but because he/she chose to make me, by his/her actions.


    Added/ I don't have a goal of making sure he is dead before the fight is over, but my goal is stopping the threat with a killing shot with the very first trigger pull. All other are just insurance that the threat is stopped. (as I train to shoot burst of 3-5 rounds) Once it has stopped the fight is over. BG dead or not no more threat no more need to fight.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  16. #30
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    Neither time you used IMO was it actually your opinion. Shooting a defenseless and non threatening person to death is murder. It's a fact.
    My point was emphasizing the point, since this was MY REPLY, that this is indeed, fact as far as I am concerned. Glad you have so much time to be picky picky and find YOUR interpretation of MY words. Bottom line is that if I had stated "fact" instead of "IMO", someone would have responded telling me that what I think is fact is just my opinion and round and round we go.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •