On Killing (or not killing) - Page 3

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; It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume the person you shoot is likely to die. Any lawyer could make that agument successfully ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: On Killing (or not killing)

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    519
    It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume the person you shoot is likely to die. Any lawyer could make that agument successfully in court. I believe that is why you should not shoot someone unless you are justified in killing them. If they survive - good for them ( but maybe not for you - reference the lawyer mentioned previously ). Whatever the case, semantics should ( or will ) come into play after the shooting - not before or during! I think there is really only one reason to shoot someone - otherwise we shouldn't shoot them!


  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,879
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanjns View Post
    It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume the person you shoot is likely to die. Any lawyer could make that agument successfully in court. I believe that is why you should not shoot someone unless you are justified in killing them. If they survive - good for them ( but maybe not for you - reference the lawyer mentioned previously ). Whatever the case, semantics should ( or will ) come into play after the shooting - not before or during! I think there is really only one reason to shoot someone - otherwise we shouldn't shoot them!
    Thank you nathan!!! If it makes many of you happy I will always refer on this forum to "stopping the threat" and not "killing". If, as nathan says, shooting someone center mass with a high power very lethal firearm/cartridge is not trying to kill them what in the world is it? Ya know when an ostrich puts it head in the ground it does not change the dimensions of him being killed just because he changed his view in his own mind. Stopping the threat with a high power lethal firearm still becomes a killing methodology unless you are one of those TV cowboys who figures you can "wing them" in a shoulder---you are aiming for center mass and the only purpose is to kill them--if they are only wounded because you are just not a good marksman, so be it--it is over at that point and I think I have made that abundantly clear. Kindly remember this is a forum and these are words---I am not out there looking to kill in the base sense but in common sense that is what my firearm is really meant for if I have to defend myself from being murdered, which is what the BG committing a felony is trying to do.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    I guess the simplest way to describe the difference (at least to me) is that I am focusing on my ultimate goal of surviving an attack, not what will happen to my attacker. His (or her) death does not enter into my equation, other than realizing that it may be the result. I certainly understand that my defense of self or family may result in the death of my attacker, but it wouldn't bother me at all if the attacker doesn't die, as long as his threat to me is over. As someone stated above, I am not afraid of my death or my attacker's death - BUT I do not seek to obtain either one. I simply want to survive an attack. Nothing more.
    tcox4freedom likes this.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanjns View Post
    It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume the person you shoot is likely to die. Any lawyer could make that agument successfully in court. I believe that is why you should not shoot someone unless you are justified in killing them. If they survive - good for them ( but maybe not for you - reference the lawyer mentioned previously ). Whatever the case, semantics should ( or will ) come into play after the shooting - not before or during! I think there is really only one reason to shoot someone - otherwise we shouldn't shoot them!
    Yeah, that's sort of a given there, man, what with it being the law and all. The point that this side of the debate team is trying to make is that while shooting someone may very well result in their death, the only real goal is to stop the threat, not to kill. My earlier joke about a Star Trek phaser is true... if I had a weapon that was 100% guaranteed to immediately incapacitate a person and wouldn't cause any serious damage all my guns would be antiquated (although I probably would keep the Sigs...).
    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

    I love Tiberius/Maggie.

  5. #35
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by RoadRunner71 View Post
    Any time you start punching holes in a living organism you run the chance of killing it. If you are not willing to have that happen, don't punch the holes.

    Also, do you soul-searching NOW not out on the street when you won't have time.

    He who hesitates is lost. That is good advice for many situations, not the least of which is self defense. Even kids in a school yard know this. You get that first punch in on the other guy immediately, get a little blood flowing and the fight is done. I'm not sure at what age so many of us loose this wisdom.
    I have lost 2 buddies to murderers...... I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions where I come down on this.

  6. #36
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    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 use to ride on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy; we took a call for a domestic one afternoon. When we approached the front door the wife came out and my buddy took her to the side to talk to her. About a minute later the husband bursts though the door, butcher knife raised in an ice-pick grip, I drew and centered the sights dead center on his heart. That was when the lofty ideal of "stop" collided head on with the reality of "kill" and caused a brain fart, lucky for me he wasn't really crazy mad. That was when I started changing my mind set to align with reality, that combined with attending 2 funerals.

    Now if he drops wounded I'm not going to stand over him and empty the mag, but my mind set is for the reality of life.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    519
    Yeah, that's sort of a given there, man, what with it being the law and all. The point that this side of the debate team is trying to make is that while shooting someone may very well result in their death, the only real goal is to stop the threat, not to kill. My earlier joke about a Star Trek phaser is true... if I had a weapon that was 100% guaranteed to immediately incapacitate a person and wouldn't cause any serious damage all my guns would be antiquated (although I probably would keep the Sigs...).

    Hi Brad 426,

    I actually do understand the point your side of the debate team is making. I just think it is somewhat misapplied. I see it this way:

    1. There is a dead or injured person and I freely admit to having committed the deed that made them that way.

    2. Regardless of what my intentions were ( Stopping The Threat ), I shot this person knowing it would probably render them into the state in
    which they now exist.

    3. I will likely have to defend myself against accusations of murder, attempted murder ( or some variation on that theme ), but likely not against
    illegally Stopping The Threat.

    It just seems to me that I would be better off facing the bare reality at the outset; and be prepared to argue the justification of my actions in that manner. I admit that my description is more harsh sounding than yours, but in the end we are both describing what happened to the corpse ( or the guy in the hospital ) and why we thought we had to do that to him. Additionally, I think plain english might fly a little better with a judge or jury; not giving them the impression that we are attempting to be evasive or trying to avoid responsibility for our actions. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, I know you are honestly expressing what you believe.

    I hope this adds a little clarity to why I think the way I do about it. While we may not agree on the details, I believe we do have common ground on the big picture. And I'll concede that the Phaser is a hell of a good idea, with one stipulation - I want Night Sights on mine!

    Regards,
    Nathan
    Last edited by nathanjns; November 18th, 2012 at 06:19 PM.

  8. #38
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Kill only when you must.

    all life has value, and even criminals can be cured.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array DaGunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    554
    IMO it is not about whether you shoot to kill or shoot to stop the threat. Itís about when to draw your weapon.

    You draw only if or when thereís a sufficient threat to justify deadly force. I believe that once you need to draw, itís 2 to COM and then reassess. Repeat if necessary.
    pittypat21 likes this.
    KNOWLEDGE: A tomato is a fruit.
    WISDOM: Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
    .

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,655
    To kill, or not to kill . . . that is the question. Sometimes there is no answer, only action.
    Brad426, ANGLICO and tcox4freedom like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  11. #41
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    if you can protect yourself or others without killing, you should do so.

    but if you have no other option....then kill.

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,977
    When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, it will time for you to go.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

    I love Tiberius/Maggie.

  13. #43
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Amen brother, amen. I got into a thread/reply with others when I used the word "kill" and not "stop the threat" and no matter what anyone says, if I am in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury after trying everything I could to avoid the confrontation/situation, I am aiming to kill--period/end of story. To me the difference in these terms is really about "murder". If I aim to kill and the BG is lying there wounded and is not a threat anymore, I am not going to kill him---that is murder, IMO. Even some translations of the Ten Commandments are incorrect when they use the terms "thou shalt not kill"---it should be "thou shalt not murder". Face it we kill animals for food don't we? Is that against the Ten Commandments? My answer to that is "no". Thou shalt not murder is the defining moral tone. There have been cases (I believe a pharmacist in OK was one---he wounded the BG trying to rob him in his pharmacy and then proceeded to shoot him and kill him and he, if I am not mistaken was up on murder charges)--that IMO is what he should have been charged with and convicted of. Furthermore, as RoadRunner said, if this "hangup" is going to cause you to hesitate, I would suggest you not CC because there is a good chance you may die before you decide to defend yourself regardless of "kill" or "stopping the threat".
    That is correct, when you take the word "Kill" back to the original language it translates "Thy shall do no murder" And Murder means one who lyes in wait to take innocent life just for the evil of doing it. Criminal homocide. That was the biblical definition of murder (#5406-7 in the greek) called ''phoneus"

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,474
    I can't agree with the concept of firing if the gun is drawn. The threat may be stopped by the drawn gun itself, without the need to fire. Todays mindset with most LEOs seems to be fire if the threat points a gun at you. I agree with this 100%. The officer goes home to his/her family at the end of shift. The bg goes somewhere else. In the scenario, My thought is the first officer should have fired on the bg when the shotgun was not dropped immediately on command. Before it was trained on him. Not a LEO, no training in these situations. so take this a just my opinion. Hope and pray I never have to make that call.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    519
    I can't agree with the concept of firing if the gun is drawn. The threat may be stopped by the drawn gun itself, without the need to fire. Todays mindset with most LEOs seems to be fire if the threat points a gun at you. I agree with this 100%. The officer goes home to his/her family at the end of shift. The bg goes somewhere else. In the scenario, My thought is the first officer should have fired on the bg when the shotgun was not dropped immediately on command. Before it was trained on him. Not a LEO, no training in these situations. so take this a just my opinion. Hope and pray I never have to make that call.


    Hi oldnfat,

    That mostly sounds like good judgment to me except for drawing before you are ready to shoot. My fear in producing a gun before I've decided I have to shoot is that it might escalate the incident to the point where I would then be forced to shoot. And there is also the possibility of having the gun taken from you while you are hesitating to use it. Or a struggle could ensue during which a bystander is accidentally shot. Or any one of dozens of other things I haven't thought of yet. It is a judgment call but I think I'll keep my gun put away untill there is no choice but to shoot.

Page 3 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
  •