On Killing (or not killing)

[Bill MO]

Thought someone might get something good from this article (by Michael Swisher, Suarez International Staff Instructor) on mindset and do you take the shot. Also coming into play is are you shooting to stop or kill the BG.



WARRIOR TALK NEWS - On Killing (or not killing)

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[RoadRunner71]

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.

[kelcarry]

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.

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".

[Brad426]

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.

I realize it's semantics, but you should be shooting to stop the threat and not shooting to kill. Now death may very well be an unfortunate side effect if you properly stop the threat, but your goal should be to ensure your safety, not to end a life. Shoot, if I had a Star Trek phaser I could set to stun I'd sell all my guns.

[dukalmighty]

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.

I really hope you never get into a SD shooting,that statement can come back to bite you in the ass!
Prosecutor:why did you feel the need to shoot the deceased 6 times?By your own admission you had a predisposed condition that if you were threatened that you would kill any threat ,That could be enough to sway a jury from SD to a voluntary manslaughter charge in some States

[lchamp]

I really hope you never get into a SD shooting,that statement can come back to bite you in the ass!
Prosecutor:why did you feel the need to shoot the deceased 6 times?By your own admission you had a predisposed condition that if you were threatened that you would kill any threat ,That could be enough to sway a jury from SD to a voluntary manslaughter charge in some States

Semantics and Lawyers...

[limatunes]

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.

[Cold Shot]

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".

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.

[OldVet]

Death is a possible, unfortunate side effect of shooting to stop a threat. A higher power will make that call.d

[GetSmith]

I realize it's semantics, but you should be shooting to stop the threat and not shooting to kill. Now death may very well be an unfortunate side effect if you properly stop the threat, but your goal should be to ensure your safety, not to end a life. Shoot, if I had a Star Trek phaser I could set to stun I'd sell all my guns.

Call it what you want, the way we train is shoot to KILL. We aim for center mass and shoot untill the threat stops. If the BG lives that's his luck. We don't shoot extremities to incapacitate. I'm not useing a taser. That was the only question I missed on the CCW test, the wording sounds harsh and difficult for our "civilized" society but if you feel the need to pull your gun to defend your self you shoot to kill.

[RoadRunner71]

The thing I take away from these threads/articles is that you must accept the REALITY that the end result of "Shooting to Stop" may be DEATH.

I have never been in armed combat, and I hope I never am, but I have been in unarmed combat (we used to call these fist fights ). Usually, a few punches are thrown, a shove or two, or a little wrestling on the deck is all there is. Everyone gets up, dusts themselves off and stalks away mad, victorious, or whatever. In a gun fight, in my mind, it MUST BE an all or nothing proposal. I have to be willing to have this other person die so that I, or my loved ones, may live. No do-overs. If that other person dies, so be it. I didn't open that door, he made that choice. It's on him.

[Chevy-SS]

I had two bad guys outside my front door a few months ago. I was positioned in living room, about 15 feet away, gun in hand. I know they debated kicking in the door, but then they left (thankfully). My ONLY thoughts were stopping the threats from harming family. Honestly, at that point I was accepting that I (or they) might be injured or killed, but I was resolved to stop them from getting through me. I think this is called SELF DEFENSE - plain & simple.

[Glhadiator]

This is about mindset. When I train by shooting targets it's easy to pull that trigger. No one is going to die. Call my use of a gun for self defense anything you want to call it. I accept the fact that pulling that trigger will most likely result in death. But I train very hard to give myself the best chance of recognizing when I or my family are in imminent danger as I am only allowed the use of deadly force in self defense.

The moment of truth is being able to pull that trigger when the gun is pointed at center mass of another human being. I don't need or want my mind clouded with legal thoughts or what-ifs. Once I discern that I am in imminent danger the rest is all training. There just isn't time for thinking. Any hesitation from me could result in my death.

I think that is what he is trying to say in this article. Self defense training should kick in as an automatic response. If I pull my gun and have to start thinking, "I hope this guy isn't serious with that knife because if I pull the trigger it will kill him.", then I am not prepared to defend myself. There aren't a lot of testimonials out there about incidents where the victim hesitated and got killed...because they're dead.

When I double tap him and he falls to the ground the threat has been neutralized. If he lives then he is the one that got lucky. I lived through a real life incident and I got lucky that day. I won't be depending on luck again.

To be sure, I never exit my house thinking, "I'm going to kill someone today." I hope to never have to kill someone. Just the thought of living with it is unattractive and foreboding. But I will stand my ground in defense of my life, and my familys life.

[Glhadiator]

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.

I have to say I agree with limatunes here. He used poor tactics that put him on the X. I'm not sure these were good examples for making his point.

[Brad426]

Call it what you want, the way we train is shoot to KILL. We aim for center mass and shoot untill the threat stops. If the BG lives that's his luck. We don't shoot extremities to incapacitate. I'm not useing a taser. That was the only question I missed on the CCW test, the wording sounds harsh and difficult for our "civilized" society but if you feel the need to pull your gun to defend your self you shoot to kill.

Funny that argue with me, yet say the same thing I said.