Defensive Carry banner

On Killing (or not killing)

4K views 52 replies 24 participants last post by  lostone1413 
#1 ·
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)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom and JD
#2 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
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".
 
#5 ·
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piratesailor
#7 ·
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.
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
Death is a possible, unfortunate side effect of shooting to stop a threat. A higher power will make that call.d
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom
#11 ·
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 :rolleyes:). 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.
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lchamp
#24 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#31 ·
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!
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#37 · (Edited)
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
 
#39 ·
IMO it is not about whether you shoot to kill or shoot to stop the threat. It’s about when to draw your weapon.

You draw only if or when there’s a sufficient threat to justify deadly force. I believe that once you need to draw, it’s 2 to COM and then reassess. Repeat if necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 65108
#46 ·
I almost agree with that, except I would say if you have no other option, then shoot. If I am faced with a deadly encounter, I will shoot to save my life, no doubt about that, but since the end result of whether my attacker dies or not is out of my hands, I don't concentrate on any result other than ending the threat. Period. Some may see this as only a difference in semantics. I see it as a difference in mindset. I understand that since it is a difference in mindset, many people will not recognize it, since they cannot read my mind. That's fine. Even if I am the only one who may see that difference, I know there is one.

It is obvious that the same ideas are being put forward, just in slightly different ways, and no minds are being changed by this discussion, so, although it has been fun, I believe this will be my last post on the matter.
 
#44 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#48 ·
Here is a very good post on the OP from another forum by CR Williams

It is a mistake to produce the weapon without a clear intent to fire.

It is a mistake to not change your decision and withhold your shot(s) if the attacker's behavior changes as a result of the weapon being drawn.

This is not an either/or. You should be fully intent on firing when you draw because the line has been crossed that you have previously set for what requires a lethal-force response. But you are in control, and if the attacker goes back across, to the other side of that line, when the weapon is produced, you should be able to change your decision and not make the shot. If you cannot stop yourself from shooting when the weapon is drawn, change your training or re-consider the idea of carrying a lethal weapon for defense.

In the discussion on WT about this article, Michael notes that in the second case he writes of, he had a shoot/no-shoot decision line in mind. You should too.

I discuss this in the book I wrote and will be discussing it in the video support series on my website.

Intent to shoot on presentation does not, should not, equate to automatically shooting on presentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom
#49 ·
It is a mistake to produce the weapon without a clear intent to fire.

It is a mistake to not change your decision and withhold your shot(s) if the attacker's behavior changes as a result of the weapon being drawn.

This is not an either/or. You should be fully intent on firing when you draw because the line has been crossed that you have previously set for what requires a lethal-force response. But you are in control, and if the attacker goes back across, to the other side of that line, when the weapon is produced, you should be able to change your decision and not make the shot. If you cannot stop yourself from shooting when the weapon is drawn, change your training or re-consider the idea of carrying a lethal weapon for defense.


100% agreement. I think this person has it exactly right!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom
#51 ·
Thanks, guys. It's what I believe to be the way of it.

I am occasionally troubled by hints I see from some gun-carriers that they really believe they're toting some kind of Super-Taser and not a lethal weapon. I worry that not understanding in the core that death at their hands could be the result of employing that weapon, they will lose either the fight itself, through hesitation at the wrong instant, or the process following the fight, when they're over-wrought to the point where they say or do the wrong thing and turn from a victim to a potential suspect in the eyes of the investigators.

I don't ask you or them to become easy and comfortable with the thought that you might kill an attacker some day. I do ask you and them to begin now to reach an accommodation, as best you can, with the vision of one or more criminals laying in front of you dead by your hand. If you don't take some steps to deal with it now, before the fight, you risk a loss of control afterwards that will not do you or the family that's depending on you to survive the entire process of self-defense, not just the part where you have to shoot someone, any good.
 
#53 ·
Have trained with Gabe and some of his instructors a few times. Gabes about 45 miles from where I live. I rate them as number one You won't find a LESS PC group anyplace that is why they are number one Outside of the fact they put places like Gunsite to shame
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top