Kindly inform me of what I should be shooting at to stop the threat. If shooting at center mass with everything I have in my firearm in the way of power and velocity and damage is not shooting to kill what in the world is it? Are you insinuating that I should shoot him in the leg? In the arm? Shoot the gun out of his hand? What do you think any of us are doing if we, g-d forbid, have to actually discharge our firearm in the face of an imminent threat? You are wordsmithing with me. If you do not "like" the word "kill", I suggest you not CC because that is what defense in the face of imminent threat, if you have to use your firearm, is all about considering the fact that you have used every other resource at your disposal to avoid the imminent threat (SA, drive away, run away etal---even being humble if it can be used). If you cannot think "kill" YOU will be killed. Imminent threat apparently means more to me than it does to you---it means I am within a second or two of being murdered and I'll be damned if I am thinking about the words "stopping the threat". I cannot believe that we are really on two different pages here and this is more about semantics than it is intent. I asked for comments and opinions and appreciate yours even if my answers tend to get a little to "colorful". For that I apologize, but hey, thats me.
Imminent Threat
- Thread starter kelcarry
- Start date
Kindly inform me of what I should be shooting at to stop the threat. If shooting at center mass with everything I have in my firearm in the way of power and velocity and damage is not shooting to kill what in the world is it? Are you insinuating that I should shoot him in the leg? In the arm? Shoot the gun out of his hand? What do you think any of us are doing if we, g-d forbid, have to actually discharge our firearm in the face of an imminent threat? You are wordsmithing with me. If you do not "like" the word "kill", I suggest you not CC because that is what defense in the face of imminent threat, if you have to use your firearm, is all about considering the fact that you have used every other resource at your disposal to avoid the imminent threat (SA, drive away, run away etal---even being humble if it can be used). If you cannot think "kill" YOU will be killed. Imminent threat apparently means more to me than it does to you---it means I am within a second or two of being murdered and I'll be damned if I am thinking about the words "stopping the threat". I cannot believe that we are really on two different pages here and this is more about semantics than it is intent. I asked for comments and opinions and appreciate yours even if my answers tend to get a little to "colorful". For that I apologize, but hey, thats me.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
I definitely like the word kill. It's my favorite in all the English language.
JCliff
New member
Words are important. "Semantics" could cause you a lot of very real legal trouble. I think the point CharlesMorrison was trying to make did not involve an insinuation that you shoot the threat in a non-optimum location (i.e., leg) for stopping the threat. If you should ever have the misfortune to actually have to defend yourself with deadly force in a life-or-death situation, I would very strongly recommend that afterwards you not use language like "I was shooting to kill without remorse" when describing the incident to police or your local DA. You shoot to stop the threat. If, while stopping the threat by your two or three well-aimed rounds to the center of mass, or one to the intra-ocular cavity, the perpetrator of the threat's life comes to an end, well too bad for the perp. I'm not talking about your survival mindset here. I'm talking about what space the law gives you to defend yourself. That space is defined as stopping the threat. Not killing. Killing is incidental.
TWright
Member
The best example I was given to explain the difference between shoot to kill vs shoot to stop the threat is this; If there are multiple perps, and the first one goes down with two in the chest, you can not shoot the others if they turn to run away because the threat has been stopped. If the goal is to kill, then chase them down the road and shoot them in the back, (and go to jail).
We are talking a bit of wordsmithing or semantics here and a very bad example, in my opinion. Imminent threat, IMO, means I am within moments of having my life taken--if you think the word "kill" is incorrect because it is somehow politically incorrect or is a word just waiting for legal problems, kindly tell me what "stopping the threat" is when you are aiming at someone center mass with a firearm--you are wordsmithing where your intent is obvious. Your example of "shooting them in the back" is not "killing"--it is murder. There is a big difference between killing and murder. Humans kill everyday--we are omnivorous and we eat meat. Even the G-d's commandment, when written as "thou shalt not kill" is incorrect--it is "thou shalt not murder". If I have taken my firearm out and am aiming at someone who has threatened me to the degree that I, as a reasonable person, are in fear of my life, I am aiming to kill him---if I do not and he is lying there wounded and is not a threat anymore and I then kill him, I have now committed murder. I think we are on the same page here--I am a realist when it comes to imminent threat and my use of my firearm and, in the context of discussion, the word "kill" is exactly what I am trying to do. In the context of, G-d Forbid, a real scenario, I am not going to be standing there yelling and screaming the word "kill"--I will be yelling and screaming "imminent threat" and self-defense and I sure as heck do not intend to commit murder by shooting someone who is now unarmed, or chasing down people to shoot them in the back.
JCliff
New member
Respectfully disagree. Words really are important. They represent ideas which lead to actions that have very real consequences. Could be very real legal consequences. To my knowledge, nowhere in our laws dealing with self-defense are you given authority to kill. You are given authority, usually in only the most dire circumstances, to use deadly force to stop the threat. Yes, we all understand that this will frequently result in someone getting killed. And it is understood in the law that use of deadly force can and will result in fatalities. But that is not the point. The point is, there is a very real intellectual (and legal) distinction between killing and stopping the threat. Fatality is incidental to stopping the threat.
festus
God Bless Our Troops!!!
Imminent threat is the reasonable assumption that you or another person are in immediate danger of loss of life or grievous bodily harm by the action or actions of another individual. This usually includes someone brandishing any weapon capable of puncturing or cutting to major organs, any large blunt object such as a baseball bat or tire iron being wielded in a menacing or threatening manner, or any menacing display of a firearm or any other deadly weapon purpose built or improvised. in the case of Florida any force-able felony can also be stopped using deadly force. This includes rape, robbery, and a whole host of other felonies (please check your local laws to confirm what your rules of engagement should be).
An armed response is considered lawful when stopping an imminent threat in Florida but in Illinois...not so much...
As we were taught in the USAF under the use of deadly force and laws of armed conflict training back in the day (some items may have changed a little). You shoot to stop the threat. once the threat has been neutralized (no longer a threat) you cease your actions against that particular target.
Legal training is that you only ever wanted to stop the threat. We are not cops. We do not need to challenge the threat when you are face to face. You stop the threat. If the threat is facing away from you...that is another story altogether. Now you have to weigh the factors is your family in immediate danger? Is a child in immediate danger? Is an unarmed person most likely going to lose their life or suffer grievous bodily harm? You simply cannot make a snap decision unless you are the guy on the scene. Personally I would issue a verbal challenge if the threat was facing away to drop the weapon. Any activity other than the threats weapon hitting the floor would be met with the appropriate judicial use of deadly force.
For instance...you are just putting the finishing touches on the perfect chili cheese dog at the moto-mart and walk up behind a armed individual attempting to rob the place. Where is his weapon pointed? A verbal challenge may get a clerk or bystander killed. If the threat is pointing his weapon at the clerks head, the best action may be no action until the threats weapon is not pointing at a human being.
You will not know how you will react until you are there...just use the training you have received and the best judgement you can to remain vertical at the end of the confrontation. Stop the threat...nothing more
An armed response is considered lawful when stopping an imminent threat in Florida but in Illinois...not so much...
As we were taught in the USAF under the use of deadly force and laws of armed conflict training back in the day (some items may have changed a little). You shoot to stop the threat. once the threat has been neutralized (no longer a threat) you cease your actions against that particular target.
Legal training is that you only ever wanted to stop the threat. We are not cops. We do not need to challenge the threat when you are face to face. You stop the threat. If the threat is facing away from you...that is another story altogether. Now you have to weigh the factors is your family in immediate danger? Is a child in immediate danger? Is an unarmed person most likely going to lose their life or suffer grievous bodily harm? You simply cannot make a snap decision unless you are the guy on the scene. Personally I would issue a verbal challenge if the threat was facing away to drop the weapon. Any activity other than the threats weapon hitting the floor would be met with the appropriate judicial use of deadly force.
For instance...you are just putting the finishing touches on the perfect chili cheese dog at the moto-mart and walk up behind a armed individual attempting to rob the place. Where is his weapon pointed? A verbal challenge may get a clerk or bystander killed. If the threat is pointing his weapon at the clerks head, the best action may be no action until the threats weapon is not pointing at a human being.
You will not know how you will react until you are there...just use the training you have received and the best judgement you can to remain vertical at the end of the confrontation. Stop the threat...nothing more
Last comment from me on this thread as I repeat some of my thoughts. I fully understand imminent threat (IT) and do not need a long definition to understand same. I have done everything I can do to avoid the IT including precursory SA (I do not go to places where my common sense tells me are unsafe and potential "what ifs"---ie: cash machines at midnight etal), and retreating in any way possible (drive away, run away, change direction etal). When all else fails and IT is staring me in the face, I will use my firearm to "stop the threat" (there, makes some repliers feel better). Odds are, with the lethality of my firearm, which can and has killed wild boars, and center mass aim, the BG will be dead---I HAVE NOW KILLED HIM, pure and simple. If he has not succumbed to his wound(s) and I ascertain that he is not a threat anymore, I HAVE STOPPED THE THREAT, and the "what if" is over. In any event, the use of my (and your) firearm to avoid being killed, is whatever language you want it to be and odds are, if you are good at this gun thing and have something other than a pea shooter, will result in a dead BG, who you have just KILLED. PS: If there is remorse in what you have done, I do not think you should be carrying a firearm--it may get you killed as you lament about your decisions. Someone just tried to kill me---remorse--no way.
tcox4freedom
New member
I agree with everything you just posted kel; except the remorse comment.
I think most any Christian, or good person would have some feeling of "remorse" for having to take action that results in another persons death. But, that does NOT mean it will limit their actions the next time in any way whatsoever.
I personally have experienced this feeling of remorse; even knowing I was 110% in the "right" to take the actions I did. I know soldiers & other LEOs that experience the same thing after having to take the life of a bad guy or enemy combatant. But, it in NO WAY affected their ability to do what needed to be done!
-
I think most any Christian, or good person would have some feeling of "remorse" for having to take action that results in another persons death. But, that does NOT mean it will limit their actions the next time in any way whatsoever.
I personally have experienced this feeling of remorse; even knowing I was 110% in the "right" to take the actions I did. I know soldiers & other LEOs that experience the same thing after having to take the life of a bad guy or enemy combatant. But, it in NO WAY affected their ability to do what needed to be done!
-
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.