Intent to????

[Blooze]

Using a firearm is deadly force regardless of where you aim. Shooting to wound will get you killed.

 

[Treo]

I'm once again fairly new to conceal carry so I have something that has been a large question for me that I need to ask. When faced with a situation where you have to take action with your side arm do you shoot with intentions to incapacitate or to inflict fatal injury? I've often thought it depended on the situation, but you may not know if they have a weapon. So does that take away the thought of incapacitating. Even when shot in a limb it is possible to still draw a weapon and do harm. What are your thoughts?

You shoot to stop the threat period.

 

[Chris Reitsma]

That one is easy. You shoot center mass to stop the threat. You keep shooting until the threat is stopped.dont try to shoot to wound or shoot in the leg. Legally your goal is to stop the threat so you do what it takes to stop the threat ASAP

 

[Caribou]

A lot of good advice above. Please let me restate some of it. Never shoot to kill you shoot to stop the threat. If dear occurs that is a byproduct not the intent. Always shoot center mass. You are more likely to hit the BG and less likely to hit someone behind him. P.S. Trouble travels in packs, look for others. Take a class at least annually. There is a broad range of training available and even the basic courses will help you immeasurably.

 

[Pir8fan]

I'm going to aim at the BG's center body mass. If that kills him, fine. If he survives but is no longer a threat, that's fine too and I'll stop shooting. Either way I've eliminated the threat which is the whole purpose.

 

[SGB]

All this "shoot to stop" lingo is the left over from the decades of liberals teaching us that the dirt bag trying to kill you was just a misunderstood misfit who is a result of our failure as a society to do better in sharing the wealth so such a person would not have to resort to robbing, raping and killing to feel equal in our society. Hench he should only be stopped so that he may be rehabilitated to be released back into society as a productive member. . . . . . how's that been working for us ??????????

Fortunately society in the last decade has begun to see the error of it's ways.

The use of deadly force is authorized in our society to counter the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. My goal will be to STOP the threat quickly and permanently.

 

[walt629]

I'm once again fairly new to conceal carry so I have something that has been a large question for me that I need to ask. When faced with a situation where you have to take action with your side arm do you shoot with intentions to incapacitate or to inflict fatal injury? I've often thought it depended on the situation, but you may not know if they have a weapon. So does that take away the thought of incapacitating. Even when shot in a limb it is possible to still draw a weapon and do harm. What are your thoughts?

Don't know what kind of work you do, but have you ever smacked your thumb with a hammer at full tilt? You know the searing rush you get when you first realize it was your thumb and NOT the nail head? Just before the excruciating pain sets in, that tunnel vision feeling and the ringing of your ears is the onset of an adrenalin rush.

When you are accosted in your home, in the dark by someone you don't know and who's intentions you don't know, Or you're in the middle of the city and you're suddenly confronted by a group of men with guns or knives that want your money and think your wife might be fun for a while, or you're suddenly being yanked out of your car at a stop light by some thug that likes your ride, that tunnel vision thing is going to hit you.

Your blood pressure is going to skyrocket or plunge depending on you physical make up. You're going to temporarily loose hearing and awareness of your surroundings. It will all happen at once.

Under those conditions I know I'll be shooting center mass until the threat is stopped.

Just MHO. A lot of people all gave good advise here. Shoot center mass to stop the threat. Everything else is Hollywood working it's way into your head.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My goal will be to STOP the threat quickly and permanently.

And that, right there, is the difference between self-defense and first degree murder. That worked out very well for Jerome Jay Ersland, didn't it?

Link Removed

And you are a CCW instructor?!? Wow.

 

[Deserteagle]

As others have said, shoot to stop the threat. Dont shoot to kill. You are not a judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Iam2Taz]

Only shoot "to stop" an attacker and that's only if you have no other choice right?
Never shoot to 'kill' anyone. That won't fly in court will it?
Are you a 'killer'? Is that what you want them to label you as in court?
NO WAY!
You are not ever trying to kill anyone!
NEVER!
If you must utilize your sidearm as a last resort, then you will always aim at 'center mass'.
Why must you aim at center mass?
Because that is the largest target area of the assailant!
You don't want to miss the assailant and then possibly have your round hit an unintended target do you?
Always shoot to 'stop the threat', never to kill.
~Stay Safe~

Great comment. I was asked once why I wanted to carry a weapon. One answer, "To make the BG stop." He/she stops, I stop.

 

[S&W645]

And that, right there, is the difference between self-defense and first degree murder. That worked out very well for Jerome Jay Ersland, didn't it?

Link Removed

And you are a CCW instructor?!? Wow.

Once the threat is removed, going any further is murder. In that case, there was no longer a threat when he used a second gun to kill the criminal. Now if the BG dies after you stop him from attacking, too bad on him.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Only shoot "to stop" an attacker and that's only if you have no other choice right?

Not in Washington state (the no other choice part)...

Washington state law specifically allows me to use deadly force against a criminal who a reasonable person would assume has a design and the means to commit a felony against me or anyone in my presence.

 

[SGB]

And that, right there, is the difference between self-defense and first degree murder. That worked out very well for Jerome Jay Ersland, didn't it?

Link Removed

And you are a CCW instructor?!? Wow.

Now I generally agree with your line of thinking, however you really blew this one out your collective azzhole. No where did I indicate nor condone murder as you have implied I did and I'm insulted that you've implied that was the direction of my post. Your juvenile jump to such an unwarranted conclusion certainty has me rethinking any support I may have had on any of your other threads.

No I'm not a CCW Instructor, I'm a Firearms Instructor. I teach people to hit what they shoot at, such as in a self defense situation the heart/lungs and central nervous system, all known to result in rapid incapacitation and death.

 

[Firefighterchen]

And that, right there, is the difference between self-defense and first degree murder. That worked out very well for Jerome Jay Ersland, didn't it?

Link Removed

And you are a CCW instructor?!? Wow.

Now I generally agree with your line of thinking, however you really blew this one out your collective azzhole. No where did I indicate nor condone murder as you have implied I did and I'm insulted that you've implied that was the direction of my post. Your juvenile jump to such an unwarranted conclusion certainty has me rethinking any support I may have had on any of your other threads.

No I'm not a CCW Instructor, I'm a Firearms Instructor. I teach people to hit what they shoot at, such as in a self defense situation the heart/lungs and central nervous system, all known to result in rapid incapacitation and death.

Your original post was fine except the permanent part. How do you permanently stop a threat that is lying on the ground incapacitated but not dead?

My motto, shoot to save life.

 

[SGB]

Your original post was fine except the permanent part. How do you permanently stop a threat that is lying on the ground incapacitated but not dead?

My motto, shoot to save life.

Where in my post did I say anything about a threat that is lying on the ground incapacitated but not dead ?

 

[SGB]

Your original post was fine except the permanent part. How do you permanently stop a threat that is lying on the ground incapacitated but not dead?

My motto, shoot to save life.

Where in my post did I say anything about a threat that is lying on the ground incapacitated but not dead ?

All this "shoot to stop" lingo is the left over from the decades of liberals teaching us that the dirt bag trying to kill you was just a misunderstood misfit who is a result of our failure as a society to do better in sharing the wealth so such a person would not have to resort to robbing, raping and killing to feel equal in our society. Hench he should only be stopped so that he may be rehabilitated to be released back into society as a productive member. . . . . . how's that been working for us ??????????

Fortunately society in the last decade has begun to see the error of it's ways.

The use of deadly force is authorized in our society to counter the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. My goal will be to STOP the threat quickly and permanently.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Your juvenile jump to such an unwarranted conclusion

Juvenile jump to an unwarranted conclusion? Well, let's see who seems to be intent on causing death as the means to stop a threat, shall we?

the fastest way to achieve this is to inflict mortal injury.

My goal will be to STOP the threat quickly and permanently.

You make those statements on the witness stand at your defense trial and what conclusion do you think a jury is going to jump to?

Just because you survive the criminal attack does not mean you survive the entire process. Statements such as those you have made will only help the prosecutor in providing a cell mate for Jerome Jay Ersland.

I should have recognized that you weren't a ccw instructor - ccw instructors swing the opposite way and make every effort to keep students out of jail, often at the expense of exercising their 4th amendment rights and engaging the criminal in the most effective means legally available to stop the threat. Your statements will increase a person's chances of attaining government provided housing and meals.

 

[SGB]

Juvenile jump to an unwarranted conclusion? Well, let's see who seems to be intent on causing death as the means to stop a threat, shall we?

Show me the law that says the intentional killing of another in the act of trying to kill you is murder as you've previously stated. The single fastest way to terminate an assailants attack is with a hit to the Central Nervous System, which is 100% fatal 100% of the time. The next best thing is perforating the the heart, lungs and liver causing massive tissue damage resulting in blood loss resulting in loss of blood pressure and most probably DEATH !!!!!!

Being honest about it in no way makes one criminally or civilly liable and insinuating otherwise is not only incorrect but just down right dishonest.

You make those statements on the witness stand at your defense trial and what conclusion do you think a jury is going to jump to?

Your crystal ball must need some warranty work

Just because you survive the criminal attack does not mean you survive the entire process. Statements such as those you have made will only help the prosecutor in providing a cell mate for Jerome Jay Ersland.

Again you insinuate that I posted something which I did not, now you are just being flat out dishonest sir. Very hard to debate an argument based wrongly on assumptions formulated by the lies of another.

 

[Warbirds]

The law in Utah is very clear. When the threat ends so does your right to use deadly force. Contrary to what some has said, I know of no state that allows deadly force "because you drew your weapon" or that say you must end the threat permanently.

 

[SGB]

I should have recognized that you weren't a ccw instructor - ccw instructors swing the opposite way and make every effort to keep students out of jail, often at the expense of exercising their 4th amendment rights and engaging the criminal in the most effective means legally available to stop the threat. Your statements will increase a person's chances of attaining government provided housing and meals.

You sir argue with hypothetical conjecture and an obvious lack of real world experience. Further you have failed to address what I originally believed to be your over site regarding my original post. Either you are incapable of admitting error or it was a purposeful misrepresentation. Having myself served in the US Marines, with a long family tradition of military service and a Son in Law still serving as a Lt. in the Navy it saddens me that men so petty as to attack the man instead of the argument, apparently men such as you still continue to command our troops.