Who are these instructors that are teaching this? Jeff Coopers rules that you quoted are fine for a rule of thumb, but in actual range training I’ve never, ever heard the word “destroy” nor “shoot to kill”. I know of not one instructor that would teach anything but “shoot to stop the threat”. And I know of not one that would be willing to testify that they trained officers to “shoot to kill”. It’s semantics, I know, but words can hurt you in this litigious society of ours.
If you honestly believe that you can shoot someone without killing them, then you should not be handling a gun. If you point a gun at someone, you better be willing to kill them. Sure, you stop shooting when the threat is neutralized, but if you aren’t ready to kill then the gun should stay in the holster.
I’m not a cop (but I’ve had training from sheriffs and retired cops) and the only time anyone says “shoot to stop the threat” is when discussing lawyers. No one is on trial here and I’m not saying that if you pull the gun you have to kill someone, only that if you pull it you’d better be prepared to kill.
Sure I can. It demonstrably worked in the LA riots.
Perhaps you’d consider addressing the argument rather than the person?
I said nothing of the kind. I was talking about terminology being used that could come back and bite you and your instructor in your asses in court.
But that is exactly what I’m talking about! You do not want to sit in court and say 'I shot to kill". It will not help your case. It sounds trivial now, but words can hurt you in that situation. And if you are involved in a shooting, you WILL end up in court. Whether it’s before a grand jury or in civil court, at some point afterwards you’re going to be there. And as absurd as it sounds now, using the wrong terms can affect the outcome.
Yeah, well I am. Been one for 25 years. I’ve been on tac teams and dignitary security squads. I also work in the private sector specializing in executive protection services. The extensive firearms training I’ve received far, far exceeds that most police officers are required to take. I’ve been to quite a few hearings ivolving shootings.
I’ve yet to hear an instructor testify that they train people to “shoot to kill”.
Not one! And I’ve yet to hear a properly trained person testify that they “shot to kill” or “intended to kill”. Not one.
Okay, we’re not really disagreeing over substance. We’re civilians and less of a lawsuit magnet than someone in your position. And probably less prone to have to take out our weapon on a day to day basis – it’s not part of my job to subdue or contain anyone, for the most part, and I don’t have a civilian complaints board/IAD to worry about. I’ve also been lucky enough to live in parts of the country where “he needed killing” is considered a reasonable substantive defense in some cases, and where prosecutors aren’t going to even bring a clear self-defense killing to the grand jury.
As I said, the hyperbolic comments made to me had the desired end effect – I would be very slow to brandish a weapon (but implicitly meaning that if I ever did, I would be seriously considering the possibility of using it with extreme prejudice).
Of course they aren’t going to testify that. Apparently there’s a huge disconnect going on here, I’ll try again.
If I, as a civilian, pull a gun on someone who means me harm, I should understand that I could take this persons life. If I am not willing to kill that person, than I should not pull my gun. If the person stops threatening me, than I should not shoot them.
Do you have a problem with me this far?
If the person does not stop threatening me, than I either back down or shoot. If I back down I shouldn’t have pulled the gun. If I shoot, the person could easily become dead (that is, I might kill them).
Do you yet see what we are saying? If you pull a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill. If you aren’t prepared to kill, don’t point a gun at someone. “Stopping the threat” is legalize sugar coating.
True, but the legal ramifications in a shooting are vitually identical.
Your kidding. Where might this be? I’ve always wanted to visit the old west in 1975.
But remember, just because you aren’t criminally charged or covicted does not mean you will win a civil lawsuit. You do not want to say you shot to kill or intended to kill when the family sues you.
Yup. You’re absolutely correct. it sure is. Legalize sugar coating.
But you better not be a legal diabetic when you go to court after a shooting. Just the way it is.
Darn good thing we aren’t in court right now. If/when that ever happens, I’m going to be listening to my attorney and not someone on a message board. And it’s not going to be because I didn’t understand that my actions could result in the death of someone.
Exactly what part of this do you disagree with -
Do you recommend civilians pull their guns on people that they aren’t prepared to shoot? Or do you recommend civilians shoot people they don’t want to hit? Or should we shoot and hit a bad guy, but try like heck not to kill him?
Excellent plan. But I assure you one of the people he/she is going to be talking to, and probably putting on the stand is the person who instructed you in firearms.
Don’t think of hitting someone unless you intend to kill them.
I can’t imagine any instructor or lawyer telling you to testify [in these EXACT words] that you “intended to kill them”.
That’s not what I said and you god damn well know it. I started my first post on this by saying it was an issue of terminology, not actual actions. Both your attorney and instructor should advised saying something to the effect that “I fired to stop the threat”. The fact that you had to put 2 in the bad guys chest to stop the threat does not show an intent to kill. Only a desire to stop the threat.
But if you want to testify it court that you “intended to kill them”, go right ahead. let me know how that works out for you.
I’m not in court, and neither are you. The post you were responding to made a point about safety, not about testifying. If you want to discuss how to testify in a self defense trial, that’s fine. If you are seriously getting this worked up about whether or not Steve or Rich or whoever used those exact words, relax - I have no idea what exactly they said as transcripts weren’t available.
I can’t find anyone (except you) in this thread that claims our instructors have coached us on how to testify. But, if it’ll calm you down, I’ll concede that it’s possible, maybe even likely, that none of them have ever said the exact phrase “intend to kill”. Do you feel better now? That doesn’t change the opinion that it’s a major safety violation to point your gun at anything you aren’t prepared to destroy (or kill).
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. And while I believe in Natural Rights, I need not bring it up.
The bottom line is this: I have a right to keep and bear arms because I say so. It’s my opinion, and I don’t need to justify it.
Do you have life insurance, HC? If so, you must be planning to die. If you’re *not * planning on dying, why do you have life insurance?
Do you have a smoke alarm, HC? If so, you must be planning on having a fire. If you’re *not * planning to have a fire, why do you have a smoke alarm?
Do you have a spare tire in your car, HC? If so, you must be planning on getting a flat. If you’re *not * planning on getting a flat, why do you have a spare tire?
I have a right to drop by your house, steal your heirlooms and rape your wife because I say so. I don’t need to justify it. (Nor, being forewarned, do I need to fear armed resistance; counterpreparations are simple.)
Ok, I should have clarified that my criticism is reserved for guns whose sole purpose is violence against people, not those for hunting or target shooting.
That’s the worst argument I’ve ever heard; I dread the day that people like you are able to start a neighbourhood arms race. Criminals have guns, so we should get bigger guns. The criminals get bigger guns, so we should get rocket launchers. The criminals get rocket launchers, so we should get tanks. Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
I’m pretty sure that was a
WHOOOOSSSHHH!!!
:smack:
Damn!! You mean I’m gonna have to get back my deposit on the bazooka?