If you are worried about that, you should never have pulled the gun in the first place, as you weren’t really in a existential danger…which is the only time you should ever, under any circumstances, pull out a gun at all, let alone use it.
So all those times that cops have their guns pointed at people without shooting them are demonstrating the wrong way to use a gun?
Yes, I understand you’re stopping a person from committing a crime against you. But isn’t the crime stopped if you disable the criminal? And if so, why were you trying to kill the criminal?
These aren’t just hypothetical questions. They’re the kind of questions a lawyer will be asking you at your trial after you shoot some criminal who was threatening you. And if you say your intent was to kill the criminal when you shot him, they’re going to ask you the questions I just asked.
Here’s what you should be saying:
“What was your intent when you shot him?”
“My intent was to disable him.”
“Why were you trying to disable him?”
“So he couldn’t carry out the crime he was trying to commit.”
“Why did you kill him if you were only trying to disable him?”
“Because I shot him in the center of his chest.”
“Why did you shoot him in the center of his chest if your intent was only to disable him?”
“Because I knew he would not be disabled unless I hit him with my shot so I shot at where I would have the greatest chance of hitting him, which was the center of his chest.”
Actually the period when I was trained overlaps the period when you were trained.
No, of course not, that’s totally different! 
(couldn’t find the rolley eye smiley so this will substitute)
Why would you even ask this ridiculous question? Have I ever indicated that police should be given a pass on non-justified shootings, or was this just a knee jerk reaction to what you thought was some gun totin’ right winger?
I don’t think you do understand, as you seem to still be talking about stopping a criminal, where I’m talking about someone who you think, for sure, is trying to kill you or someone you are protecting. Like I said, if you shoot this person because you think you must or you will die, and if they live, that’s great. But you aren’t trying to apprehend someone here…you are defending your life or the life of someone else. Full stop. So, you shoot center of mass until they stop being a threat.
As to the rest, that’s why you get carry conceal training. They teach you all about the ramifications. Even what’s considered a ‘good shoot’ can and probably will open you up to legal action, either criminal or, almost certainly civil. Which is, again, why you only pull out a gun and use it if you think your life is on the line. You are going to be second guessed regardless, and someone is going to ask some of the more ridiculous questions you use here. That’s going to happen, regardless.
No, of course not, that’s totally different!
(couldn’t find the rolley eye smiley so this will substitute)
Why would you even ask this ridiculous question? Have I ever indicated that police should be given a pass on non-justified shootings, or was this just a knee jerk reaction to what you thought was some gun totin’ right winger?
How is it “totally different”? The police want someone to comply, so they point their guns at the person without shooting. I want someone to comply - “Get out of my house”, why can’t I just point my gun at them? According to you, I shouldn’t draw my gun unless I want to shoot them.
Unless you are ready and willing to shoot them (and acept the possible consequences).
The ‘that’s totally different!’ part is sarcasm and scorn. But since you still aren’t getting it, and since your meter is defective I’ll just come right out and say that it’s no different for cops or civilians, and that such shootings aren’t justified. That they happen is an issue…which is why police reform is something that’s such a hot button issues these days, as well as better and more relevant training and de-escalation tactics.
As to the other part of your question that seems more relevant, I’d say that if you feel threatened by someone invading your home…something that would be in keeping with the situation, then pulling out a gun would be a reasonable action. MY training is that you don’t pull said gun unless you are threatened and if you do you use it…you don’t threaten with it. YMMV of course, but I guess you’d have to ask yourself…is whatever is in my house, presuming it’s not you or your family or friends, worth fighting over? Is it worth killing over? Is it worth the legal ramifications? Just to get someone out of your house and, I guess, protect your stuff? Again, YMMV. Myself, if I can run and it won’t risk someone else, that’s what I’m going to do, gun or no gun. If I can’t, then I’m going to shoot center of mass and accept the consequences.
Myself, if I can run and it won’t risk someone else, that’s what I’m going to do, gun or no gun. If I can’t, then I’m going to shoot center of mass and accept the consequences.
That’s exactly my point. Pointing your gun at them to get them to leave is not even one of your options.
And if the choice for me is “let someone steal my TV or kill them”, well, they can have the TV.
It’s not one of my options. I think I’ve been clear about this. Yes, if they want my TV and if I think they will take the TV without harming me or threatening my family, well…that’s what insurance is for. Even if I didn’t have insurance, my stuff isn’t worth the price, either to me or to them. Have it and be welcome to it is what I say.
It’s not one of my options. I think I’ve been clear about this. Yes, if they want my TV and if I think they will take the TV without harming me or threatening my family, well…that’s what insurance is for. Even if I didn’t have insurance, my stuff isn’t worth the price, either to me or to them. Have it and be welcome to it is what I say.
Fair enough. Thanks for answering.
I’m not seeing what the issues are you’re having with what I wrote.
I said criminal because I was looking at the more general case. Yes, you can defend yourself against somebody who is trying to commit murder. But you can also claim self-defense against a criminal who is trying to commit rape or assault or even theft.
I also specifically gave the example of a criminal being shot in the chest and killed. So I don’t see where you get the idea that I’m advocating trying to apprehend somebody.
My point has been that intent is part of the legal situation. If you and I both, in two separate situations, confront criminals who are attempting to kill us, both pull out our guns, both shoot and kill the criminal who was threatening us, both aim for and hit the criminal we shot in the same spot, and both claim self-defense, we committed the same act. But afterwards, in court, you say your intent was to kill the criminal you shot and I say my intent was to disable the criminal I shot. And those differing intents may lead to two different outcomes. Which is why I’m surprised any competent trainer would tell his students that they should be shooting to kill.
And I’m surprised that any competent trainer would teach someone to shoot to wound or shoot to disable rather than running away. Either you are threatened or you aren’t. If you are, then you shoot to kill (i.e center of mass and enough to stop the person from threatening you) if you are going to shoot at all. YMMV and, to me, you seem to be playing more of a legalese semantic game, though you might be a lawyer or wanting to couch stuff in legal terminology. I’m neither a lawyer nor do I play one on the SDMB, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express anytime in the near past so I wouldn’t know.
Robbery, not theft. Unless you’re in Texas. Even for some types of robbery, did the force used to expedite the theft, constitute (here are those words again) a continuing imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death? They might. Or, for example, an ‘ordinary’ purse snatching, they might not.
I don’t mean to be that guy, but the distinction’s an important one.
Okay, I still seem to not be getting my point across.
There is no physical difference between shooting to disable and shooting to kill. The two acts are the same physically. The only difference is the intent.
It is legalese semantics. But if you’re going to go to court, you need to take them into account.
I have taken this into account. That is, again, part of the training you get when you are going for your carry conceal, and I’ve also worked pretty closely with law enforcement both before and after that training, so I’m well aware of the consequences. That’s part of the calculation one would have to make if they chose to pull out a gun to defend themselves. Basically, my thought is that if I had to do that then lawyers on the other side are going to do their best to bring up a lot of the ridiculous stuff you brought up in your bullet list (I think it’s pretty accurate) in an effort to paint me in a certain way, while my lawyers will do the opposite. How it would turn out is anyone’s guess. For my part, IF I actually pulled out a gun (if I had a gun would probably be the first step) it would be under the conditions I have already stated, and I’m not going to, nor am I suited to splitting legal hairs or playing legal semantic games…in MY mind it would only be if I really, honestly thought my life or the life of someone I was protecting was in danger. And that’s all that matters…to me. That’s what my training is, and that’s how I’d react. Doing this I’d already assume that I’d face legal repercussions, and I’d have to accept that as part of the calculation to use a gun in the first place. C’est la vie…
I’m not trying to belabor the argument. I really am interested in seeing where it is that you and I differ on this issue.
Do you agree that your intent when you commit an act can determine the legality of the act, alongside the act itself?
Do you agree that in a self-defense situation you should use the minimal amount of force that is necessary to reasonably ensure the threat against you has been stopped?
Do you agree that a person who has been disabled is as incapable of continuing to carry put a crime as a person who is dead?
I would not say I was tying to disable the person. Can you imagine how that would look at a civil trial as the burglar you shot sits there paralyzed in a wheel chair?
In 38+ years of LEO training, including specialized training for dignitary details, I’ve never been trained anything other than “I shot to stop the threat”. All other factors like the perception of a deadly threat, other options were exhausted or not reasonable for the situation, etc are outside the scope of what I am talking about.
[quote=“Whack-a-Mole, post:1, topic:914018”]
They also mentioned that if you tell the police you were trying to do anything short of kill the other person you are instantly in trouble because the only acceptable reason (legally) to shoot someone is when you are in fear for your or another person’s life and the only way to stop that was to kill the other person. Anything less than an attempt to kill the other person is a legal admission that you could not have been that afraid to try to attempt a wounding shot rather than an easier shot to kill.
[/quote] Half-right at best. To a certain point, saying that you were trying to wound the perpetrator in the leg can look like you were not actually in fear for your life. But the intent is never to kill the other person - it’s to stop the threat. And while it may seem to be a distinction without a difference it’s not - if my intent is to kill, that implies that I won’t stop shooting until that happens, even if the threat has already been eliminated.
For the nᵗʰ time, the magic word is stop, not “kill” or “disable.” Using any other word than stop could get you in a lot of trouble in court.
Detective: “Why did you shoot this guy?”
You: “He was threatening my life, and I believed he was going to kill me. So I stopped him. I have nothing further to say. I want to talk to my lawyer.”
Well, you are kind of belaboring it, as, to me at least I’ve answered all of this. But what the hell.
I’m not a lawyer, so not sure about how my intent is wrt the intent I believe happening when/if I were to draw and shoot a gun. My intent would be to not be killed or not have someone I care about or am protecting killed. How various lawyers would spin that…I can’t say, to be honest. That they would I can say is a certainty, as this is the reason for these semantic games.
As to the next, sure…though, again, this is a word game. One should use the minimal amount of force necessary to ensure the threat to ones self and/or people you are trying to protect is used to stop the threat. Myself, I’m fine with the Good Sir Robin approach to such situations, if you can pull it off. If not, then that is going to be a judgement call.
As to the last I already answered this…twice I believe. Not sure what different answer you are looking for, but if a person is disabled then they aren’t a threat anymore so there would be no need to continue to defend myself at that point. As I’ve said several times, if the person who I deemed as an existential threat to myself or to someone I’m protecting survives, and the folks I care about survive, then that’s great. But I’m not fool enough to think that if I shoot someone in the chest that this isn’t likely to kill them…which, again, is why I’d only do that if I had no other choice. What lawyer types will do with this I can’t say. My WAG is I’d be in jail and/or sued, whatever happens, at least while lawyers and juries worked things out, and that I’d probably lose my job and who knows what else? That’s one of the realities of the situation, and, again (and finally) why I wouldn’t pull a gun unless and until I really thought there was no other choice. THAT should have been the thing whoever taught you drummed into your head over and over again. Even a ‘good shoot’ can leave you in jail and being sued, as well as vilified and asked endless questions on a message board.