I've read two threads recently that used the term "Shoot to kill". I find the terminology odd and just a little melodramatic.

In Colorado law there's no difference between shooting at someone and shooting in the air to scare someone, you used deadly force.

All my training has been specifically "Aim center mass and continue to engage the target until it is no longer a threat" there's never been any "Shoot to kill" to it.

Why do we use that term?

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Hollywood.

I've been through three academies..always "Shoot to stop the threat."

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

In a word "Hollywood"

Informed people don't. You shoot to stop the action.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Most of us don't. The ones who do tend to be:

1. ignorant of the law.
2. immature.

If somebody puts me in immediate and credible fear of death or great bodily harm I'll shoot them until they're no longer a threat. Whether that kills them is of the greatest disinterest to me.

My goal is for them to stop doing what they were doing which caused me to shoot them. If that happens and they live, that's fine with me.

I knew Cmort would explain it to us. What an incredible wealth of info this gent is.

__________________
Bill
Dis B. Leaf

I think the law here is you can be in more trouble for pulling a gun on someone than using it. Maybe it's threatening? To me if I pull it I better use it, if the law is correct.

Are you trying to start a fight ?

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

No, I am just overly impressed.

__________________
Bill
Dis B. Leaf

If a goblin is intent on doing you or another grave bodily harm, and you must engage them with a firearm, then you fire accurately at the center mass of what you can accurately engage and do not break contact until the threat has stopped threatening! Shooting "to kill" is a Hollywood libra'tard term, that bantered about, could cause the person to be brought to "trial" in the court of public opinion, or post engagement.... A rung on a prosecutors career ladder! I was forced by the suspect to engage him/her, with deadly force because I feared for my life and the lives of others! The suspected forced me! ( is vastly more appropriate )

That is incorrect.

All of my training is to draw and fire as soon as the sights are on target. I was never trained to draw and order the person to halt or "Drop the gun" or "Freeze" or any of that. I'm acting to defend myself not detain the person I'm drawing on.

That said if the mere act of my drawing a weapon causes the bad guy to cease his attack (or what ever he was doing that made me think I needed to use deadly force) then I am no longer justified in using deadly force.

I saw this at work one day.

Guy jumps out of his car with a bat and runs up to another car. In Colorado the driver of the other car would have been 100% justified to use deadly force at that point.

I'm not sure what happened but when the bat guy got to the second car he put down the bat and started talking to the second driver. At that point the second driver would not have been justified in using deadly force.

The bat guy then walked back to his car and threw the bat in the bushes at the side of the road.

I picked up the bat on my way home after work. It was an aluminum Tee Ball bat and I gave it to my grand kids .

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

I think it's more of a psychological ploy to scare the poor unfortunate fellow that grew up in terrible conditions to not go and loot and riot. I don't think it's working though. They probably haven't gotten their stolen TV's hook up and haven't seen the news. Any shot is to be considered a kill shot. I certainly won't want to try to shoot a weapon from someone's hand or shoot them in the leg, heck they will come back and sue me, and no warning shot's from me either.

__________________
Psalm 23:4

^^^ That's the answer.

I'm wondering what the alternatives to 'shoot to kill' might be:

Shoot to scare them off.
Shoot to slow them down until the police get there.
Shoot to wound them just a little (you know, like a flesh wound).
Shoot to maim.
Shoot their gun out of their hand.
Shoot their tires so they can't escape.
Shoot the stuff out of everything as long as you don't hurt anyone (A-Team style)

__________________
- Change it back -

The good guys, in them old movies (and especially them old TV shows) would "shoot to wound", or shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. Ever see the Lone Ranger kill anyone? No.

So we all grew up knowing that GOOD GUYS shoot to wound, to stop. Therefore when things are really really really bad, the GOOD GUYS need to be told - "Shoot to kill".

Sounds neat on the screen, don't it?

__________________
I always take precautions

This subject has been worked over a lot, but I'll say this again: I devoutly hope I never find it necessary to shoot someone is self defense. If I do I'll be doing everything I've been taught in order to stop the threat. It's not a matter of "disinterest" to me if the assailant dies, there just won't be time to worry about it while trying to accomplish the task of saving my life.

I think I'd feel terrible if I killed someone, but that would have to come later.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

You don't shoot to kill.

You shoot to live.

Never thought about shooting to kill. If I ever had to I'd be shooting till bg dropped. If he died? Well that's just a chance he's had to take.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

We're done here.. thank you all for your insightful input

__________________
SWCA #2306
DAV in honor of POP