Shooting to injure: No such thing.

[MrJT]

A while back we discussed "shooting to injure" home intruders. Tonight there was a story on the news that got me thinking of this.

The story was about officer Donahue who was shot in a shoot out with the Boston bombers. He was hit in the leg.

Not long after, his heart stopped.

He was hit in the femoral artery and lost so much blood his heart stopped pumping. Luckily, he was receiving medical attention and survived.

So let this be a reminder that there's no such thing as shooting to injure. Every shot can be fatal.

 

[venomballistics]

furthermore ... when you shoot someone, its deadly force be it head chest or foot

 

[shouldazagged]

And still furthermore, you shoot to end the threat. Not to kill, not to injure, but to see to it the threat ceases.

 

[TStick]

And even further than that - I challenge anyone that thinks that they can shoot for anything but COM to a simunition shootout. Their life won't actually be in danger but they may wish they were dead when it is over.

I will welt the phooey out of 'em while they try to aim for my legs or arms.

 

[Kanewpadle]

And further more.

The goal isn't to kill but simply to change the guys "channel". Make him want to give up the fight.

 

[Jeffersonwasright]

And still furthermore, you shoot to end the threat. Not to kill, not to injure, but to see to it the threat ceases.

Does that mean three to the knee or two to the head?

 

[Arik]

Any shot has a possibility of being deadly but generally leg shots are not. His was a lucky hit. A stubbed toe can be deadly but usually isnt.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[loc n load]

Lethal force

Having been a professional "use of force" instructor for over 30 years, I will offer this. If you are forced to defend yourself with a firearm, you are implementing lethal force.
When lethal force is implemented the defender must be able to prove that they were in fear of their life or grievous bodily harm, that the attacker posed an imminent threat, and you were in imminent danger.
The defender must also prove that the attacker had the intent, the ability and means to carry out the attack.
Having instructed "force on force" simunitions training for thousands of officer's over several decades I will tell you that COM shot's are difficult to make under realistic conditions, and if your attacker is returning fire, and/or it is dark or reduced light...life get's even more interesting.
A wounded, crippled or maimed attacker who survives can sue you in civil court and chances of them collecting damages is possible.
And their counsel could argue that if you were shooting to wound, then you certainly were not in fear of your life, and not justified in implementing lethal force.
None of this is conjecture, in my profession we deal with use of force everyday in some level or another. And in today's court systems, you better have it right. I have been involved in several "after action" investigations and been in court several times as an "expert witness" to defend people who went into harm's way and then had to defend their actions in court.
If you are ever forced to defend your life or a loved one's with lethal force, then you must shoot to stop the threat, and the way the professionals are trained to do that is to shoot center of mass, and to shoot until the threat is over.

 

[jlrhiner]

"Welt the Phooey".

I am sooooo stealing that one!

 

[Jeffersonwasright]

...their counsel would argue that if you were shooting to wound, then you certainly were not in fear of your life, and not justified in implementing lethal force.

Let's be clear on this point - concern for potential litigation does not justify unnecessary killing. If it is possible to protect yourself without doing so, that's the moral obligation.

 

[HankG]

What loc n load has spelled out is excellent advice. You can loose everything, your house, car, savings, what ever in a civil lawsuit even though you feel you are protecting yourself and shoot the "bad guy". In Illinois, there are towns that will prosecute a home owner for shooting an intruder if the home owner is a much larger person than the bad guy and those doing the judging feel he could have defended himself without using a weapon. Carrying a concealed weapon with a permit to carry is a double edged sword. It can cut both ways.

 

[loc n load]

HankG

I fear the court system more than I do any criminal.....having lived daily with the reality of violence and violent offenders for decades, and having had the responsibility of training good men & women to go forth into harm's way for us, I can tell you this. I have seen good folk's (officer's and citizens) who had to make life and death decisions in a split second & then face the aftermath in court, and lose their freedom, their futures, their families, and as you pointed out, homes, savings, etc.....
It is the stark reality of the criminal and civil court system. I don't care how well trained and prepared you are, when you end up in the court system, you are now at the mercy of attornies, a jury of uneducated people in regards to violence and all of it's dynamics, and perhaps a predatory & biased news media that want's to exploit your misfortune for "breaking news".
For those of us who have decades of experience in that realm, we try our best to avoid going back there.

 

[25elk]

I respectfully disagree with Jeffersonwasright, who hails from the most liberal city in the great state of Texas, when I or my loved ones or any law abiding citizen for that matter, is confronted with deadly/overwhelming force any moral obligation to not stop the threat goes out the window. My obligation, moral and legal, is to protect the life of the victim and not that of the attacker. I taught firearm safety in AZ for a few years and on the night where legalities were discussed, an attorney gave the lecture and it was pretty much verbatim of what loc n load has correctly presented here. In fact, shooting to wound or maim, as the perps attorney will call it, can land you and not the bad guy in prison.

 

[HankG]

When I was young, the unstated dictum from the "old timers" was that "the attacker had better be dead and have a weapon of some kind in his hand". I always thought that this was a macabre rule they gave to us young guys so that they could feel they were tougher than we were. As I've grown older and watched the system, I realized there was a lot of truth in what they were saying.

A second thing I feel should be stated in this discussion is this. If you are involved in a shooting and the police officer arrives, the first thing out of your mouth when he or she asks what happens is..."with all due respect officer, I want an attorney". This has always run contrary to how I have been taught to think about police officers but they have an agenda and your agenda should be that it's best to protect yourself.

Enough said...watch your 6 o'clock gentlemen!

 

[the ringo kid]

A retired Texas Ranger put it this way to me (of which I fully agree) "Use what force is needed to stop the situation--even if it means emptying all 15 rounds into his body."

A Nueces County Deputy told me this: "After you shoot him, drag the body inside (your home)."

 

[MaximumLawman]

Here we go again.

 

[vista461]

And even further than that - I challenge anyone that thinks that they can shoot for anything but COM to a simunition shootout. Their life won't actually be in danger but they may wish they were dead when it is over.

I will welt the phooey out of 'em while they try to aim for my legs or arms.

I've done that in training. Got shot in the hands and head. Hands because I was also shooting and the gun was in front of my face because it was shooting back. Getting sim rounds in the hands at 6-15 feet hurts. Lol.

 

[vista461]

A Nueces County Deputy told me this: "After you shoot him, drag the body inside (your home)."

Quite possibly the worst advice ever.

 

[Delos]

Always an exception?

Except in Texas where you can shoot someone you see stealing your neighbors stuff.

(Oops sorry, here we go again)

 

[TStick]

"Welt the Phooey".

I am sooooo stealing that one!

You are welcome to it sir.

I didn't have to think about that one. After having the phooey welted out of me by many sim rounds, it's the only description that makes sense.