Shooting to injure: No such thing.

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.

Ain't that the truth! Sim rounds to cuticles hurt! Sim rounds to fingertips can leave one wondering if the end of their finger is still there or not :eek: Blood blisters abound.

True COM shots are hard to get unless an ambush is involved, but I think I could change some minds about aiming to "wound" as I was welting the phooey out of someone.
 
WOUNDING SHOT?

let this be your mantra. "I WAS SHOOTING TO SAVE A LIFE, NOT TO TAKE ONE", "I ONLY SHOT UNTIL THE THREAT NO LONGER EXISTED." after a warning shot to the head, feel free to shoot the gun out of their hand with a snap shot at 150 yds just like the lone ranger.
 
Since I live her in Louisiana (a very lawsuit happy state). My instructor informed my class to ALWAYS shoot to kill.

Dead men tell no tales.
 
Last edited:
A slightly different opinion

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!


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)."


Some times the English Language is poorly interpreted as being the opposite of the intended phrase.

Someone saying the attacker better be dead and have a weapon in his hand might be thinking how complicated it gets. Rule one is criminals always lie. Rule two might be that obvious is best on the police report. Rule three might be that it is better to avoid a confrontation if at all possible. Last rule might be that you might get frightened easily and not really be in danger - be sure you really were in danger.

So: A policeman advising you not to shoot unless very definitely in fear of your life might word it “he better have a weapon in his hand” (inferring -- or things are going to get really complicated).
And the person listening might think -- he is hinting that I should put a weapon in his hand. (Usually wrong - he did not say that) (Bar room chatter says he said that - after the third time it circles the bar - and those listening all give the Diane Cannon sinister laugh).

Often a policeman is just telling a person the truth. Avoid shooting if there is any other way. (Or you might be falsely convicted -- or you might be broke from paying lawyers -- or you might have a clean shoot and feel guilty for the rest of your life --- and the other million stories).

Big city police go from call to call. Often people are frightened or angry and indignant. Sometimes police try to give condensed advice from an almost burned-out perspective. The evening shift breaks up numerous bar room fights where minor injuries are involved and drunk witnesses tell or avoid telling them a story. Seldom do they see someone dead except in drunk driving accidents?

The statement “if someone is dead he better have a weapon in his hand” sounds different to me. Police often show up seeing the victim laying on the ground, or injured. Police normally arrest the guy with the fewest injuries. “Because bullies pick their victims”.

Fortunately the criminal usually has an arrest history. Usually he has been arrested many times and the policeman that shows up has chauffeured him to jail previously. Sometimes the supressed smile does not mean he is happy he is dead, only the same small smile each time he was the reason for the call.

It would be a shame if the victim gets worried and plants a weapon on him - then forensics only shows hairs, oils and prints from the victim, on the weapon. But it has happened I hear. Some 45 years ago I did know of a policeman in a prison I was working that used a drop gun, and was convicted for it. It was probably a clean shoot but I never heard. And accidents happened back then from cocking revolvers in stressful situations.

Your first job is to not be the victim. Your job is to protect yourself and yours. Not listen to internet rumors or bar room chatter that has been retold for perhaps hundreds of years. Some I first heard in the 1950’s. Long before computer arrest history and DNA testing.

Do not listen to old stories. Except check your flint and keep your powder dry, if that is all you have. And if you can trade it for a cap and ball it is better. Having your powder in brass shells is best.
 
We used to call this the "Wild West Mentality." I watched an old episode of The Life and Times of Wyatt Earp where he (Marshal Earp)said he was going to shoot to wound a bad guy. The media picked up on this nonsense and those of us who've had to use a firearm to defend ourselves have been battling this ever since.

I used to teach in a college criminal justice program part-time and the students insisted police could do this but chose not to. It took a field trip to the PD range to get them to accept reality.
 
Continuum of force.

Professional LEO's have "continuum of force" policies to which they must abide as it's patently obvious that all threats don't warrant a lethal response.

However, armed citizens don't have that obligation thus many feel that any perceived threat can be met with deadly force. That's sad (really) but it is somewhat understandable given most armed citizens don't have the requisite training and equipment. Again, that's sad. IMHO, not every threat warrants a response with deadly force. But I digress...

The instructor in Louisiana who allegedly teaches "ALWAYS shoot to kill" is a disgrace if that is, in fact, what he/she teaches. :mad:

Be safe.
 
There is no shooting to injure.

My daughter asked me yesterday at the range (her first time out) shouldn't she shoot the attacker in the legs.

No, no and another no. You shoot to stop them, and that means center mass, no exceptions. If the situation requires lethal force to defend yourself, you are not shooting to injure.
 
FL law says use of a firearm is deadly force, not use of a firearm to COM.
 
My uncle was a cop, retired maybe 20 years ago. He always said 'drag the bad guy back inside if he dies outside'.

I think that was a simpler time.

Of course now there would be a complete investigation and drag marks would kind of be a bit obvious.

But many years ago I think some things perhaps were overlooked or not investigated as hard.

Known bad guy? Check.

Dead in victim's house? Check.

Let's wrap this up and get out of here....

Even today I bet there's places where some details of the investigation may be overlooked.... ;)


.
 
After 30 years in the military and 10 in law enforcement I've watched the terminology change from shoot to kill to shoot to stop. Same thing? To me its a better fit.

As others have said shooting someone is use of deadly force. My training tells me that if I can meet deadly force with deadly force. I must be able to articulate that I am mortal fear for my life or the lives of those I am responsible for and the bad guy has the means, opportunity, ability, and intent to use deadly force then I can stop the threat.

I have to decide myself when to use it and live with my decisions.
 
The instructor in Louisiana who allegedly teaches "ALWAYS shoot to kill" is a disgrace if that is, in fact, what he/she teaches.

I think it's the folks using smarmy lawyerese like "stop the threat" who are a disgrace. It's nothing but a legal deflection, and it has no business in a real discussion of this issue.
 
Sometimes there's a price to pay for doing the right thing.

In the words of the ancient sage, no good deed goes unpunished. There will be a price of some kind any time you are forced to shoot someone.

But as I posted much earlier, and wiser people than I have confirmed, you shoot to end the threat. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did you issue a challenge earlier to anyone to shoot for anything but center mass when push comes to feces in the fan? May have been someone else. If so, I apologize.
 
Shoot to stop (Do not tell me he stopped because of your warning shot)

Well, my often vague memory has big gaps. But I recall the changes in language about shooting, in the California prisons I worked in 1960’s and 1970’s.

For the gun towers on the fences, and the gun cage in maximum security it was shout a warning, or blow whistle, or shoot warning shot, then shoot to wound.

I recall being told about an incident on a previous shift where an inmate chased an officer with a sharp metal object. In that case I think it was a single edge razor blade that one would normally use to scrape paint off windows. As he chased the officer across the yard the two gun towers with partial visibility of that half the yard opened fire. I do not remember if anyone said how many shots were fired but eventually one shot blew the heal off of one of the inmates shoes and he went down.
Obviously multiple shots were fired because those pointed full jacket 30:06 shots from those wonderful but slow bolt action rifles bounced up off the yard and went through the laundry buildings corrugated wall, bouncing around where inmates and free men supervisors were working. And to hear them tell it there was a lot of bouncing around going on.

In other words the wrong bullets and wrong target. They were shooting at his legs and missing. Had the inmate caught the officer it would have been serious. The bullets that went through that laundry wall had enough energy left to injure or kill. A moving target at over 100 yards is hard to hit. Legs much harder.

Anyway within a few years the Shoot to stop language emerged.

I have probably known a few people that if you said shoot to kill - they might keep on shooting until he stopped twitching, because he was not dead yet. Shoot to stop is probably more clear to more people.
………………

Listen carefully to your instructor. If anything sounds strange ask another instructor on another day. There are many reasons the laws are what they are. People did not just sit in a room and make up laws and rules and pick words that sound good. Sometimes an instructor has a bad day and words things poorly. Ask again.

Center of mass is the logical way to avoid missing and hitting someone else, perhaps far away. High center of mass is the best chance for a good one shot stop.

If the price you pay for doing what you feel is right, hurts a bystander, you did wrong.

I have changed my opinions many times. The last change was because of well trained people on this site.

If you ever tell another person it is okay to shoot to wound, you risk the chance he will shoot someone in the leg who kicked is dog (bad example? maybe not?). It is okay to think about various ways to shoot to wound, not okay to say it, unless you list every example and every exception.
(I reserve my right to change my mind later - when people around me understand everything the way I thought I said it, or intended to say it).
 
In the words of the ancient sage, no good deed goes unpunished. There will be a price of some kind any time you are forced to shoot someone.

But as I posted much earlier, and wiser people than I have confirmed, you shoot to end the threat. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did you issue a challenge earlier to anyone to shoot for anything but center mass when push comes to feces in the fan? May have been someone else. If so, I apologize.

I would be the one issuing simunition challenges to anyone that thinks that they (or anyone else) can pick out an arm or leg to target while I am moving and/or shooting back.
 
Morality and "doing the right thing" should be the last concepts on one's mind when under violent attack. Stopping the threat and getting to safety should be the first.
 
Back
Top