When is it okay to kill someone?

[marharth]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

Doesn't mean your going to not be in legal trouble.

 

Self defense is only a valid reason to kill if you are trying to simply disable them. Its not legal to do what you describe.

 

A recent case that was on the news is that a kid broke into some guys shop with a gun and the guy shot him. That is fine. He then went to shoot him multiple times while he was already down. That is not fine.

 

Also you should never aim for the arm, head, or their weapon when trying to disable someone. You would want to aim for the torso or legs to disable them. Its much more difficult to move around with a shot in the torso or leg then in the arm.

[HeyYou]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

Doesn't mean your going to not be in legal trouble.

 

Self defense is only a valid reason to kill if you are trying to simply disable them. Its not legal to do what you describe.

 

A recent case that was on the news is that a kid broke into some guys shop with a gun and the guy shot him. That is fine. He then went to shoot him multiple times while he was already down. That is not fine.

 

Also you should never aim for the arm, head, or their weapon when trying to disable someone. You would want to aim for the torso or legs to disable them. Its much more difficult to move around with a shot in the torso or leg then in the arm.

 

Yeah, walking up to a guy and pumping a few more rounds into him really isn't kosher. That is NOT what I am suggesting.

 

Also, "aim for center mass" and "shoot to wound" are mutually exclusive. Center mass includes things like the heart and lungs. A slug to any of those is generally pretty fatal. More often than not, immediately so. And even if hit in the lung, your target is still dangerous, actually, even more so, nothing as dangerous as a wounded animal, and that carries over to humans. A severely hit criminal, can still squeeze a trigger. If the target is still a threat, keep firing. If the target is down, and disarmed, walking over and finishing him off WILL indeed get you in trouble.

 

I am not just talking out my nether regions here either. I was a military police for some time. This is the way I was taught. This is the way I react. If you come at me with a gun, be prepared to get dead, cause I am going to do my damnedest to see that you get there. If you only have a knife, or some similar hand to hand weapon, be prepared to watch me giggle, point, and then shoot you in the leg, and explain to you just how stupid that was, as I call the cops to come get your sorry ass off my carpet. :D

[marharth]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

Doesn't mean your going to not be in legal trouble.

 

Self defense is only a valid reason to kill if you are trying to simply disable them. Its not legal to do what you describe.

 

A recent case that was on the news is that a kid broke into some guys shop with a gun and the guy shot him. That is fine. He then went to shoot him multiple times while he was already down. That is not fine.

 

Also you should never aim for the arm, head, or their weapon when trying to disable someone. You would want to aim for the torso or legs to disable them. Its much more difficult to move around with a shot in the torso or leg then in the arm.

 

Yeah, walking up to a guy and pumping a few more rounds into him really isn't kosher. That is NOT what I am suggesting.

 

Also, "aim for center mass" and "shoot to wound" are mutually exclusive. Center mass includes things like the heart and lungs. A slug to any of those is generally pretty fatal. More often than not, immediately so. And even if hit in the lung, your target is still dangerous, actually, even more so, nothing as dangerous as a wounded animal, and that carries over to humans. A severely hit criminal, can still squeeze a trigger. If the target is still a threat, keep firing. If the target is down, and disarmed, walking over and finishing him off WILL indeed get you in trouble.

 

I am not just talking out my nether regions here either. I was a military police for some time. This is the way I was taught. This is the way I react. If you come at me with a gun, be prepared to get dead, cause I am going to do my damnedest to see that you get there. If you only have a knife, or some similar hand to hand weapon, be prepared to watch me giggle, point, and then shoot you in the leg, and explain to you just how stupid that was, as I call the cops to come get your sorry ass off my carpet. :D

Well if your saying you would attack the guy with multiple shots to disable him, I have no problem.

 

I misunderstood your statement as saying you would purposely execute the guy no matter what I suppose.

 

Either way killing people will generally get you into some kind of legal trouble.

[HeyYou]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

Doesn't mean your going to not be in legal trouble.

 

Self defense is only a valid reason to kill if you are trying to simply disable them. Its not legal to do what you describe.

 

A recent case that was on the news is that a kid broke into some guys shop with a gun and the guy shot him. That is fine. He then went to shoot him multiple times while he was already down. That is not fine.

 

Also you should never aim for the arm, head, or their weapon when trying to disable someone. You would want to aim for the torso or legs to disable them. Its much more difficult to move around with a shot in the torso or leg then in the arm.

 

Yeah, walking up to a guy and pumping a few more rounds into him really isn't kosher. That is NOT what I am suggesting.

 

Also, "aim for center mass" and "shoot to wound" are mutually exclusive. Center mass includes things like the heart and lungs. A slug to any of those is generally pretty fatal. More often than not, immediately so. And even if hit in the lung, your target is still dangerous, actually, even more so, nothing as dangerous as a wounded animal, and that carries over to humans. A severely hit criminal, can still squeeze a trigger. If the target is still a threat, keep firing. If the target is down, and disarmed, walking over and finishing him off WILL indeed get you in trouble.

 

I am not just talking out my nether regions here either. I was a military police for some time. This is the way I was taught. This is the way I react. If you come at me with a gun, be prepared to get dead, cause I am going to do my damnedest to see that you get there. If you only have a knife, or some similar hand to hand weapon, be prepared to watch me giggle, point, and then shoot you in the leg, and explain to you just how stupid that was, as I call the cops to come get your sorry ass off my carpet. :D

Well if your saying you would attack the guy with multiple shots to disable him, I have no problem.

 

I misunderstood your statement as saying you would purposely execute the guy no matter what I suppose.

 

Either way killing people will generally get you into some kind of legal trouble.

 

If I am going to shoot someone, I am going to aim to kill them. The fewer shots the better. Of course, if I get to the point that I feel it necessary to pull the trigger, I am not just going to fire once, and see what happens. You can figure on at LEAST two shots, and depending on just how badly I am pissed off, probably a third as well. If I am going to shoot, I do NOT screw around.

 

I won't execute anyone. (well, suppose that depends on just WHY I felt the need to shoot him in the first place.... but, that could be a whole 'nother topic....) I will however, defend my home, my family, and everyone in it, to the best of my ability, if that means I have to fire my weapon, then I am going to make sure whomever I am shooting at does NOT get the chance to fire his. If he is still a threat, I will fire a few more rounds, until he isn't any more. Either by being dead, or, tossing his weapon and giving himself up. Those are the only two options. ( I suppose him running for his life from that crazy long-haired bastard with the gun would be a third as well..... :D)

[draconix]

is what is not OK from a legal perspective.

I'm pretty sure that this is they guy Marharth was talking about, that was robbed at gunpoint. He shot one of the assailants in self-defense and that guy was down for the count. The man then walked outside to make sure that the other assailant was not coming back. He walked back inside, and behind the counter for a moment, he then turned around, walked back up to the first assailant he had already shot, leaned over the injured assailant, then shot him point-blank, killing him.

 

A jury calls this kind of self-defense first degree murder. The reasoning behind this is because he could have just as easily disarmed the assailant as shot him point-blank, therefore murder. So I understand the sentiment of wanting to shoot until they're not a threat, but there's a fine line between that, and what this guy did.

[HeyYou]

is what is not OK from a legal perspective.

I'm pretty sure that this is they guy Marharth was talking about, that was robbed at gunpoint. He shot one of the assailants in self-defense and that guy was down for the count. The man then walked outside to make sure that the other assailant was not coming back. He walked back inside, and behind the counter for a moment, he then turned around, walked back up to the first assailant he had already shot, leaned over the injured assailant, then shot him point-blank, killing him.

 

A jury calls this kind of self-defense first degree murder. The reasoning behind this is because he could have just as easily disarmed the assailant as shot him point-blank, therefore murder. So I understand the sentiment of wanting to shoot until they're not a threat, but there's a fine line between that, and what this guy did.

 

Not really. That guy executed a man that was no longer a threat. If you can casually stroll up to him, after wandering around for a bit, the dead guy could no longer be considered a threat by any definition of the word. (ok, so, maybe he was a threat to the nice clean floor......) The guy shoulda just called the cops, and let them deal with him. They may have taken a sufficient amount of time, for him to bleed to death, or some such.

[draconix]

Okay, I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I think most people would agree with you and I on that, but there are some people out there who, like the clerk at the store, think that it's OK to do just that.

[Ghogiel]

He swapped guns, and dropped 5 more rounds into the kid after the initial head shot that dropped him. That is premeditated. It's probably clear the kid was not a threat at the time. I don't know what the guy expected. :confused:

[draconix]

Yeah, honestly it's guys like that that weakens the "self defense" stance, but the truth of that particular scenario is that self defense had nothing more to do with it.

 

Another thing that I've heard though is that if you do shoot someone in self-defense, they can sue you for medical bills and such. I can't verify the legitimacy of this claim, but the way our judicial system works it sounds all too believable that it would happen once in a while. :ohdear:

 

Regardless of that, if it's really a life-and-death situation where it is going to be you or him, it might as well be him as far as I'm concerned. Though things are seldom quite so cut and dry at the time. You just do what you need for you and yours, and hope for the best. I hope that neither I, nor anyone else on the forum is put into that kind of position. I can't help but think that killing a man changes a person.

[Ghogiel]

Another thing that I've heard though is that if you do shoot someone in self-defense, they can sue you for medical bills and such. I can't verify the legitimacy of this claim, but the way our judicial system works it sounds all too believable that it would happen once in a while. :ohdear:

 

Sure you can sue anyone for injury they caused you. Whether the claim is going to go anywhere, that'll be up to the court to decide. And no doubt it has probably happened.