Stopping Force vs Deadly Force

Self-Defense Concealed Carry
1

What are your thoughts on deescalating a physical threat with a stopping shot compared to a deadly shot.

Depending on threat levels would you ever fire a reduced damage shot to stop the threat.

or is it all or nothing.

7 Likes
2

Legally?

A cat burglar sued a homeowner after he fell through a skylight of the home he was robbing
.

“Dead men tell no tales”

Nobody here “wants” to take a life!

But we all practice to stop the threat.

maybe that’s just showing the force of a gun (brandishing)

Maybe that’s shooting

Maybe that’s killing.

It’s a personal choice,

If I’m at the point where I draw my gun, lives are on the line, not injuries.

13 Likes
3

All depends on the situation
 and your morality.
From legal perspective you shoot to stop, but you don’t know how this stopping actions ends up.
From moral perspective
 and this is something you will never explain to anyone, you do what your morality says
 you shoot to stop and you don’t care where, or you shoot to stop and you exactly know where to aim.

9 Likes
4

If you are using a deadly weapon against another human being, you use it with deadly intent. End of story.

13 Likes
5

For a legally viable claim of justification of using force in self defense, this question is not relevant.
As non-LEO self defenders, our purpose is always to stop the threat, never to kill. However, if we are defending against a deadly threat, deadly force may be the only effective means to stop the threat. If you are successful stopping a deadly threat with non-deadly force, congratulations, but that would not be an optimum tactic.
Further, if anyone thinks that shoot to wound is a workable tactic in a deadly force encounter, they have been watching too many movies and have not had enough training in either self defense combat (eg. firearms, grappling, knives, pepper spray, etc.) nor in the basis of a legal self defense claim.

I heartily recommend reading Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca, Deadly Force 2nd ed., by Massad Ayoob, and Concealed Carry Class by Tom Givens.

20 Likes
6

You use what ever force is need to stop the force you are facing if that means deadly then use it. But using a deadly weapon to stop a non-deadly force you will need a real good lawyer. You really need to study your local laws on deadly force.

12 Likes
7

Too many movies and lack of training is a good point (and many of those actors (pretenders) are anti-gun, yet freely ‘blow away’ anyone on the set with multiple takes in between scenes). I would always opt for de-escalation, followed by non-lethal force (i.e. pepper spray) unless there is a direct threat to life. Take one life and you change many lives. Even crooks have family, relatives, and loved ones. Many of those who acted in self-defense suffer from the taking of a life (as do those in combat). Wounding, in my mind, is never an option once you pull out a deadly weapon and aim it at the threat. Use the necessary force to stop the threat, and no more.

12 Likes
8

In all reality, you fire your weapon to stop the threat and that should be the only real consideration. That said and accepted, what is the best way to do that? The bad guy will not be easy to engage, ever. Be that due to his movements and/or the adrenaline surging through your body.

Shooting to the center mass of your adversary is the best way to stop a threat in most circumstances. This has been proven very well over time in most situations. Barring the obvious presence of body armor on your adversary, center mass is the way to best proceed.

It really has little to do with lethal intent on the part of the defender. That may or may not exist in the mind of the good guy. Just concentrate on stopping the threat. That usually should be a center mass aiming point, at least initially.

10 Likes
9

Many, Many good points here.
My goal in life now is to SURVIVE the next one.
If there is a next Self Defense situation my entire plan
K.I.S.S—is to SEE the threat(s) BEFORE it happens.
When I SEE that threat I have wiggle room to adjust my Defense/Attack.
SA: Situational Awareness always on
Round in the pipe
Know you gear (and capabilities)
Train up-but STAY trained.

Few KNOW what they are going to do ahead of time
Fewer will follow through with that plan.
Life has a way of screwing up the greatest plan.
(Old Joke: Want to hear God laugh?—Tell him your plan)
If I can be living in the moment when I am out and about
Present not distracted maybe I can AVOID a nasty situation entirely.
Massod always say’s ’ the Best gunfight is the one you don’t have’.

Or w/ Clint Smith (Thunder Ranch) say’s: ‘If you get in a gunfight your Tactics suck!’
I am on the fast track to mellowing out.

‘I just want to be left alone’.
But if pushed into a confrontation, I am ready.

WWG1WGA

15 Likes
10

Exactly, spot on, including book recommendations.

I think Hollywood gets people to thinking “shoot to wound” is viable. And if you’ve got a conscience, it even sounds appealing. But it’s just not realistic with the assailant likely moving, your adrenaline is pumping, you’re likely going to be shaking, time gets distorted (slower or faster)
 the odds are stacked against you that you’re going to make a more precision shot on a much smaller target than the chest. If you’re in public, you’re likely to miss and end up hitting a bystander or causing property damage. And with every fraction of a second being crucial, you don’t have time for misses or even the additional time it takes for a precision shot. On the range, in low stress conditions, it will usually take longer to make one precision headshot than it does to get two effective shots to the chest.

11 Likes
11

If it warrants using deadly force, use it.

11 Likes
12

@Mark879 Welcome to our community, we are glad to have you here with us. :slightly_smiling_face:

6 Likes
13

Good first Post Mark!
Welcome to the Fold Brother.
WWG1WGA

7 Likes
14

Welcome Mark

4 Likes
15

Hello and welcome @Mark879

3 Likes
16

Isn’t just pulling and pointing your gun at someone considered deadly force? And besides that, deadly force doesn’t mean someone dies. At least by the law.

4 Likes
17

I would never take a less than lethal shot in I thought an innocent person’s life was in danger. If i didn’t think an innocent person’s life was in danger I wouldn’t take the shot. So the answer is no.

3 Likes
18

If someone has a deadly weapon you could lose your life over it.

1 Like
19

Lots of great responses here already. Especially those leading to legal writings by attorneys.

I don’t know that a “defender” ever shoots with any intent for it to be deadly. I think we all mean only to “stop” a deadly threat.

What’s that statistic again, where the average event occurs over 3-5 seconds?

I cannot really add to it. Great question. No doubt important to lots of persons new to the realm of such tools for defense of life and limb.

Think about what is right, wrong, to you; and what it would be like in court, as well as the life or limb on the line in that God Forbid moment.

One of the responses which resonated with me was shot placement. If one had to “shoot”, if the target is not center mass chest, and you miss by inches, that bullet goes flying and could hit an innocent, if someone happens to be nearby (or how far does a bullet travel?; a mile?).

Yet another reason, if one really has to shoot, center mass we hope results in no second casualty.

Investigation Discovery channel once ran a series by Lt. Joe Kenda, a retired Homicide Det. He told of a story of a range sport sharp shooter who was accosted by a fella twice his size. He made the decision to shoot, but deliberately aimed for the right shoulder and hit it spot on accurate. But that bullet traveled downward at an angle and entered the lung, and he died.

Soon after, the shooter ridden with guilt, committed suicide.

If anyone knows the title, season year and episode, I’d love to capture that and save the film.

4 Likes
20

:arrow_up: Kamalama Tippy Toe’s speech writer :arrow_up:

4 Likes