What does shoot to stop mean?

[TX Rancher]

Doug:

Hopefully nobody jumps on you for stating your opinion to the question I posed…but it may gather some responses

But you, and possibly FightingAggie’s responses tend to show it really doesn’t have “one� meaning when used in general conversation, which is what I expected.

One point that was brought up is if you say “shoot to kill�, that will/can be used against you in court. Is this true? Can that casual comment on a web site be used by a lawyer effectively against you to turn a legal shoot into an illegal shoot?

Again, thanks to all who have answered…hopefully there are a few more comments to come.

[ELB]

To call it something else (shoot to stop) apart from that is just a feeble attempt to keep an attorney from going after you.

Umm....NO.

The point of "shoot to stop" is to focus on what's important, and that is STOPPING your assailant from killing or grieviously injuring you and yours. It would be more precise, but somewhat less catchy, to say "Shoot to stop IMMEDIATELY." The focus is not (only) to avoid shooting too much; it is to make sure you shoot ENOUGH.

Not all "killing" shots stop people immediately. People shot in the liver are high candidates for death, but it won't necessarily stop them from continuing to attack. Heck, people shot through the heart, which is definitely a "killing" shot, have been known to press on for another 30 seconds or minute, time enough to do damage to you. Even if you know you shot him through the heart and you know he is going to die eventually, you keep shooting until he no longer threatens you. In other words, you keep shooting until you STOP him. THAT is why you are shooting him, and that is not a "feeble" excuse, it is the way to defend yourself both practically and morally.

Here's an example:

The suspects then ran from the house. One was captured by authorities and the other was found lying about 100 yards from the house. He died at the scene...

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... 5538819972

It was being shot that stopped him, not being fatally shot. I would submit that anyone who can travel 100 yards after being shot could also continue to present a deadly threat, if he so chose. And if he so chose, shoot until he stops.


The flip side is that some people stop before receiving a killing wound. You do not keep shooting after someone has definitely ceased to give you justification for using deadly force -- that is, after you have STOPPED him. Here's an excellent example of that when a woman took on a home invader:

http://www.knbc.com/news/14842132/detai ... =mainclick

Her words:

"He was coming at me. He was yelling. I shot him to stop him," Teter said. "He went down. He got back up. Came back at me. I shot him again. I shot him again, and he turned around and jumped back over the fence. (He) disappeared."

He ran away to his getaway car (driven by his mother!)

Shooting to stop is not to keep the attorneys off of you, althoug it probably helps. It is to keep you alive.

Certainly the subset of "killing shots" and the subset of "stopping shots" have great overlap, but they are not 100% congruent, and it is foolish to pretend they do. As someone noted above, your target is not always the center of chest or torso. If your assailant is behind cover, but leaves his foot or his elbow exposed, do you forego the shot because it is not a "killing" shot? Of course not. Will shooting him in the elbow or foot stop him? Won't know until you do, but it certainly won't help him. Go peruse Clayton Cramer's compilation of self-defense news articles. Plenty of nefarious types changed their minds after receiving non-fatal wounds.

elb

[casingpoint]

I used to read on several boards that a good way to stop somebody is to shoot them in their pelvis, breaking bone and downing them. This may not stop subsequent actions like firing a gun or throwing a rock at you. But purely in the context of stopping a physical advance, is a shot to the pelvis still regarded as effective?

[txinvestigator]

I used to read on several boards that a good way to stop somebody is to shoot them in their pelvis, breaking bone and downing them. This may not stop subsequent actions like firing a gun or throwing a rock at you. But purely in the context of stopping a physical advance, is a shot to the pelvis still regarded as effective?

It is not very consistent, and I would NEVER go there first.

[SRVA]

Anyone who thinks that under the stress of having to use your gun defensively you can place your shot exactly where you want is welcome to come out and shoot an IDPA match with me.

Steve

[Photoman]

You are using a weapon that's very design is to kill some other man or animal to stop an attack, that is intent to kill.

A good argument could be made against this statement if you are speaking of handguns. Handguns are notoriously UNDERpowered and it is well known that most persons shot with a handgun do NOT die.

I think the very design of the handgun is to have a portable firearm at the expense of power, that is, the ability to kill.

[FightinAggieCHL]

I suppose my comment earlier was directed at another post. In most cases, stopping a person from committing an action would be more preferable to killing them. However, if you were in a situation where you really had no time to worry about their condition, then by killing them, you would have legally stopped their activity. Here's an example that might help explain what I am trying to say:
If you have a man sexually assaulting a woman, and he has a weapon, you would reasonably want to stop him using whatever means possible. The easiest way would be to place a bullet in a fatal region, such as the center of mass ring, or the head. This would be an example of killing being logically equivalent to stopping.

On the other hand, someone is trying to run over you with a vehicle. You shoot and wound the person, and they are rendered unable to drive. You have successfully stopped the individual from attacking you. You were justified in the deadly force, and you could have killed them with the same outcome: you stopped their actions.

I think it's all relative to the amount of force you feel is necessary to stop their actions. For most people, the natural inclination would be aiming at a fatal area (head or center of mass) and squeezing rounds there until they stop.

[Photoman]

The easiest way would be to place a bullet in a fatal region, such as the center of mass ring, or the head.

Faulty assumption. Shooting someone in the head or center of mass ring (center chest?) does not guarantee the person will die, especially with a handgun.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I suppose my comment earlier was directed at another post. In most cases, stopping a person from committing an action would be more preferable to killing them. However, if you were in a situation where you really had no time to worry about their condition, then by killing them, you would have legally stopped their activity. Here's an example that might help explain what I am trying to say:
If you have a man sexually assaulting a woman, and he has a weapon, you would reasonably want to stop him using whatever means possible. The easiest way would be to place a bullet in a fatal region, such as the center of mass ring, or the head. This would be an example of killing being logically equivalent to stopping.

On the other hand, someone is trying to run over you with a vehicle. You shoot and wound the person, and they are rendered unable to drive. You have successfully stopped the individual from attacking you. You were justified in the deadly force, and you could have killed them with the same outcome: you stopped their actions.

I think it's all relative to the amount of force you feel is necessary to stop their actions. For most people, the natural inclination would be aiming at a fatal area (head or center of mass) and squeezing rounds there until they stop.

During an actual encounter there will be neither the time nor the ability to make such fine distinctions. The most that can be realistically (and legally) hoped for is to shoot for the center of mass and keep doing so until the threat stops being a threat. (If you think after a few shots that they might be wearing body armor then some would say to try a head shot or two.)

You don't intend to kill them, only to stop them. It's true that they may die. But, and this is very important, they may die no matter where you hit them. You could wing them on the left pinkie finger and they could succumb to a staph infection 2 weeks later. That's why using a firearm meets the definition of deadly force in the law.

So I don't know what is meant by shooting and wounding a person attacking you with a motor vehicle. First, what kind of shot is that exactly that would stop them? I don't know about you, but I couldn't reliably do that if I tried. No matter where I hit the guy he might die. And no matter where I hit him he might keep using the car to attack me. All I could or would do is to shoot at the best target I have in front of me and hope my efforts to protect myself are successful.

[TX Rancher]

You don't intend to kill them, only to stop them. It's true that they may die. But, and this is very important, they may die no matter where you hit them. You could wing them on the left pinkie finger and they could succumb to a staph infection 2 weeks later.

Just to clarify, my question was targeted more to what a person’s intent is when they pull the trigger, not what the eventual outcome could be.

The reason for my post was to ascertain if everyone was on the same page when the comment shoot to stop was used…I’m still not sure everyone is using the same definition.

[ELB]

Wow. Even The New York Times recognizes the difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop."

In New York, many other municipalities and some federal agencies, guidelines instruct officers to shoot to “stop� — and in particular, to stop an assailant who poses a deadly threat to the officers involved or civilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weeki ... ref=slogin

Their reasoning:

In fact, the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely. So an officer could no sooner shoot to wound than shoot to kill with any rate of success. In life-or-death situations that play out in lightning speed — such precision marksmanship is unrealistic.

elb

[LarryH]

That quote reveals the sorry state of police marksmanship training, at least as practiced in NYC. (IMHO)