What does shoot to stop mean?

[TX Rancher]

I often hear the comment “I shoot to stop, not to kill� and I suspect I understand the intention of the comment, but would still like to hear a little more detailed explanation from folks that use it. It wouldn't be the first time my impressions turned out to be wrong

What does it mean to you?

Does it mean you practice hitting in non-vital locations so you can stop the assault, but not intentionally “kill� the person? Hit them in the leg…the shoulder…shoot the weapon out of their hand…etc. Now it sounds like I’m being flippant, but I’m not. Very respected techniques such as pelvis shots would fall into this category.

Does it mean you still go for a “killing� shot, but if the threat is removed, and the person is still alive, you will cease firing? I believe COM and CNS shots fall into this category. So do drills such as “zippering� and “Mozambique�.

Does it mean something else?

The term is used a lot, and I’m really just curious what it means to the individuals using it.

[txinvestigator]

Shooting to stop means just that; shooting to stop the person's actions that caused you to need to shoot them to begin with.

If you shoot to kill, and the person falls, only wounded but no longer a threat, then wouldn't you walk up and shoot them some more?

You don't shoot to wound either. Shooting someone IS deadly force. If you are not justified to use deadly force, then don't shoot.

And if you think you can shoot a person "in non-vital locations so you can stop the assault" I recommend you Google "1986 FBI Miami shootout".

Also, under stress, you are very unlikely to be able to hit small moving targets like arms and legs.

The most effective way to stop your assailant is a brain stem hit. It will shut them off like a light; however, this is an impractical target. A persons head is a small and often moving target, and under stress your ability hit such a target is minimum.

The central torso is the area where hits are most likely to stop the person. Either through just shock and pain, which is rare, or through vital organ damage and blood loss. This can occur slowly too, especially with handguns.

I wrote a long lesson on this before, I'll see if I can find it.

[Odin]

To me it means only one simple thing...shoot the source of the threat until the the threat ceases to exist.

If that means you fire once and miss but the threat stops or runs away then you stop shooting. If that means emptying a magazine and reloading, if the threat continues I shoot again until the threat stops.

For me personally, in almost all cases I would attempt to shoot for center mass because it's the largest target containing the most vulnerable places that would stop a threat. There are exceptions, of course.

[KBCraig]

If you're going to legally shoot someone, that means they're doing something to justify it. "Shoot to stop" means shooting until they stop doing whatever made you shoot them in the first place.

When they stop doing, you stop shooting. Simple.

As for hand/pelvis/head/COM... hey, if you can make that shot, go ahead. As for me, I know that my best chance of effectively stopping the threat, while not needlessly endangering others by a missed shot, is to shoot COM.

[FightinAggieCHL]

killed == stopped

[JLaw]

I pretty much agree with what's already been said here. Shoot to stop means you shoot until the threat stops being a threat, and I believe the best way to stop a threat is to shoot center of mass. I do not think shooting someone in the arm or leg will stop a determined aggressor.

And, yes, when the aggressor ceases to be a threat, I'll stop shooting. But not until the threat of further attack is gone.

"Center mass" brings up something else I've heard before, hopefully more will chime in about this. Center mass means the center of whatever is visible in front of you. It may not always be the standard "center ring" of a B27 silouette target.

JLaw

[TX Rancher]

killed == stopped

Would you please expand a little further? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from...

[Lykoi]

the main intention of many people who say shoot to stop, is that you don't have a license to "kill"... you have a license to carry a weapon in order to defend yourself...

If when you draw your weapon your intention is to "kill" your assailant then there's a few lawyers and DA's who might find that to be an open door to hold you liable civilly or criminally.

It's not necessarily going to get you in trouble, but it's a bit better to say the intention wasn't just to kill them.

don't ever shoot to maim, injure, kill... always shoot until the attack has stopped.... and when the Police want your statement.. "I shot to stop him" repeat Ad nauseam.

[Mike1951]

It's an unfortunate (fortunate??) fact that the shots most likely to quickly stop a threat are the same shots most likely to kill.

For me, this means upper torso.

It is VERY bad PR to ever express an intention to kill. So the bullet holes are in the same place, but you only meant to stop the threat. Any fatal side effects are purely coincidental.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think the source of much confusion on this issue is the fact that the places where a hit will most effectively stop an attack quickly are pretty much the same places that will result in a fatal injury.

"Quickly" is the key here. In order to be justified in shooting at all, the threat must be immediate. That means that if you don't stop the threat right away, you are very likely to be injured or killed.

You don't have time for the attacker to bleed out or to succumb to an infection 2 weeks later. You either have to drop him in his tracks or he will likely maim or kill you.

And what types of hits will do this (most often)? Hits to the central nervous system (brain, spinal chord, etc.), or to the heart and/or major blood vessels.

As others have pointed out, the head is difficult to hit when you're under stress and when the target is moving. The chest doesn't move around quite so much and is much easier to hit. So LEO's and citizens alike are trained to shoot for the center of the chest (center of mass) to most effectively stop the attack.

When doing this, it is NOT your intention that the person die. If that is your intention, a case could be made that you murdered the BG. Your only legally justified intention is to stop the attack.

It so happens that a fair amount of people who absorb center of mass hits go on to die fairly quickly. That's a shame perhaps. But it's merely a consequence of them being hit where you needed to hit them in order to stop them quickly - before they could hurt you.

Does that help?

[srothstein]

"Center mass" brings up something else I've heard before, hopefully more will chime in about this. Center mass means the center of whatever is visible in front of you. It may not always be the standard "center ring" of a B27 silouette target.

Interesting that you bring this up JLaw. I have it as a test question on the final exam for our academy students on Friday. And the correct answer on the test is that it means the center of the largest part of the target that is visible to you.

I explained it in class as meaning the big toe, if that is all that is visible for you to shoot at. We also set up some targets with others partially blocking them to show how the COM can change.


And, TX Rancher, I agree with the other posts you got except for one. I was taught that shooting to stop is the explanation of how we shoot to stop a person from being a threat. You can keep shooting until you do stop the threat, which is why the term used for the Mozambique and similar drills is a failure to stop drill. Some police agencies/trainers still call it the body armor drill, but most are going to the failure to stop term.

The post I disagree with is the one that says killed = stopped. While I do agree that a person killed is eventually stopped, it does not always happen immediately (reference the Miami shootout where a man suffered a non-survivable wound and kept fighting long enough to kill or wound six FBI agents). Also, the reverse is not true. Stopped does not always mean killed. As was posted, if they run away at the first sight of the gun, you have stopped the threat without shooting. If they run after the first shot, you stopped the threat and stop shooting.

[KC5AV]

If you're involved in a shooting, alway state that your intention was to stop the aggressor.

If you ever state that you intended to kill the aggressor, you open yourself up to potential liability, even if you were justified.

Edit for clarification.

[shootthesheet]

It means to me that I will shoot until the the agressor stops being a threat. It has nothing to do with how or where I shoot. I hope I can stop the agressor without any harm. However, I will not hesitate to go as far as necessary to make him/her stop where allowed by law. They choose their own fate by their actions. I cannot dictate or control those actions no more than I can totally control the outcome of my own defensive action. That is one reason I believe in God and pray he control what I cannot.

[KD5NRH]

If you shoot to kill, and the person falls, only wounded but no longer a threat, then wouldn't you walk up and shoot them some more?

Of course not; you might hit several bystanders in the lower legs.

[Doug.38PR]

It's mincing words so you don't get sued because of scumbag attorney's.

The reality of it is it is called deadly force for a reason. If you pull a gun and shoot someone center mass that is trying to attack you, that is you trying to kill them to save your life. 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. Period. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with that (at least there is not supposed to be)

To call it something else (shoot to stop) apart from that is just a feeble attempt to keep an attorney from going after you. (and it is adangerous way of confusing people into expecting something less than what is actually going on. IOW, they may not fully understand and appreciate that in shooting that person, that person might very well not get up)

If you go up and shoot someone that is down and unconcious after the fact, that isn't shooting to kill that is just plain killing without cause and is hence murder..

BUT, in the mind of most attorney's judges and bleeding heart selected jurors, they have to know what you were thinking when you were shooting, why you took that shot, could you have run away, why did you use a hollowpoint bullets instead of LRN, could you have called the police, did you shoot to kill? All of those cop out questions are intended to mislead and draw sympathy away from you (the victim) and over to the criminal (scumbag)

I know some in here will now jump on me for "wanting to kill somebody" or try to claim that there is a diffrence between shooting to stop and shooting to kill. But common sense dictates better. How many of us have ever said "if a scumbag kicks in my door he's stopped meat" or "If he gets to my family, he's stopped" People don't talk that way or think that way in real life. But clever attorney's do.