Political Crossfire Forums

thundertaker · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:40 am Post subject:

Winchester wrote: thundertaker wrote: 'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

I disagree with this statement vehimately. "Shoot to kill" generally means aiming at the center of body mass where the vital organs are. It has nothing to do with taking head shots or "finishing" someone off when they are incapacitated. You hit someone in the heart/lung area with a .45acp they're not going to walk away from it.

When someone says "shoot to wound" I take that as aiming for a non-vital area of the body such as extremities.

'Shooting to Wound' is a policy of shooting someone with the deliberate intention of compromising between stopping someone who is a threat, and preserving their life. I don't think there are any police forces or military units that are trained to practice such a policy, and if it isn't sensible for professionals to practice, it damn sure isn't sensible to practice if you're an ordinary civilian with a gun.

There are actually at least three shooting policies, not two. And the most common of these is 'shoot to stop' but everybody misinterprets it as 'shoot to kill' when it isn't.
'Shooting to stop' places no priority on the life of the target, but is not explicitly intended to kill them. If they die, that is a side-effect that is an accepted potential consequence.

Shooting for the centre mass is no guarantee that you will kill them.
Granted, if you aim for the centre mass, chances are, you will kill the target, but like I said, this is a side effect, rather than the intention. Most police officers stop shooting at someone as soon as they cease to be a threat. Or at least, they should....

Even when the armed police in this country are given the go ahead to use a so called 'shoot to kill' policy of aiming for someone's head. It is still really just a more lethal version of the 'shoot to stop' policy which is almost certain to result in the target's death. They aim for the brain stem to disable the target instanly so they can't trigger the bomb. It is still not a deliberate police of wiping someone out for the sake of it.
The SAS on the other hand, generally does shoot to kill, with no option to surrender or when they cease to be a threat. In the cases I can think of, they set out with the explicit intention of killing the targets, as with the case of the Iranian Embassy siege or the 'Death on the Rock' incident.
It might have been a darker agenda to kill the terrorists to prevent any inconveniant hassle with putting a living terrorist through the criminal justice system, or an attempt to put the fear of god into the other terrorists, but I digress.
'Shoot to kill' is a deliberate policy of trying to wipe someone out, rather than merely stopping them.

'Shoot to Kill' as is a policy of deliberate murder, and should be illegal, except in the most exceptional of circumstances....

Jefferson · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3221

Otacon wrote: I got into an arguement with my father about whether or not you should try to wound where possible or to always kill. He told me that I am a pu**y for saying that I would always try to only inflict injury whenever possible and only kill if there was no other solution. I was wondering how you guys felt about the issue. Thanks.

I am trained to keep shooting until the threat upon my life is over. If that means a wounded person no longer able to carry to fight, so be it. If that means dead, so be it.

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 7642 Location: Montana

thundertaker wrote: Winchester wrote: thundertaker wrote: 'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

I disagree with this statement vehimately. "Shoot to kill" generally means aiming at the center of body mass where the vital organs are. It has nothing to do with taking head shots or "finishing" someone off when they are incapacitated. You hit someone in the heart/lung area with a .45acp they're not going to walk away from it.

When someone says "shoot to wound" I take that as aiming for a non-vital area of the body such as extremities.

'Shooting to Wound' is a policy of shooting someone with the deliberate intention of compromising between stopping someone who is a threat, and preserving their life. I don't think there are any police forces or military units that are trained to practice such a policy, and if it isn't sensible for professionals to practice, it damn sure isn't sensible to practice if you're an ordinary civilian with a gun.

There are actually at least three shooting policies, not two. And the most common of these is 'shoot to stop' but everybody misinterprets it as 'shoot to kill' when it isn't.
'Shooting to stop' places no priority on the life of the target, but is not explicitly intended to kill them. If they die, that is a side-effect that is an accepted potential consequence.

Shooting for the centre mass is no guarantee that you will kill them.
Granted, if you aim for the centre mass, chances are, you will kill the target, but like I said, this is a side effect, rather than the intention. Most police officers stop shooting at someone as soon as they cease to be a threat. Or at least, they should....

Even when the armed police in this country are given the go ahead to use a so called 'shoot to kill' policy of aiming for someone's head. It is still really just a more lethal version of the 'shoot to stop' policy which is almost certain to result in the target's death. They aim for the brain stem to disable the target instanly so they can't trigger the bomb. It is still not a deliberate police of wiping someone out for the sake of it.
The SAS on the other hand, generally does shoot to kill, with no option to surrender or when they cease to be a threat. In the cases I can think of, they set out with the explicit intention of killing the targets, as with the case of the Iranian Embassy siege or the 'Death on the Rock' incident.
It might have been a darker agenda to kill the terrorists to prevent any inconveniant hassle with putting a living terrorist through the criminal justice system, or an attempt to put the fear of god into the other terrorists, but I digress.
'Shoot to kill' is a deliberate policy of trying to wipe someone out, rather than merely stopping them.

'Shoot to Kill' as is a policy of deliberate murder, and should be illegal, except in the most exceptional of circumstances....

I think we agree except on semantics.

Yours, Shoot to wound, shoot to stop, shoot to kill.

Mine, shoot to wound, shoot to kill, murder/justifiable homicide.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6956 Location: Ohio

Depends on what's needed to stop them. If one shot to the chest drops them and prevents them from hurting me or anyone else, I stop. If they are still able, then I shoot again.

StrawHat · Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 364 Location: New York, NY

Well the only reason that i'm shooting is if they're trying to kill me. I wouldn't pull a gun on a mugger who only wants my money or something (i'd pull out my developing Bruce Lee-like skills and go Enter the Dragon on him. I love hyperbole). Therefore, to avoid being killed, I remove the way through which my attacker seeks to kill me. If they are wounded, they can't well charge me now can they? IF they have a firearem, i would shoot for their hand/arm and try to disarm them/make them unable to aim or shoot. I would only kill purposefully (under non-war circumstances) in order to protect somebody else I think, rather than for self-preservation. I don't mind making them regret attempted murder for the next decade though.

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 7642 Location: Montana

StrawHat wrote: Well the only reason that i'm shooting is if they're trying to kill me. I wouldn't pull a gun on a mugger who only wants my money or something (i'd pull out my developing Bruce Lee-like skills and go Enter the Dragon on him. I love hyperbole). Therefore, to avoid being killed, I remove the way through which my attacker seeks to kill me. If they are wounded, they can't well charge me now can they? IF they have a firearem, i would shoot for their hand/arm and try to disarm them/make them unable to aim or shoot. I would only kill purposefully (under non-war circumstances) in order to protect somebody else I think, rather than for self-preservation. I don't mind making them regret attempted murder for the next decade though.

Done much shooting?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Hitting someones hand would be extremely difficult, even hitting thier arm would be extremely difficult.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

if the person has the means to inflict bodily harm/ 2 to the chest. if they are still able/one to the head. an attacker with a knife can cross a distance and inflict a lethal wound in a matter of a second or two.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

StrawHat wrote: Well the only reason that i'm shooting is if they're trying to kill me. I wouldn't pull a gun on a mugger who only wants my money or something (i'd pull out my developing Bruce Lee-like skills and go Enter the Dragon on him. I love hyperbole). Therefore, to avoid being killed, I remove the way through which my attacker seeks to kill me. If they are wounded, they can't well charge me now can they? IF they have a firearem, i would shoot for their hand/arm and try to disarm them/make them unable to aim or shoot. I would only kill purposefully (under non-war circumstances) in order to protect somebody else I think, rather than for self-preservation. I don't mind making them regret attempted murder for the next decade though.

You have watched WAY to much TV. Hitting a moving object the size of a human hand or arm is rare for even expert shots. Why do you think police are taught to shoot center mass, because they are lible to hit bystanders if they are trying to wound someone in the hand or arm.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

StrawHat wrote: Well the only reason that i'm shooting is if they're trying to kill me. I wouldn't pull a gun on a mugger who only wants my money or something (i'd pull out my developing Bruce Lee-like skills and go Enter the Dragon on him. I love hyperbole). Therefore, to avoid being killed, I remove the way through which my attacker seeks to kill me. If they are wounded, they can't well charge me now can they? IF they have a firearem, i would shoot for their hand/arm and try to disarm them/make them unable to aim or shoot. I would only kill purposefully (under non-war circumstances) in order to protect somebody else I think, rather than for self-preservation. I don't mind making them regret attempted murder for the next decade though.

Shooting a hand/arm is much easier said than done, especially when that hand is moving. It worked great in the old cowboy movies, but then again with 50-shot six-shooters, anything works great.

StrawHat · Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 364 Location: New York, NY

Yea, i've never shot a gun before. It is easier said than done, but long story short, you know what I mean. I just used arm/hand to say shoot in order to disable the attacker (just the first body part that came to mind). And yea, I probably have watched to much tv, though I was joking about the whole Bruce Lee thing.... :lol:

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

I was always taught that if it gets to the point that I'm pointing a gun at someone, I had better be prepared to kill them. And if it gets to the point that I'm shooting at someone, I had better be shooting to kill them.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Azuresidus wrote: I was always taught that if it gets to the point that I'm pointing a gun at someone, I had better be prepared to kill them. And if it gets to the point that I'm shooting at someone, I had better be shooting to kill them.

Well, the difference between shooting to kill and shooting to stop is mainly due to intentions. There is no practical difference between the two. The difference is that the goal of shooting to kill is the death of the person you shoot. The goal of shooting to stop is to stop the threat of the person you shoot, his/her death is immaterial. While not an unexpected consequence to shooting to stop, it is not the intent.

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

perdidochas wrote: Azuresidus wrote: I was always taught that if it gets to the point that I'm pointing a gun at someone, I had better be prepared to kill them. And if it gets to the point that I'm shooting at someone, I had better be shooting to kill them.

Well, the difference between shooting to kill and shooting to stop is mainly due to intentions. There is no practical difference between the two. The difference is that the goal of shooting to kill is the death of the person you shoot. The goal of shooting to stop is to stop the threat of the person you shoot, his/her death is immaterial. While not an unexpected consequence to shooting to stop, it is not the intent.

It's a nice distinction, based on intent. And I agree that it's a good policy. Mostly, however, my point is that I'm not going out of my way to preserve their life by aiming anywhere nonvital. I'm going to shoot where I know it's most likely to "stop" them permanently. If they survive, that's their business. But I won't be aiming at the extremities.

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22308 Location: Sin City

kill.. wound.. stop.... those are all the consequences of being hit by a bullet .... which has nothing to do with your intentions

if i pull a weapon....which is only in dire circumstances... i shoot to hit.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Thrilla wrote: kill.. wound.. stop.... those are all the consequences of being hit by a bullet .... which has nothing to do with your intentions

if i pull a weapon....which is only in dire circumstances... i shoot to hit.
I totally agree.

I quoted thundertaker because his view point is very civil court proof, a case against a home owner would be much harder if they only had the intentions of stopping instead of killing the attacker.

But your post simplifies it to the very core.

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

thundertaker wrote: 'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

Not at all. Shoot to kill can mean aiming at the center body mass, where the liver, heart, spinal cord, etc are. You shoot to kill when shooting to wound isn't a guarantee of your safety. "Finishing off" someone isn't shooting to kill (self-defense), it's murder.

Gremlin · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 7877 Location: On the Run.

Winchester wrote: The only reason to use deadly force on another individual is if your or another's life is in jeopardy and there is no other option to save innocent life and if that is the case shoot to kill.

what he said... if im shooting someone its to kill... its kinda like good porno, i cant explain it to you but i know it when i see it... as in ill shoot when i know i need to shoot... and it will be to kill.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

Being a bail bond retrieval agent and having been in that situation to many times I have to say that it depends on the situation. I have always tried to shoot to wound. But I have also in my mind that if the situation warrants it (and it has) I will shoot to kill. I am a good enough shot to hit a leg or an arm. I might get lucky and hit his hand, but I aim for the biggest area that will not kill the perp. If I have to then I shoot dead into the chest or the face. Never good either way.