# Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Wound. Excellent video from FoxNews



## SittingElf (Feb 9, 2016)

Good video from Fox News on Shooting to Kill vs Shooting to Wound.

A lot of people need to understand the concept discussed in this video!

Guns 101: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound| Latest News Videos | Fox News


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Good video, the instructor does a good job explaining the reality of a self- defense scenario.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

People without training, military or otherwise, feel that it's just too bloodthirsy to try to kill someone. They live lives where hurting someone is unthinkable. It's hard to change gears for them when the situation becomes 'him or me'.

Good film.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - center mass until the danger is ABSOLUTELY over ...

no better demonstration of what it takes - Office Wilson vs Mikey Brown down in Ferguson . go ahead and start wasting your magazine on total BS and old Mikey gets to squash your gourd ....


----------



## PCH5150 (Jun 15, 2015)

Good video, right to the point.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

You shoot to kill. A corpse won't sue, testify against you, or come back years later to even the score.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - center mass until the danger is ABSOLUTELY over ...


I could not have said it better under 99% of situations.

I leave the 1 % out there for some weird or off base situation wherein someone might be involved.

Columbus, Ohio had one several years ago where a person was having some kind of issue that involved his having a gun and making some kind of threat.

The SWAT team came out, . . . and the sniper told his boss that he thought he could shoot the gun hand if the opportunity presented itself. He got the go-ahead, . . . and about an hour or so later, . . . the subject did just that. BOOM, . . . no gun, . . . and probably less of a hand than a few seconds before.

But that is a whole different situation than most of us will ever face, . . . so for our purposes, . . . second button down from the neck, . . . pop, pop, bang, bang until the treat is no longer a threat.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Yeti-2015 (Dec 15, 2015)

When I took my concealed carry class the instructor was an ex cop and told us that if we get to the point of having to shoot shoot to kill. Dead bodies cant tell any stories.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> stupidest thing I ever heard ... if you have justification to shoot - you shoot to kill - no freaking warning shots - no aiming at legs or arms - .


It's prudent to know how to hit the arms and legs if that's all that's available.
Think body armor


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

When I went for my CC the instructor told me if you wound the threat then you will most likely be shot back or dead ,, so make your shot count ,, you have no second chance .


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.

Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
Self defense is about one thing, "DEFENDING YOURSELF". If you carry for any other reason, you are a dangerous menace waiting for their chance.

You NEVER shoot to kill. You NEVER shoot to wound.
You shoot to STOP THE ATTACK.
Period. End of discussion. Game over.

Each and every one of you that thinks they ooze machismo by stating "dead guys can't sue", or some other such nonsense, are not aware of the larger implications of taking a life. Immediately following the ordeal, you will be in shock. When the police arrive, you'll be struggling to remember what happened. When your lawyer meets with you(you do have a lawyer, don't you?), he will want to know everything that happened, and everything you may have said to the police. Your case will go to a grand jury no matter how it plays out. Only *THEN* will it be determined to be justified or not. If ANYONE gets a whiff from you that your intention was to "shoot to kill", your ass is grass. Every damn post you make on the internet stating how you "shoot to kill", and that "dead guys can't tell their side" is just stacking the deck against your stupid ass.
If your case goes to full trial, the prosecuting attorney is going to turn you into the worst sub-human piece of garbage he can, and your own words will do half of the work for him.
That's not to even mention the civil trial that the dead guy's family will inevitably file for.

You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period.

Geez... some of you are just dumb sometimes.

EDIT: For those who may need it spelled out a bit more, shooting to stop means you shoot, assess, and shoot again if the attack has not ceased. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."


----------



## darsk20 (Jun 1, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
> I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.
> 
> Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
> ...


Kauboy for the win.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Self defense means neutralizing a threat, it doesn't say anything about killing, once the threat is neutralized , you cannot take any further action. Another shot to kill will be murder. If the threat dies resulting from the first shot, no problem....


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm with Kauboy all the way on this one. Shoot to stop the threat. The only reason to evoke deadly force is if you are faced with force that is likely to cause serious injury or death anyway so aiming center mass just makes sense.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I understand that a threat may be "neutralized" and in a SHTF event, I am not going to go over and check him, but what about in today's society? 
Do you go and check to see if the perp is dead or? What about if the perp plays possum?


----------



## SittingElf (Feb 9, 2016)

Florida CC class strongly discourages Shoot to Wound. Pull your weapon...be ready to Kill.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Shoot For Thrill

Sorry ,I just had to


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.
> I don't generally throw out all encompassing insults, but for this, it's warranted.
> 
> Self defense is not about harming others. It is not about getting revenge. It is not about "making sure he doesn't do it again".
> ...


On the advice of counsel....I shoot to hit where I am aiming...I aimed to hit where It will stop the attack the fastest. And to LEOs...I'm sorry I cannot answer questions without my attorney present.

But I still ooze machismo...
,,,
,,,,
,,,,

See it?

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Everyone of you claiming "shoot to kill" are short-sighted idiots.................You shoot to stop the attack. Nothing more. Period............. Yes, you might end up causing mortal harm, but when you're interrogated by police, your response should ALWAYS BE "I shot to stop their attack."


I'm going to call a semantic foul on the above statements as well as the parts I deleted.

Shooting to kill / stopping the threat are similar to "fry the steak till it's done".... VS.... "10 minutes on 450 deg F." The semantics are different but the result is the same.

I have absolutely zero qualms of sitting on the witness stand stating for the jury and the record that the guy with the meat cleaver who had cursed, swore, and fully threatened to cut me up like minute steaks, . . . was threatening my life, . . .

I defended my life the best way I knew how, . . . by stopping him with the appropriate number of well placed .45 caliber ACP, 230 grain bullets, . . . on the second button down on his shirt, . . . full well knowing and intending that such action would indeed take his life.

But it would spare mine, . . . which is much more important to me.

I don't want to say "I shot to stop the threat", . . . as that opens the door for the lawyer to make a stupid, arrogant, un-knowledgeable comment, . . . "Well, if you only wanted to stop the threat, . . . why didn't you shoot the cleaver out of his hand, . . . or only shoot him in the knee???" That type of comment could easily poison the thought pattern of many if not all of the jurors.

I would rather just let it be said from the gitgo, . . . I was afraid for my life, . . . so I stopped his. Then all we have to do is prove that I was not the initial aggressor.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

dwight55 said:


> I'm going to call a semantic foul on the above statements as well as the parts I deleted.
> 
> Shooting to kill / stopping the threat are similar to "fry the steak till it's done".... VS.... "10 minutes on 450 deg F." The semantics are different but the result is the same.
> 
> ...


I feel you've missed the point. My proclamation is directed toward those who gladly express that they "shoot to kill". This is a tactical mistake, as it *WILL* be used against you in a court of law.
Any bad lawyer might try to make your "shoot to stop" claim something other than it is, but any decent defender will be able to slap that down in a heartbeat with a simple expert witness (ie, any officer).
Your description of the "weapon of death" and "method of execution" you chose to murder with will make the prosecutor's chops slather with drool. With your statement, you would go to jail. Seriously, don't make that statement.

Shooting to stop covers all outcomes. If the attacker lives, you're fine. If the attacker dies, you're still fine. Either way, you stopped the threat to your life.
This information came directly from a police officer instructor who gives the same advice to officers involved in shootings.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

First as a LEO firearms instructor for many years Kauboy is absolutely correct. You shoot to stop the threat and when the threat has been neutralized you must stop shooting. A good example of shooting to kill and not stopping the threat just google the Miami FBI shoot out. One of the agents clipped the bad guy with the rifle in the opening seconds of this gun fight. Platt eventually bled out from this wound but he was able to after receiving that fatal shot to kill two other agents Jerry Dove and Ben Grogan and wound almost all the other FBI agents and get in a get away car and almost leave the scene. Agent Ed Morales put a finish to his actions and stop him with three or four shots from his revolver.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I like the video, the young lady was very attractive. I got a kick out of the little hop she took at the start of the drill. It was unnecessary but cute none the less.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Anyone ever heard of the "Code of the Samurai"? 
You don't pull your weapon from it's sheath until you intend to use it.
When an LEO clears leather, there is only one acceptable outcome. 
LEO comes Home to relay the terrible story. JMHO. (Over and Over Again)


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

Yes, Kauboy said what I would have said. It is the gospel.

You shoot to end the threat the opponent presented. They must be intending to kill you or hurt you badly. THAT 
is when you are justified in shooting. HOWEVER, as was also said, the moment the threat is over, YOU MUST 
STOP SHOOTING. If a perpetrator is advancing toward you, then sees your gun and spins about and runs...DO
NOT SHOOT HIM IN THE BACK!! (There may be SOME states that allow that...the overwhelming majority DON'T!)

At that point, assess your surroundings! Is their another opponent? Deal with them if they approach & menace
you...but otherwise, direct someone to dial 911 and call out loudly..."IS ANYONE HURT?!!" 

Administer first aid to any that need it...INCLUDING THE FELLOW YOU SHOT!!

When the police arrive, you cooperate as far as saying that you fired the shots...BUT...! THAT'S ALL!!
Make certain that before the police get there, that they DO NOT come upon you with your gun OUT!
Don't go telling your story without a lawyer being present as representation! This is no joke!! One word,
one phrase spilling out of your mouth can be considered testimony. And if it is NOT correctly worded,
you can suffer HEAVY CONSEQUENCES!

PEOPLE!! PLEASE!! I know that I may sound like a broken record, but here it goes again...!

Get Massad Ayoob's book..."IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME" and read it!

It may keep you out of prison! 

Which is where some of you, with the attitude you have, are DEFINITELY HEADED! 

Grim

I don't make a penny on the sales of the book!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

SittingElf said:


> Good video from Fox News on Shooting to Kill vs Shooting to Wound.
> 
> A lot of people need to understand the concept discussed in this video!
> 
> Guns 101: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound| Latest News Videos | Fox News


WTF?
First off there is no legal distinction between killing and wounding. If you shoot someone it is considered DEADLY FORCE
Secondly, never ever use those phrases, never be quoted using those phrases online, or recorded making such stupid statements or they will haunt you in civil court.
Third, only a complete TV imbecile would create such a video. It shows that these people are every bit as ignorant as gun grabbers.

For clarification, if you have to use a gun to defend yourself or family, you will tell police "I shot to STOP his threatening actions." Give them a thumbnail overview of the events, then clam up until you have a lawyer present. Yes, they will likely book you, but if you go uttering nonsensical things like "I was just trying to wound him..." then the DA will crucify you. I have seen it done.

Sitting elf, if you bought into that then you need to take some weapons classes. That video is hollywood fantasy filmed by idiots.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I don't get it. If I have to pull my weapon to defend myself I will aim for center and pull the trigger till the threat is gone. Whether the threat lives or dies is in God's hands. I ain't gonna deliver no coup de gras. And I'm not gonna shoot to kill or wound. Only stop the threat.


----------



## SittingElf (Feb 9, 2016)

Ralph Rotten said:


> WTF?
> First off there is no legal distinction between killing and wounding. If you shoot someone it is considered DEADLY FORCE
> Secondly, never ever use those phrases, never be quoted using those phrases online, or recorded making such stupid statements or they will haunt you in civil court.
> Third, only a complete TV imbecile would create such a video. It shows that these people are every bit as ignorant as gun grabbers.
> ...


Forget all the hyperbole in the video. What should be taken away from it is....shoot CENTER MASS to stop an attack. Attempting to wound by shooting at legs, or otherwise just wounding, is not only stupid, but in my state it is also illegal, even in a self defense situation.

As for "weapons classes"...I can assure you I am wayyyy ahead of that game.....'nuff said.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

SittingElf said:


> Good video from Fox News on Shooting to Kill vs Shooting to Wound.
> 
> A lot of people need to understand the concept discussed in this video!
> 
> Guns 101: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound| Latest News Videos | Fox News


The idea is to shoot to stop the threat. If the BG lives, that's fine. If the BG dies, that's fine too. Once the treat has stopped, continuing to fire reverses the situation and you become the aggressor.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

AquaHull said:


> It's prudent to know how to hit the arms and legs if that's all that's available.
> Think body armor


Aim for the hips to stop the advance of an armored threat.

The shoot to kill reference is one that the perps family lawyers will use against you. The new catch phrase is "shoot to stop the threat." The libs can't really argue against that and it takes the wind out of the sails of the perps family lawyers.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

This is real life. If you must use a weapon then shoot to kill. Keep shooting until threat is stopped. End of life lesson for today.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Because of body Armour.. here is my thought... if they are clothed and may have armour... neck nose, neck nose, neck nose..until they are no longer a threat

if they are NOT wearing armour...chest chest neck nose.... chest chest neck nose.. until they are no longer a threat


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

My father always said, " fire your warning shot in the center of their chest, that aught to give them enough warning you mean business."


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Do and say what you want, but I don't shoot to wound or kill. I shoot to stop the threat, nothing more or less. The final outcome is up to God and the bad guys will to survive.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

To all of you James Bond 007 types who think you have a " license to kill", please don't advertise it. In a WROL situation, I guess you could do that. But in a non WROL situation where the cops are going to show up after your shooting, you better learn the following words if you decide to tell them something... "I was in fear of my life, I shot the assailant to incapacitate him/her to stop the assault on me". Remember, you are not trying to kill your assailant, you just want him to stop his attack. Key words here is SHOOT TO INCAPACITATE... Never shoot to kill


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Pretty sure a lawyer might agree with this. I am a proponent of saying as little as possible. Even if it's "I need to wait to collect my thoughts before I make an official statement."



6811 said:


> To all of you James Bond 007 types who think you have a " license to kill", please don't advertise it. In a WROL situation, I guess you could do that. But in a non WROL situation where the cops are going to show up after your shooting, you better learn the following words if you decide to tell them something... "I was in fear of my life, I shot the assailant to incapacitate him/her to stop the assault on me". Remember, you are not trying to kill your assailant, you just want him to stop his attack. Key words here is SHOOT TO INCAPACITATE... Never shoot to kill


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Mosinator762x54r said:


> "I need to wait to collect my thoughts before I make an official statement."


Even cops use the above statement each time they are in a police involved shooting. This is a good one mosinator....


----------



## SittingElf (Feb 9, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> Because of body Armour.. here is my thought... if they are clothed and may have armour... neck nose, neck nose, neck nose..until they are no longer a threat
> 
> if they are NOT wearing armour...chest chest neck nose.... chest chest neck nose.. until they are no longer a threat


All this talk of body armor is specious! Very VERY few criminals or people with nefarious intent will be wearing armor. Those wearing armor are most likely dedicated preppers, or LEO...and we won't be shooting at them generally.

CENTER MASS!


----------



## SittingElf (Feb 9, 2016)

6811 said:


> Even cops use the above statement each time they are involved in a police involved shooting. This is a good one mosinator....


Actually, you should ONLY say "I want to fully cooperate and will do so, but I want my lawyer present before I answer your questions"

The NRA has a lawyer insurance program that you should subscribe to if you are CC enabled. They will provide an EXPERIENCED lawyer immediately after a self defense shooting. Don't talk without one present!!!


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Perhaps I should mention that even if you use the "shoot to stop" statement, the use of a single action revolver will earn you an automatic Premeditated Murder Hearing irregardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Perhaps I should mention that even if you use the "shoot to stop" statement, the use of a single action revolver will earn you an automatic Premeditated Murder Hearing irregardless of the circumstances.


Care to expand on that? Why does statement+gun choice=1st degree murder?


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Care to expand on that? Why does statement+gun choice=1st degree murder?


Statement is minimal. As per the D/A, "All single action revolvers require the conscious act of cocking the trigger prior to shooting." thus the premeditation. Premeditation equates to Murder, but the Judge found the circumstances to more accurately reflect my self defense plea.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Chipper said:


> You shoot to kill. A corpse won't sue, testify against you, or come back years later to even the score.


Boy, this is true, and worth repeating.
I would not leave anyone around to come back and hit my family.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Perhaps I should mention that even if you use the "shoot to stop" statement, the use of a single action revolver will earn you an automatic Premeditated Murder Hearing irregardless of the circumstances.


Two things....first its regardless.....irregardless isn't a word and actually means it would be regarded...irrespective is....second....I do not buy the automatic premeditated murder charge for a single action revolver...or a double action...or any action revolver...what state has that as an automatic charge? And if it has it...why in the hell hasn't anyone voted out anyone supporting that automatic charge?

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Statement is minimal. As per the D/A, "All single action revolvers require the conscious act of cocking the trigger prior to shooting." thus the premeditation. Premeditation equates to Murder, but the Judge found the circumstances to more accurately reflect my self defense plea.


By that stupid logic....pulling the gun...and pointing the gun...and pulling the trigger all require a conscious act too, so any gun would meet that requirement...as would any weapon... not saying some dumbass DA won't try it...but a simple tactic of using their own logic against them should suffice.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

New guy 101 said:


> By that stupid logic....pulling the gun...and pointing the gun...and pulling the trigger all require a conscious act too, so any gun would meet that requirement...as would any weapon... not saying some dumbass DA won't try it...but a simple tactic of using their own logic against them should suffice.
> 
> Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Some stupid people fool enough other stupid people to become DA's and make stupid decisions.
This is NOT a common thing. The very act of CARRYING A DEADLY WEAPON would suffice to claim premeditation. Clearly, this logic is... illogical.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Ok, in 1972 I was jumped in my yard by two thugs trying to steal the Thunderbird I have mentioned in another thread.

It was 2 AM, and I was coming home from a date, I did not see them hiding behind the car as I pulled up along side of it..

When I got out of mine I was attacked from the front and rear, this is our private parking lot in our own yard.

The guy in front had a jack handle and had it raised above his head as to strike me coming forward.

There was about five feet between us at first, I instinctively backed up going for my Smith mod 39 in the process.

As the pistol came out I was grabbed from behind in a bear hug by a real big guy around my arms.

I brought the pistol up from the elbow and at around two feet distance fired at the guy with the handle just as he just started the downward swing.

The round caught him in the left eye socket and blew out the sinus structure along side the eye socket.

He went right down, like dropping a rock from your hand.

The guy behind shifted quickly to a choke hold, I put the 39 beside me and swung around best I could, twisting my neck in the move,

as the pistol came to bear I fired two rounds midsection, he let go and went down.

When I went in to call the police, my mother came down from her bedroom which was on the side of the parking lot, the gunfire woke her up.

The windows were open, being summertime.

She almost had a heart attack when she saw me, I was covered in blood, It was all over my suite, white shirt and tie, plus my face was covered with it.

No, I was not drinking, I do not, I probably would be dead or a vegetable today had I been slowed down by booze.

Yes I did and do have a CCW.

I was charged, court case was hell.

Finding, Justified, self defense.

There was another time eight years prior, five PR's against me alone on a country road, three ran away.

Since then, I NEVER leave my home unarmed.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> Ok, in 1972 I was jumped in my yard by two thugs trying to steal the Thunderbird I have mentioned in another thread.
> 
> It was 2 AM, and I was coming home from a date, I did not see them hiding behind the car as I pulled up along side of it..
> 
> ...


And your here to tell the tale....sounds like you know a thing or two.

Shoot to kill...shoot to stop...shoot to eliminate the threat....just words...but words mean things...I think the better way to discuss would be...do you think you will have the time in a crisis to intentionally aim for the smallest, and most likely moving, part of an attacker? Or will you aim center mass? One would be an obvious attempt to wound...the other is simply aiming to hit your target with the least chance of missing and potentially hitting something or someone beyond your target.

One is an irresponsible use of a firearm (during a threat) and one is simply responsible gun use.

The rest...just words to be used in court...after you survive. So pick the action that best ensures you make it to a hearing...and use the words that help make it through the hearing.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

After the parking lot incident, I realized the guy behind me could have grabbed the 39 had he saw it, the whole thing was over I think in 10 seconds.
After giving it much thought, I decided to carry a model 36 as a backup then a model 60 when I could get one, carried the 36/60 inside the waistband holster cross draw.
After the court case, I started wearing a vest, level 2, I thought their friends or family might try something, wore it until I moved out here.
Not long after I moved here, joined the PD and then started wearing an issue vest.
I have been taught, triple tap, first round center mass, if question of them possibly wearing armor,
it will slow them enough while recovering from impact for you to get in two more rounds throat and head.
Bore size and shot placement are critical factors in quickly bringing down someone who wants to kill you.
Most effective IMHO, a 44 mag with JHP with a head or heart shot, ends the fight instantly.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

My incident occurred in Hawaii, at that time state policies reflected the Federal Standards. I awoke from a deep sleep in the second floor bedroom, at the foot of the bed was a intruder armed with the Chef Knife from my kitchen block. .44 Mag round blinded me upon discharge and when I was able to refocus the intruder was still coming toward me. Second round spun him to the floor, telephoned and requested medical aid & LEO. Both rounds completely penetrated the intruder and exited the building via jealousy windows. LEO's on site deemed it open and shut self defense. Three days later DA has me taken in and charged. Criminal Legal costs where not Tax deductible at that time. Judge dismissed the case during pretrial hearing. The experience is a bit more dramatic when you are the one sitting in cell awaiting a hearing. JMHO New guy 101.


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

Gentlemen, thank you for sharing your stories. 

Good to know the good guys can win a few.

All the best,

Grim

While I have twice been held at gunpoint I have never been shot or shot at...Thank God! Wait, there was
some stuff that happened in Vietnam...but let's forget about THAT!


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Grim Reality said:


> Gentlemen, thank you for sharing your stories.
> 
> Good to know the good guys can win a few.
> 
> ...


Damn Good thing them little critters weren't good shots. Glad You made it "Home" Grim. I recommend Louisiana rice (Mahatma but Riceland still works.) when cooking Cajun. JMHO.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

M118LR said:


> My incident occurred in Hawaii, at that time state policies reflected the Federal Standards. I awoke from a deep sleep in the second floor bedroom, at the foot of the bed was a intruder armed with the Chef Knife from my kitchen block. .44 Mag round blinded me upon discharge and when I was able to refocus the intruder was still coming toward me. Second round spun him to the floor, telephoned and requested medical aid & LEO. Both rounds completely penetrated the intruder and exited the building via jealousy windows. LEO's on site deemed it open and shut self defense. Three days later DA has me taken in and charged. Criminal Legal costs where not Tax deductible at that time. Judge dismissed the case during pretrial hearing. The experience is a bit more dramatic when you are the one sitting in cell awaiting a hearing. JMHO New guy 101.


Sounds to me you did what I proposed for others to do. Take action to ensure you live and worry about the hearing when you get there. And use the best words to ensure you go home. Thank God you made it out of that situation OK.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I go over this in my mind often. " Officer, I feared for my life and will cooperate fully, but now I need to sit down, and call my lawyer. "

Then shut up, sit down and get a lawyer.


----------



## Daddy O (Jan 20, 2014)

SittingElf said:


> Forget all the hyperbole in the video. What should be taken away from it is....shoot CENTER MASS to stop an attack. Attempting to wound by shooting at legs, or otherwise just wounding, is not only stupid, but in my state it is also illegal, even in a self defense situation.
> 
> As for "weapons classes"...I can assure you I am wayyyy ahead of that game.....'nuff said.


If you had any kind of formal training beyond chest thumping and posturing you never would have posted that link in the first place. I couldn't get past the woman shooting with her eyes closed.

Sorry, I am with Kauboy & Ralph,, and the guy with the Lee Marvin avatar. That was a dangerous video to post. I could easily understand the mods deleting it.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Daddy O said:


> If you had any kind of formal training beyond chest thumping and posturing you never would have posted that link in the first place. I couldn't get past the woman shooting with her eyes closed.
> 
> I could easily understand the mods deleting it.


Sitting Elf is a combat veteran, Probably with a hell of a lot more training than you.

I did not observe any chest thumping, so what are you talking about?

I think an apology is in order to him.

Just what is so dangerous about the vid?

Do you think that we are so low on the IQ scale that we need herding?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> Sitting Elf is a combat veteran, Probably with a hell of a lot more training than you.
> 
> I did not observe any chest thumping, so what are you talking about?
> 
> ...


Aaaawwww SNAP!....what's gonna happen next???

I wouldn't take that shit if I were you Daddio.... tell him who you are and what you know......

LOL

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Way to go Socom....don't let that fella dis the vets on here...

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

Final resolution only.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

if a person has broken into my house I think they have made it very clear of the intent on my family.
save some tax money and kill the sob.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Why is it that the words of the untried all have the same hollow ring? It isn't about what you think you would do, it is about what you have done in order to survive that matters. JMHO. Like an after action debrief, what would you do different the next time???????????


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

nothing ring more hollow than the voice of a single roach.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Lone survivors don't have many dissenting opinions voiced during the after action debrief Medic33. But the questions pertaining to how the single roach could have brought others back with them seem to go unanswered under the same circumstances. What would I do is never as instructional as what would I do differently. JMHO. Small but Large difference. Once again JMHO.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Lone survivors don't have many dissenting opinions voiced during the after action debrief Medic33. But the questions pertaining to how the single roach could have brought others back with them seem to go unanswered under the same circumstances. What would I do is never as instructional as what would I do differently. JMHO. Small but Large difference. Once again JMHO.


True words but as training and combat have taught me...you do as you have trained. I never, ever, ever aimed at an extremity on the range. I aim center mass, two in the chest, 1 in the head. Having done it in combat I instinctively put about 5 in the chest and at least 1 in the head my first time....I may have pulled the 2nd in my adrenaline filled haste....but the training kicked in none the less. So I say practice what you think you would do often so that when you have to, your AAR sounds more like mine..."well, I may have put a few more rounds in him than I had to, and I pulled one too." Not..."...well I thought I would try for a knee cap shot, but I missed and he shot me first...darn it Saint Peter, I've been a pretty good fella. Can't I come in?"

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

It is a good video and the woman is cute, so it is a win/win. The instructor is well versed and what he said is true, and he is using general rules, which is good.
But, like all things there are exceptions. Not all of us are un-skilled or lacking in a "take it to them" attitude, and I am one of those sorts. Pistols are excellent for self-defense, if you are competent with them.
View attachment 15888


----------



## jeric.danao11 (Apr 25, 2017)

Such an awesome film. Left me speechless.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

AquaHull said:


> It's prudent to know how to hit the arms and legs if that's all that's available.
> Think body armor


If you think he has body armor, shoot for the head or groin. Arms and legs will probably not stop the threat.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Shoot until the threat is removed.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

You shoot to stop the treat immediately. That means the torso or head. Shooting to wound is BS Hollywood and never state you were shooting to kill to police , officer of the court or jury.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

always luv the liberals when the cops shoot someone - "Why couldn't they just wound him" - "Don't they have a Taser?" - "They need nets like they use on animals" .... my all time fav "Can't they just let him go until he calms down by himself" .....


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

MisterMills357 said:


> It is a good video and the woman is cute, so it is a win/win. The instructor is well versed and what he said is true, and he is using general rules, which is good.
> But, like all things there are exceptions. Not all of us are un-skilled or lacking in a "take it to them" attitude, and I am one of those sorts. Pistols are excellent for self-defense, if you are competent with them.
> View attachment 15888


@ MisterMills357, I couldn't help myself. It just leapt into my brain as soon as I saw the photo...

_"When two tigers fight, one is certain to be maimed, and one to die." - Gichin Funakoshi_

My take - No one walks away from a fatal shoot unscathed...

and then just to lighten things up...


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

I have no intention of ever killing another person, I will only draw on another person if my life or that of innocents are in dire danger.

Having said that, if I ever point a gun at somebody one of two things will happen:

1) They will back off/run away

2) I will not stop firing until the threat is neutralized... it was their choice to attack me and die.

If somebody forces me to draw on them, then their life is forfeit. Period.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Chiefster23 said:


> If you think he has body armor, shoot for the head or groin. Arms and legs will probably not stop the threat.


Comprehension is critical here Chief, see the "if that's all available" disclaimer. 
AFAIK , body armor also includes a ballistic helmet and groin protector


----------



## turbo6 (Jun 27, 2014)

Shooting to wound is never a good idea and in some cases will land you in legal trouble.

Any cop or district attorney out there is going to assume that if you fired simply to wound, the situation wasn't dire enough for force and therefore not justifiable, unless we're talking about more cut and dry situations like a guy breaks down your front door and gets in your house...then they might view you as an idiot, but an innocent idiot nonetheless.

Aside from the legal aspect of it, shooting to wound is simply further escalating things to where you may have to legitimately have to shoot to kill later. Let's say a neighbor comes over to your house upset about something you did that affected his property. He gets confrontational, then physical and you respond by shooting him in the leg.

Regardless if the shooting was justifiable or not you've likely angered this person to the point where you have just put yourself in danger.

In short, if absolutely necessary you shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

Shoot to kill....first, if you only wound someone they could possibly kill you. Just because someone is wounded, even seriously, it doesn't mean that they are totally incapacitated.

Second, as mentioned, the dead don't sue.


----------



## ifithitu (May 1, 2017)

Nice video,but I haven't forgotten my Vietnam experience after forty nine years.I'll always shoot to kill,if i'm in a life and death situation.:vs_peace:


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

I dont shoot to kill, I shoot to stop the threat (if they die because I shoot them in the chest to stop them from killing me... oh well)


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Maol9 said:


> @ MisterMills357, I couldn't help myself. It just leapt into my brain as soon as I saw the photo...
> 
> _"When two tigers fight, one is certain to be maimed, and one to die." - Gichin Funakoshi_
> 
> ...


No one comes away unscathed it is true, but some humans are closer to being a tiger or wolf, than they are a man. I keep it in mind, and that is why I am a tiger if I need to be.
PS: I am equal to the beast, if I fight like one; and that means that I think like one. I will save a round in a .357; so that if they tackle me, I will put one into their cranium.
And that goes for a tiger or a man.


----------



## RubberDuck (May 27, 2016)

Dead men tell no tails.
or higher lawyers never ever shoot to wound or stop as some say.
You shoot to kill
You shoot to end the threat permanently
anything intentionally less is foolish.


----------



## Loed (Jul 9, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> This is real life. If you must use a weapon then shoot to kill. Keep shooting until threat is stopped. End of life lesson for today.


What if, the threat was not really a threat? You must face death sentence, you shot to kill, you must die.

Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Loed said:


> What if, the threat was not really a threat? You must face death sentence, you shot to kill, you must die.
> 
> Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


What kind of a statement is this?

Have you bothered reading the thread, we were talking threats, not probable or maybe threats.

You must die???? Where the hell do you live? Take a lot more than one death to get capital murder here.

You don't know much about US criminal law either do you?

What is your suggestion, shoot marshmallows to stop someone?

I will do what I have had to do before and worry about the legal outcome later.

If it is a jihad assault, nobody is waking away, unlike impotent euroturds excusing them.

I keep reading about all that trash landing on the boot,

and the locals bending over pants down to accommodate them.


----------



## Loed (Jul 9, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> What kind of a statement is this?
> 
> Have you bothered reading the thread, we were talking threats, not probable or maybe threats.
> 
> ...


If you can't recognize an actual life threat and just shoot at random, it is called "murder" not "self defense". More clear?

Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Loed (Jul 9, 2014)

There's plenty of non lethal means to overcome an aggressor, even me, 55 kg... can overwhelm a big guy, as I have got specific training. In the need you should use a gun, of course, but before using it, you must be mentally trained and prepared, not thinking in a "vigilante" manner, and finally you must know how and when to use. 

Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Doc Holliday said:


> I dont shoot to kill, I shoot to stop the threat (if they die because I shoot them in the chest to stop them from killing me... oh well)


The best post of the thread.

You are shooting to stop the threat. Killing is not even on your mind. You are in fear for your life with no time for philosophical thoughts.

Why is this important? You don't want to survive incident only to lose many years to jail or a lot of your money to the attacker's next of kin.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Loed said:


> There's plenty of non lethal means to overcome an aggressor, even me, 55 kg... can overwhelm a big guy, as I have got specific training. In the need you should use a gun, of course, but before using it, you must be mentally trained and prepared, not thinking in a "vigilante" manner, and finally you must know how and when to use.
> Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


OK, so we all need to got to special mental courses to prepare to shoot someone, right?

You speak of "vigilante" action, do you even know what the word means?

I know you are not an American or living here, otherwise you would know of the second amendment and what it means.

We have a RIGHT to self defense,

safety courses are required in some states as a newcomer to firearms, but no mental training.

Let me make this simple for you as an outsider, capire?

I carry a handgun, most of the time two, if I am attack I will use them.

I have carried one for 55 years, in that time span, I have had to use them twice as a civilian, I am still here alive.

I also carried a handgun as a poliziesco for 20 years. Not even including military service training.

If you came at me and tried to attack in any manner, you would be immediately shot.

Your opinion holds no water here in this country in reference to our laws and rights, but it is your opinion.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Loed said:


> If you can't recognize an actual life threat and just shoot at random, it is called "murder" not "self defense". More clear?
> 
> Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


OK, mr expert,

how do you determine if a guy or guys plan on just breaking your arms and legs and removing your your eyes and wallet?

Here a threat is a threat, if you think your life is in danger you take whatever action you need to to stop the threat.

Shoot at random???? where the hell are you coming from?

I think you need to re-asses the meaning of self defense and the point of the posters here, bar yous.


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

Loed said:


> If you can't recognize an actual life threat and just shoot at random, it is called "murder" not "self defense". More clear?
> 
> Inviato dal mio SM-G800F utilizzando Tapatalk


Those of us who do carry are probably among those who best know what an "actual life threat" is and what one is not. Carrying a firearm is huge responsibility and if one isn't willing to shoulder that responsibility they shouldn't carry. To those of us who do shoulder that responsibility I feel that it's incumbent that we're constantly practicing. Situational awareness is huge when it comes to carrying. I know I've become a lot more aware of my surroundings when I carry my pistol mainly because I don't want to have to use it. I would much rather avoid a threat than even consider going for my gun. However there are times when the threat can't be avoided and the fight is on. That fight is for life and death and unlike what you see in movies it's probably over in seconds.

During that time the body's flight or fight systems turn on and the brain goes into stupid mode. For the untrained fine motor control and a lot of the higher critical thinking areas of the brain get turned off. Many people just freeze up or panic altogether. I've seen it countless times. If someone has trained themselves to the point of muscle memory then they might stand a chance in those potentially fatal seconds.

It's because in the real world the fight is on and then off in just a few seconds that we put such an emphasis on it. If you hesitate you or someone you care about could die. Mental rehearsal, practice drawing from your holster, and of course live fire are crucial. That way we're not, "just shooting at random." Of course we also realize that our choices have consequences. One's we are responsible for. Especially in today's climate of instant news via social media. It's quite probable that regardless of what happens, if anyone uses a gun in a self defense situation they're likely to be judged quickly and harshly in the court of public opinion long before they ever seen a judge or jury.

All that has to be accounted for and thought of before one decided to carry a firearm. So again if someone isn't ready to accept that responsibility they shouldn't carry until they are. I assure you the vast majority of responsible gun owners have thought through situations like this before as well. To assume, like you have, that we haven't shows you don't understand what's being discussed.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

I will never engage in mutual combat ( take an ass beating rather than kill an attacker ) if someone closes ground on me and plans to batter me about the head I will do a mag dump seek cover for a top off and if threat is no longer a factor call 911 from another safer location .


----------



## redhawk (May 7, 2014)

Great clip! The instructor did an excellent job of explaining his answers!


----------



## yooper_sjd (May 14, 2017)

Well for you peacelovers, melee enthusiasts, I have special person on person training, Let the doves loose and sing Kum by ya nerds. As a Previous Military small arms instructor (18 yrs) trained to shoot CENTER OF MASS, not to kill and not to wound, but to shoot center of mass to STOP THE THREAT. (was also told to use this line if involved in civilian court as well) Was the way I was trained, and trained other people. SHOOT CENTER OF MASS TO STOP THE THREAT. Watch part of the clip, and that instructor hit the nail on the head.


----------

