head shots malicious?

[Doug.38PR]

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'" He also added, "even though the criminal is probably somebody that should have been executed 10 years ago by the court."
Headshots are not the best idea anyway for this reason: The head moves, the chest doesn't. Plus the head is a smaller target.
I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in the head if I thought I had to (like if I saw he was puffed up with body armor or if his head was exposed from behind cover like a car or something the bullet wouldn't likely penetrate.) S---w the idiot judges and DAs. I am alive that's what counts.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you told the police or the court that you intentionally shot for the head, then your error was blabbing--not where you placed your shots.

Shooting a moving target with a handgun while under severe stress does not lend itself to precise shot placement. I don't think it would be easy to prove that a head shot was intentional unless you help them out by admitting it was.

I'm not saying to lie--just reminding you that you don't have to testify against yourself.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Somebody post one case where a police detective, prosecutor, judge or jury put someone in prison or even found them guilty because they shot an assailant in the head instead of the chest, or admitted they were aiming for the head when they had a legitimate reason to shoot. Just ONE case. There must be such a case out there somewhere where someone told a shooter with a legitimate reason to shoot that a headshot was "excessive force".

 

[JohnKSa]

Frank,

I'm not arguing that point--I'm just saying that it doesn't even have to be an issue unless the shooter decides to testify against himself.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

Well, I think that shooting for the head is malicious alright, as is shooting for the chest. They don't call it deadly force for nothing! To me, the only thing that justifies shooting someone is the threat of being killed - in such cases, it's kill or be killed, so once we get to that point, I don't have any problems justifying that on a personal level.

When it comes to a jury, well, a jury is made up of human beings, and although I think that the law will be carefully explained to them, I also think that jurors will all have some subjective nature to their judgements. In that regard, it might negatively influence some jurors if they believed you were "shooting to kill".

As JohnSka mentioned however, your intended aiming point will be pretty hard to either know or prove for anyone else. Judging by the historical performance of people in shootouts, your intended aiming point is only a rough guide as to where the bullets will go in most cases anyway!

 

[FrankDrebin]

Frank,

I'm not arguing that point--I'm just saying that it doesn't even have to be an issue unless the shooter decides to testify against himself.

I was responding more to the guy before you. I hate hearing that people are making money to impart information and saying things that they can't back-up. Ayoob being one of them.

 

[mvpel]

Well, considering you live near the semi-perennial murder capitol of the US - unless you live in Virginia, how often do you hear about defensive shootings in the first place, let alone the years-later legal aftermath? And if you live in Virginia where self-defense isn't prohibited, perhaps you don't have the kind of prosecutors that exist in other, more benighted areas of the country.

 

[OBIWAN]

I agree with Ayoob on one point....

Some lawyer can/probably will do anything to cast your defensive actions in a bad light....especially in the event of a civil case.

However...if you are justified in shooting.....where your bullets hit is unlikely to be an issue

 

[Superhornet]

Your heart's a thumpen, your adrenal is pumpin, you knees aquaken, your hand is shanken........How many can hit a six inch circle moving at a high rate of speed toward you at 5 yards under those circumstances ??? Center mass and the perp don't last......IMHO of course..

 

[mvpel]

Ayoob has served as an expert witness on a long list of civil and criminal prosecutions regarding defensive force, so I suspect that he could back up what he's saying if he felt comfortable blabbing in public about the specifics of the legal difficulties of the individuals he's worked with.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Shield20 said:

There is a school of thought that says if 2 shots to the chest doesn't stop him, more probably won't help because the target has stopped feeling pain due to the body's natural reaction. Better to turn him off NOW with a shot to the head if possible.

I too read about this school of thought. Some MD wrote that inflicting the most amount of damage to the body before the body responds physiologically to the damage was a way to put someone down (this is paraphrased, of course) i.e. shooting two shots in rapid succession. Not a doc, but it sounds reasonable considering how the body copes with traumatic injuries.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Been discussed on this forum, thehighroad, glocktalk. Consensus of all intelligent people is that a head shot in the course of defending yourself is legitimate. The "stop" usage by the instructor is a moronic misinterpretation of what 'stop' means.

I've been in LFI-1 and Ayoob never said this.

Some gun instructors are ...

 

[stevelyn]

Head shots malicious?

Nope. Just insurance.

If headshots were malicious, why would police firearms instructors teach Failure-to Stop (Mozambique) drills to every academy recruit and veteran officer during in-service quals?

Targets are: Computer (brain), Mobility (pelvis), and Lifesupport (vital organs) That's why they's labeled "A" Zone on these areas (pelvic region excepted).

Also be aware that Center-of-Mass is also center of target presented, not just a human torso.

 

[Bravo25]

FrankDrebin Quote:
Better Judged By 12, Than Carried by 6.



I'd prefer to avoid both.....it's virtually always doable.

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

JohnKSa If you told the police or the court that you intentionally shot for the head, then your error was blabbing--not where you placed your shots.

Shooting a moving target with a handgun while under severe stress does not lend itself to precise shot placement. I don't think it would be easy to prove that a head shot was intentional unless you help them out by admitting it was.

I'm not saying to lie--just reminding you that you don't have to testify against yourself.

This is sound advice. Remember that in todays society, defending your life, usually requires you to do it twice. Explain only that you felt your life, or the life of another was threatened, this is why, and I shot. Anything else should come from your lawyer. You will most likely need one for the civil trial either way it goes.

 

[FrankDrebin]

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

It's highly, highly unlikely that you will be charged as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. It's certainly not even close to "almost certain". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with. Until that time, you're not charged. The police may complete a warrant request as a matter of course and forward it to the prosecutor who THEN makes the decision to approve the charges or not.

Same thing goes for a civil trial. Despite what Masaad Ayoob says, you're a lot less likely to be sued than not after a legitimate self-defense shooting. I'd like to hear see any empirical evidence to the contrary. Lawyers don't like to work for free. If the guy you shoot doesn't have a case, he's not going to get a lawyer on a contingency pay scale. Just don't shoot a rich guy.

 

[mvpel]

Depends on what state you're in, as always.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, I think that shooting for the head is malicious alright, as is shooting for the chest. They don't call it deadly force for nothing!

Now that is something I can agree with! For the person on whom lethal force is being used, it is all pretty malicious, but that is a personal view, not a legitimate legal view.

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'" He also added, "even though the criminal is probably somebody that should have been executed 10 years ago by the court."

Various instructors may spout this crap, but they don't have any real backing to support the claim, at least none I have heard of. I find that a lot of instructors pass out garbage they read by gun writers in gun rags as if it was somehow true, such as only using guns or ammo that the local cops use as a means by which to reduce liability in court. There is no actual court case that supports the claim, but instructors spout it as if it was true at some schools.

I read a case here in TN about a gentleman who shot a man wielding a knife in a bar fight and then after he fell down went and finished him off with a head shoot. He went to jail for manslaughter as the assailant was no longer a threat. Seems like your time to act can be very short.

There was a similar case in Utah. I believe they tried the ‘good guy' for murder. If the bad guy is no longer a threat, then shooting him in the head or anywhere else for that matter, is probably going to be legally a bad thing. You don't get to use lethal force on folks who don't pose a threat to you.

Yes, when you are shooting somebody and they fall to the ground, incapacitated, you may not have any more time to deliver more shots. You may have no more time than your first shot. Executing a downed badguy who is not a threat to you at the current time is a vigilante act and is illegal.

Then again, you may put 9 rounds into a guy's chest over the course of 30 seconds while the guy continues his attack on you. That is a LOT of time you didn't attempt to shoot him in the head for a CNS shutdown.

 

[Bravo25]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with

Well to adress the following post first, yes it depends on what state you are in. That was my broad brush. My appologies. However, in a lot of states the police aresst you, read you your rights, and then obtain information. (In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.) It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter. Remember it is not up to a LEO to decide guilt or innocence, or even to decide "justified", they are there only to enforce the law. The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.
Here where I live, even LEOs that are involved with shootings will be reviewed by the DA. (another pet pieve of mine. LEO should answer to citizen councils, but that is whole different topic)
What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

 

[FrankDrebin]

(In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.)

If the police "get you" to volunteer any information while in custody without a Miranda waiver, it is most certainly NOT admissible.

It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter.

There is no such criminal charge of "homicide".

The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.

Which law would that be? And what happens if there are 5 witnesses who saw the shooting and tell the responding officers that it was self-defense? They have no probable cause to believe the shooter committed a crime, and no probable cause to arrest him. At most, they have reasonable suspicion to detain to get his name and his story if he wants to give it. You don't automatically get arrested when you shoot someone in self-defense. The standard of probable cause still applies.

What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

What I alluded to is that you are not charged until a warrant is presented to the court and you are brought before a judge and arraigned. You may be in custody, but you're not charged until the judge reads the charges to you. That's why most police departments won't release the names of arrestees to the news media before the arraignment......because they haven't been CHARGED with anything yet. This rarely happens in a legitmate self defense shooting. In other words, in the vast majority of self-defense homicides, there are never any charges brought against the homicider. You are NOT likely to be charged with anything as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. Nor are you likely (read, 51% of the time) to be sued.

 

[LAK]

Bullets; whether one or a dozen, whether they are marketed under the name of "Surgeon's Nightmare", or "Recovery Friendly", whether aimed at the big toe or the brain ... are considered deadly force.

If you are justified in using deadly force, a bullet in the brain or the upper spine (both quite likely to cause death) is your best bet - if you can do it.