Shoot to kill or?

[Bob Thompson]

Trying to be a good Christian person but believing in self defense and the right to legally carry for self defense I am troubled by the possibility of taking a life in the defense of myself or a loved one. I understand all the talk of personal injury suits when wounding someone and so on but I wonder if killing is always necessary as many teach. Double taps to the torso etc. It would seem that a confrontation could be halted and a life saved, mine and theirs, by merely wounding an armed attacker. I also believe in many circumstances I would have the time and ability to merely wound my adversary and end an attack. Naturally the circumstances of the attack would determine the response from me. I carry pepper spray as a first response and a dominant caliber if escallation is necessary that even a shoulder shot would probably end the attack quickly. Am I wrong? Lets hear your theory or personal experiances in this matter. Not just lawyer or LEO talk but your inner feelings also. Thanks much, Respectifully, Bob T.

 

[NovaSS]

What ever you do always remeber to tell the authorities that you shot to "stop the attack" and get a lawyer fast. If you tell they you just shot to wound the guy and he dies you have admitted fault on your part and open your self to a cival case by his next of kin.

If you realy have second thoughts about using deadly force dont get a firearm. If you hesitate the attacker will take your firearm from you and use it on you and your family. You may be better off using non lethal forms of defense ( peper sprays etc.)

 

[Kaboom]

If a situation reaches the point of needing a firearm, shoot to kill and repeat as necessary. Do everything possible to avoid the situation but if you are knee deep in it do it right.

 

[croyance]

People get hung up on the phrase, shoot to kill.
The intent is not to kill, but there is the realistic understanding that killing is a real possibility.
If merely drawing the weapon stops the attack, then that is sufficient.
Otherwise, if the situation justifies it, shooting is intended to stop the attack. This is not rationalization or doublespeak. While I do not have the skill to hit a moving target in non-vital areas, there are indeed many places a human can be hit with a bullet that are not immediately fatal.
The situation would have been caused by another, creating a situation where I had to defend myself or others from deadly harm.
If I created this situation, I would be at fault.

Even your intended shoulder wound may go astray, hitting a vital blood vessel (brachial artery comes to mind) or the head. If the situation did not justify, in your mind, the possibility of killing somebody, how did you justify the risk?
This is assuming you have this type of skill, which I don't believe you do.
That miss could go somewhere else, like an innocent bystander or loved one.

I wouldn't shoot at a specific body part, but rather the largest part to present itself, to minimize risk to innocents. The center of mass is hopefully available.

If the possibility of killing a violent criminal in defense of a loved one disturbs you, then tell me this: Does the idea of seeing your wife killed or daughter raped disturb you more?
If not, you can always be a martyr for your beliefs. God will understand your intent.

I really don't believe that you have any buisness carrying a gun if you don't have an answer for this. If you are not prepared for the possibility that somebody may die, the gun might be turned against you. You just escalated the situation and the violent criminal is now very angry by what you tried to do. Things just got worse.
It may be difficult, if not impossible to take a gun from a person willing to defend themselves. If a person doubts, they may certainly freeze as they try to come up with an answer, or they may simply be unable to fire because they find they cannot shoot another. Don't make things worse for those around you.
I looked within myself for months before coming up with the answer, then acted accordingly.

 

[Phil Ca]

When I was in the firearms training business we never taught the officers to "shoot to kill". It was "shoot to stop the attack(er)"

If you let it be known that you shoot to kill a lawyer will be looking for deep pockets to recover money for some slimeball that was killed. getting a lawyer is a wise choice. Do not give a statement to the police until you have spoken to your counsel. many people have regretted their hastily given statement and it created problems for them in court. Sometimes DA's are only looking at convictions and you do not want to be a notch on that DA's belt.

 

[mete]

First as a Christian I hope you know that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is incorrectly translated. The original Hebrew says"thou shalt not murder". There is a very significant difference between the two....Unless you can say that under appropriate conditions you could kill someone, NEVER carry a gun. ...You have the right to use lethal force to prevent death or serious injury. In the real world you should shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat, forget about 'double taps' etc .You never aim to wound ,you're not that good [ and no one else is either] to be able to precisely hit none lethal parts of the body.For example shooting him in the leg - what happens if you sever the femoral artery ? You shoot for the center of mass until he is no longer a threat.

 

[Tamara]

Under the stress of a life-or-death encounter, I'll be real happy to "shoot to hit". Aiming at the center of the available target would probably give me the best odds on this.

 

[MHDIsHere]

Allow me to give you my take as both a Christian and a gun owner.

First, in the ideal world to come none of this will be an issue, we may still have guns but we'll use them strictly for target shooting, self defense will be a non-issue because there will be no one to defend yourself from. We're not there yet though.

Right now, the reality is that self-defense IS an issue. My thoughts on the matter are that my life is a gift from God, and only God has the right to take it from me. I don't even have the right to give it up when I choose, it's entirely up to God when I die. There was a time when Christians believed that failure to defend your own life was the moral equivalent of suicide. For more on this see http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/froghome.htm .

Please don't equate letting someone kill you with martyrdom, the two are not the same at all. The martyrs died rather than deny their Christian beliefs, and they were killed by a government which had the authority to enforce the laws. They're deaths were civil disobedience. A criminal is acting outside the law as well as outside morality.

If you're unsure about the morality of using lethal force against an attacker I'd advise against carrying a lethal weapon for self defense in hopes you'll be able to use it in a non-lethal manner. Just be aware that, in relying on non-lethal defense you're limiting yourself in terms of how far you can stick with an escalating situation, and by the time it's escalated to the point where lethal force is your only remainig option you're out of options for getting out alive.

I understand your quandry, I gave this issue long and hard consideration when I became a Christian.

 

[Bob Thompson]

Many thanks to those who replied on this touchy subject and any who will. I learned some things and am considering much. What brought this subject about was an incident a while back here where police were called to a domestic disturbance and upon entering the bi-level house a drunk person was wielding a large knife at the top of about 6 stairs and 8 feet from officers. After telling the suspect to drop the knife several times and without the suspect moving toward the officers they put three rounds into his chest killing him. They stated later they felt their lives were in danger and they were exonerated of any wrongdoing. Thats fine but it seems at that range and given the circumstances a round to the extremidies would have ended the confrontation without taking a life. I assume they did not have non-lethal methods available. But thats another subject and mostly for LEO's. I must ponder this more but am inclined towards what most feel here and yes, I would not hestitate if faced with a life threatning situation and would go for "center mass" to "stop the threat", not to kill. I will be judged once in this life and once finally by Him. Now I must get Massad Ayoob"s "In the gravest extreme" and read throughly. I should have already but pondered too long. I've had my CCW 10 years without incident. Again thanks much to my friends at TFL.

 

[J. Scott]

Remember Berni Getz/ New York subway shooting he killed all but one. His only criminal charge was possesion of a firearm, but because one lived and sued him he will be paying for the rest of his life. In the ccw class i just took the instructors were very clear on the legal implications. One point that I found interesting was that the supream court ruled that any and every bullet fired is concidered to be "use of deadly force" even when you are at the range target shooting. They base this on the fact that all bullets have the potential to kill , and that once you pull the trigger it cannot be recalled. They also told us that in your/ our moments right after shooting someone the tendancy is to tell someone, anyone your/ our side of the story. Their advise shut up . It goes on and on but one thing is certain you will be sued. If you dont know if you can shoot someone, then don't carry a gun

 

[beardking]

Personally I have always lived by the idea that if I am going to point my gun at a live object and pull the trigger it will be with the intent of killing it. Whether that be a deer that looks like a good dinner to me, or a crackhead that thinks his shooting skills are better than mine. If I point my gun and pull the trigger, it is my intent that whatever I'm shooting at will not move again under it's own power. I'm not a religious person in any way, so maybe that's why I feel this way, but I've always been taught not to point my gun at anything that I'm not ready to kill. If you are trying to harm me in some form that makes me feel that I need to pull my gun, I will put every bit of my being into making sure that it's the last thing you ever do. EVER.

 

[Rmouleart]

If you think your life or your family's life is in danger, shoot to kill, then shoot a few in the ceiling, tell the authorities I fired two warning shots and he just kept coming a dead victim can't talk, plus even if he was trying to kill you and survived the shot, you could be liable for a suit, Imagine that any body that has the balls to break into my house, will learn there last lesson, shoot them and let God sort them out. Now I'm talking if they have a weapon and are threating, even a bat is a weapon, other wise give them the opportunity to escape or lay down and give up for arrest for the authorities to come. Aim small hit small. RAMbo.

 

[Indy_SIG]

Carrying is mental as well as physical

"Trying to be a good Christian person but believing in self defense and the right to legally carry for self defense I am troubled by the possibility of taking a life in the defense of myself or a loved one."

If this is a true reflection of your commitment to using a firearm to protect your life, you should not carry a gun. No one should carry a firearm until they are 100% ready to use said firearm if a situation arises that meets your state's definition of justified deadly force.

I strongly suggest selling any firearms you currently own and leave your protection to law enforcement and other armed citizens.

 

[croyance]

police were called to a domestic disturbance and upon entering the bi-level house a drunk person was wielding a large knife at the top of about 6 stairs and 8 feet from officers. After telling the suspect to drop the knife several times and without the suspect moving toward the officers they put three rounds into his chest killing him. They stated later they felt their lives were in danger and they were exonerated of any wrongdoing. Thats fine but it seems at that range and given the circumstances a round to the extremidies would have ended the confrontation without taking a life.

Eight feet would be covered in less than a second by a healthy man on level ground. He was wired from adrenaline and would have been going downhill. Going down two stairs and jumping would have put him in arms reach (knife range), with body momentum bullets would not have stopped.
Your conceptions of range and time are far off. Eight feet is a little more than the distance from the head of a bed to the foot. A pool table is about eight feet long. With the tip of the knife, the man had a reach of at least three feet.

 

[Darkangel]

Dude if it bothers you that much then don't carry.
You would only use that weapon as a last resort, its your Ace in the hole.
I've drawn my weapon a couple of times and never even had to point it at someone. I drew it when everything else failed and I had no choice. The good thing is that bringing it into view ended the threat with the other running away after seeing the weapon.
Now your chance of ever having to use the weapon is very small, but bad things happen to very nice people. You'll know when its bad to the point that you have to use it. Until then practice, God doesn't want you to be a dead christian.

 

[MK11]

Irrelevant to the larger topic at hand but Bernie Getz didn't kill any of them. He did put one in a wheelchair but the rest had relatively minor wounds. What really got him were claims that he fired another round into one of his attackers after they were down and out.

 

[k_dawg]

The two times I have pulled.. that alone ended it.

So in a way, the CCW prevented injury ( as well as loss of material posessions )

Put it this way: do you feel your faith in God is any less because you wear a seatbelt while driving?

of course not.

God gave us, his Children, the brains and ability to make smart decisions, and defend ourselves from harm.

 

[Model520Fan]

I hope you know that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is incorrectly translated. The original Hebrew says"thou shalt not murder".

Slightly off-topic, but the above statement is not true. If you examine (in an interlinear translation) the detailed explanation of the rules concerning the cities of refuge, you will see that the word used in the Ten Commandments for "kill" could not possibly mean "murder." If anyone really cares about this, feel free to e-mail me and I will take time within the next day or so to find the exact passages.

520

P.S. Actually, it didn't take that long. "Thou shalt not kill" appears in Exodus 20:13. The word "killer," with the same root, appears in Numbers 35:25, where it can only mean "killer," not "murderer." Also, Numbers 35:26-7 describes a situation where an avenger of an accidental homicide finds the killer outside the city of refuge and kills him, with the word "kill" being identical to the word "kill" in the commandment (except for the second person prefix), and the Bible says there is no blood upon the avenger for having done this.

As usual, this is repeated in Deuteronomy, 5:17 for the commandment and 19:4 for the innocent homicide using the same root word as in the commandment.

 

[J. Scott]

Thanks MK11 for setting me straight. The fack remains that if you shoot someone they or a surviving relative will be looking for monatary compensation.

 

[Dwight55]

Bob, . . . as a Baptist pastor, . . . I would give you the same piece of advice given by nova ss:

If you realy have second thoughts about using deadly force dont get a firearm. If you hesitate the attacker will take your firearm from you and use it on you and your family. You may be better off using non lethal forms of defense ( peper sprays etc.)

1) As the husband, father, and (by the Lord) deemed the head of your household; it is your duty to "provide" for your household, and those who choose to not do so are "worse than an infidel and have already denied the faith".

2) Part of that "provision" is safety and protection, of course. The catch is to do it in such a way that you can live with yourself after the action has taken place and consequences are setting in.

For myself, I have a CCW, and have no qualms carrying a .45 acp, 1911 with the full understanding that I may have to use it some day. If and when I do, it will be to protect my life, the life of a loved one, or the life of a friend/neighbor, etc.

Through much prayer and personal internal inspection, I have made the commitment that I will not allow the bg element to have free reign over me or those near me, . . . and if it costs the life of the bg, . . . then that was his/her bad decision made going in.

All of us must live and/or die by the personal decisions we make in our lives daily, . . . I have chosen Jesus Christ first, and to live second, . . . therefore I often carry my SA GI series 1911 loaded with hardball and ready if needed.

But as nova ss and others also noted, . . . you and you alone must make the decision that you can and if needed, . . . you will take another's life to protect yours and your loved ones. If you cannot make that decision, get a different weapon system, . . . one that is less lethal and learn how to use it.

May God bless,
Dwight