I wish that I could have done this as a poll, but I guess this will have to suffice.
I was truly wondering, given some recent posts regarding the use of deadly force which of the following two choices best fits the majority of the members here. Please choose the best one of the two, like a poll
A. If someone breaks into my home, I reserve the right to shoot and kill said person, as they threaten my safety and that of my family, I do not need to be responsible for demonstrating a higher level of responsibility than someone not concerned about me or my family and I will likely give very little if any verbal warning before using deadly force.
B. If someone breaks into my home, I will use deadly force/shoot said person only if necessary, after attempting to verbalize my intention if they do not leave and then shoot to wound and not kill when necessary.
I choose "A", and a recent change to Castle Doctrine in my state fully supports my decision. If you put your leg through my door or window at 3:00 AM expect to get a .357 in your center of mass, I didn't invite you in, and as far as I and the law are concerned you're now a threat to my safety. It doesn't matter who you may turn out to be, if you're stupid and clumsy enough to wake this sound sleeper in the middle of the night you're gonna die.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: Shoot to kill or shoot to stop.....
Here in Texas, we just passed a version of the castle doctrine. We dont have to do anything but aim at the heart.Ichoose option (A).An intrudermade the decision todo harm to me, or my property, so they have tochose to dealwith the possible consequences, Which is a bullet. All negotiations are off.
I go with the notion, If someone is in my house with out my permission. Attempting to do harm, steal, or what ever, they are going to die. I have taught my wife to shot for the trunk, then the second shot is to the head. I dont want my wife to think in such a situation, just respond. If she feels she needs to shoot someone, it should be leathel. I dont want her to try to wound them, or negotiate with them, giving them the option of over taking her and killing her. So if anyone breaks into our house, they will be greeted with either a 45 auto, 38 special, 44mag, or 454 casual. We have the house, my office, guest house, and my wifes workshop supplied with a loaded guns in a lock boxes ready to go,.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
I do not want to have to shoot someone. It's easy to talk about, but I doubt there's ever been anyone forced to use deadly force who didn't have that prey on their mind to some degree for years to come.
But I'd rather have that on my mind than to have to live wondering if that person was going to come back, perhaps at a time when my family was home and I wasn't or at a time when I was less prepared.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
"Never shoot to wound. If you are justified in the use of a deadly weapon, use deadly force."
Shooting to wound is a badism that can get one into severe trouble in many states. There are some exceptions like here in OK where the perp is not allowed to sue in civil court.If the perp is not killed outrightthe cops have to listen to two stories. Most cops want to hear one story in a justified shooting.
No offense but I think you're defining one of the terms in your question incorrectly. Shooting to kill is obvious what it means--You shot till the person died. It didn't matter if they stopped being a threat and at some point even dropped their weapon and fell to the ground. Your intention was to continue shooting until that person died.
"Shooting to stop" should be more fully defined as in "shooting to stop the threat." People sometimes get hung up on these slight differences but the courts generally don't.
If you say you shot to kill, some lawyer (no offense NT) is going to paint you as being out of control and simply wanting to kill somebody when you got a questionable chance. They will argue that you were judge, jury and executioner because you sentenced the dead subject to die for whatever crime he was committing and then carried out that sentence. It's debatable as to whether you would win or lose in a criminal court and would probably lose in a civil court.
Now, if you shoot to stop the deadly threat you perceived (i.e. you had to shoot or your would have been killed or seriously injured), you are perceived as acting more rationally and with the minimum amount of force needed. Your INTENTIONS were to stop the threat and not necessarily to kill the person.
The same criminal suspect may die because shooting people tends to cause that BUT you were DEFENDING yourself (or your family) and were shooting till that criminal no longer posed a threat to you or your family with his knife, gun or whatever other weapon created the imminent deadly threat to you. Summed up another way, you wanted to prevent that person from killing you but weren't necessarily looking to kill them. And yes, this makes a huge difference to courts and juries.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I'm gonna have to go with A also...Im gonna have to go with what IFFERD said...If i hear someone trying to get into my home ill yell stop or ill shoot,and if they dont stop and proceed through the window or door well then BANG BANG your dead...But if i am awoken to hear someone already in my house im gonna grab my old 45 and go and meet them without any warning or verbal confrontation,the only warning that they would get would be from the blast of my 45..
Shoot to kill or shoot to stop.....
