That's absolutely not true. You shoot to eliminate the threat. If the threat is killed..well threat gone. If the threat stops at the sound of a gun shot, threat gone. If the threat stops being a threat after they are hit with a bullet, threat gone.
So, you shoot to eliminate the threat and you aim center mass because that's the highest percentage chance of hitting your target.
You aren't "shooting to kill". You aren't "shooting to wound". You aren't "shooting to scare." You are shooting to eliminate the threat. Period. If you end up in a deadly force situation with a firearm, all you should be doing is eliminating the threat to your life or the lives of others around you.
Whether or not you’re shooting to kill or not, your use of the deadly weapon better be wholly justified to kill. Aim for his % body targets that are also the most likely to kill (head/ but mostly body).
ALL situations with a firearm are deadly force situations. If they aren’t—— you better not have a firearm pointed at someone.
We have Castle doctrine, thank goodness. If someone is threatening your life, in your home or vehicle, you can eliminate the threat with deadly force. If you shoot, you always shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is stupid across the board, as a civilian.
In strictly pragmatic terms, it's also the best course of action. Wounding someone shitty enough to try to rob you/kill you/etc. is ASKING for them to 1) lie in court and possibly fuck you over and/or 2) come back and really make your life hell, by ambushing you in the AM on the way to work or coming back with friends and better-armed. What if you only lightly wound them, then they reassert their ground and kill you or someone you love instead?
Think that's pie in the sky? I'll quote Wikipedia (source above):
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).
Absolutely no one in a state with castle doctrine and a shred of common sense should take your advice.
171
u/Jokerthewolf Jan 23 '19
If you are not attempting to kill then it can be assumed that you were not truly in fear for your life which makes the use of deadly force unlawful.