Heroic CCW holder shoots and kills armed robber in Gage Park (taser, carry)

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by lenniel

If you're a CCW holder and you decide to pull the trigger, you aim for center mass in order to kill, not wound.

Actually, you DON'T shoot to kill.

Sure, you aim for center mass, and you shoot as many times as necessary to render the person incapable of causing harm to anyone else, and should they die as a result, that's too bad for them. In a defense shooting, the intention should not be to kill, but to incapacitate.

[lenniel]

Originally Posted by P47P47

Actually, you DON'T shoot to kill.

Sure, you aim for center mass, and you shoot as many times as necessary to render the person incapable of causing harm to anyone else, and should they die as a result, that's too bad for them. In a defense shooting, the intention should not be to kill, but to incapacitate.

I think you're splitting hairs.

You could incapacitate someone by shooting them in the leg, but that's not how it works. You're going for vital organs: Heart, lungs, liver, kidney, spine.
If you're the CCW, do you shoot 1 time and see if you did the job? No, you unload as many shots as you can as quickly as you can.

Sure, you're most likely to incapacitate as well, but putting 6-8 bullets in someone at close range isn't going to turn out well for the perp.

[MSWTEBO]

Originally Posted by lenniel

I know you're just kidding, but there are actually people out there stupid enough to believe that the guy "Should have just wounded him or shot the gun out of his hand. He didn't have to kill him" (mainly, the perps son).

But this aint Hollywood. This isn't a Wild West movie. If you're a CCW holder and you decide to pull the trigger, you aim for center mass in order to kill, not wound.
This guy did society a favor. He's a hero in my mind.

I am not kidding. I was respectful enough (never called anyone names) and I hope that I can get the same courtesy. I was just curious about the whole thing. I understand that in a situation like this, most people will aim for center mass, but is the intention really to kill? I don't think I live in a Western film, but I think I would aim to wound and incapacitate, not to kill. Then again, I have never been in a stressful situation like this, Yes, I know that maybe I am naive, and no, I am not trying to be all "*******" or whatnot. I am just trying to discuss something I am curious about. Thanks for being respectful about the whole issue of my curiosity.

[lenniel]

Originally Posted by MSWTEBO

I am not kidding. I was respectful enough (never called anyone names) and I hope that I can get the same courtesy. I was just curious about the whole thing. I understand that in a situation like this, most people will aim for center mass, but is the intention really to kill? I don't think I live in a Western film, but I think I would aim to wound and incapacitate, not to kill. Then again, I have never been in a stressful situation like this, Yes, I know that maybe I am naive, and no, I am not trying to be all "*******" or whatnot. I am just trying to discuss something I am curious about. Thanks for being respectful about the whole issue of my curiosity.

Ok, if you're not kidding, then perhaps you've watched too many movies and tv shows with shootouts.
Trying to shoot a person in the leg or whatever, is much tougher than to shoot them in the chest. Also, who's to say that by wounding their leg, that they still aren't able to return fire?

Just like a cop, if you're going to draw your weapon and pull the trigger, you're going for the vital organs so that the perp can't return fire. While you may not be aiming to intentionally 'kill', you're also not aiming to simply 'wound'.

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by lenniel

I think you're splitting hairs.

You could incapacitate someone by shooting them in the leg, but that's not how it works. You're going for vital organs: Heart, lungs, liver, kidney, spine.
If you're the CCW, do you shoot 1 time and see if you did the job? No, you unload as many shots as you can as quickly as you can.

Sure, you're most likely to incapacitate as well, but putting 6-8 bullets in someone at close range isn't going to turn out well for the perp.

You might refer to it as "hair-splitting", but in a legal situation, there's a big difference between saying, "I shot to wound.", "I shot to kill.", and "I shot to incapacitate."


Of course, this all depends on in just which state the incident occurs, but generally, saying that your intention was "to wound" can get you into trouble because you used lethal force (a firearm) in a situation where you didn't think lethal force was necessary, hence the shot "to wound". If you announce that your intention was "to kill", that can get you into pretty bad trouble as well. But if you claim that your intention was "to incapacitate", while recognizing that the most effective means of incapacitation can possibly be lethal, you'd be in a much better legal position.

[lenniel]

Originally Posted by P47P47

You might refer to it as "hair-splitting", but in a legal situation, there's a big difference between saying, "I shot to wound.", "I shot to kill.", and "I shot to incapacitate."


Of course, this all depends on in just which state the incident occurs, but generally, saying that your intention was "to wound" can get you into trouble because you used lethal force (a firearm) in a situation where you didn't think lethal force was necessary, hence the shot "to wound". If you announce that your intention was "to kill", that can get you into pretty bad trouble as well. But if you claim that your intention was "to incapacitate", while recognizing that the most effective means of incapacitation can possibly be lethal, you'd be in a much better legal position.

Not disagreeing. But the end result or goal is still the same: Make it so the perp can't return fire or hurt anyone else.

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Not disagreeing. But the end result or goal is still the same: Make it so the perp can't return fire or hurt anyone else.

Exactly.

[NealIRC]

If he shot the guy several times, his intent likely was to kill.

Personally I'm a fan of tasers and stun guns. But that's only for close-range I guess.

[NY to Chicago]

Guns don't guarantee anything....Plenty of people who CC firearms have been killed by criminals or others...I don't get why people act like a Gun guarantees your safety when it clearly does not (look at all the Police Officers who get killed in the line of duty each year)....

The reality is....When the criminal ALSO has a gun....there is always a chance that the good guy may loose...I know this may be hard to hear if you envision yourself as John Wayne because you can hit the target 9 out of 10 times at the range....but real life is not a fantasy movie and often sheer luck determines who wins in a shootout.....

When 2 people with guns are shooting at each other....there is always a chance that the bad guy wins....period

It's still better for the good guy to have a firearm through...

[LeotheOrangeCat]

The idea is to be the only guy who shoots. That's why you put several shots into the center mass. You don't wait to see if he can still return fire after one shot. But yeah sure, you can always lose. Though the biggest risk of owning a gun is an accidental shooting, like shooting a "prowler" that turns out to be a relative or kids getting a hold of the gun while it is unattended.