Is shooting only to stop aggression ever advisable?

[RobT]

Hi all,
I asked this question of my CHL trainer and got a long pause before the answer. I'd like to know what you all think about this.
The question was "Is there ever any justification for shooting an aggressor in order just to stop the aggression as opposed to ending their life?" In other words, if I'm being approached in an aggressive manner, and after giving a stern warning, is it ever justifiable, or advisable, to shoot 'to wound' and stop the aggression instead of 'shoot to kill'? I find it hard to believe that we should always 'make sure they're dead', so to speak. I look forward to your opinions.

Thanks

[MIO]

I have yet to find the person who "was in fear for their life", the key to a legal shooting of an aggressor, who could actually shoot to wound. Your true survival instinct will instruct you properly at the moment and I doubt during your first one that you will know some details like where you hit, how many rounds you fired, etc.
Let's say you manage it and they are on K2, PCP etc then they won't stop. Let's say they are from the warrior culture, a wound won't stop them cause they have experienced before.
If your mentally not willing then you might be a liability to yourself and might be better off not.

[mayfieldh]

What the jury members will look for in this situation is always, "COULD IT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED".  Just remember, you should ONLY shoot if you cannot get out of the situation.  If you have an aggressor coming at you with his bear hands, I'm sure you could either walk or run away if necessary.  Some may disagree with the run away, but if you try to run away and then you are cornered, you would have a better case for having a justified shooting especially if there are witnesses.  On the other hand, if the aggressor has a weapon of any kind and it could cause you serious bodily harm or death, then it would be justified to shoot after the warning and he continues to be aggressive.

[CongoHarry]

I don't like the idea of killing.  I'll do what I can to avoid it, save putting my own life at risk in the process.  Accordingly, I make it a point of my daily comportment to adhere to the first rule of a gunfight: DON'T BE THERE.  "Winging" someone is a construct of Hollywood movie culture.  We all grew up with scenes of the Lone Ranger always shooting the gun out of someone's hand, Marshall Matt Dillon shooting the bad guy in the arm, or Roy Rogers choosing to duke it out with some desperado rather than shooting him.  It's a holdover Westerns tailored to avoid offending viewers with excessive realism, and principally done as a morality tale for the youngsters.   As a result, it's become part of our collective mindset.  In real life, however, it's a stupendously bad idea, possibly leading to the least of your worries: being charged with malicious wounding.  Novelist John Steinbeck once famously said "never pick a fight with an old man.  If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you."  Nothing in law says that you must first endure a beating at the hands of your aggressor, before you're permitted to use lethal force in defending yourself.  Likewise, nothing in law says that you're permitted to use lethal force as a tool of compliance, to "wing" or merely wound an aggressor.  That's what Mace or pepper spray is for, and that's why I carry it along with a sidearm.  I'm an old geezer with a bum ticker.  I'm in no condition to get into a fist fight or wrestling match with any aggressor.  Law enforcement has a name for guys like me: "sitting duck." If under attack by an unarmed aggressor, I'll give him one request at the top of my lungs: "PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!" Failing that, "BACK OFF! I'M ARMED!"  Failing that, a thorough hosing with the MACE.  All if time and circumstance permit, of course.  If not, then "never pick a fight with an old man."

[mayfieldh]

"congoharry" I like that idea.  MACE is something I have been meaning to get for some time now to add to my sidearm.  I'm also one of those older guys..

[CongoHarry]

My personal choice for anything on two legs is Fox Labs pepper spray.   For something to "gum up" the works on ill-mannered dogs: Mace "Pepper Foam."  ...'cause if you "drop the hammer," your bank balance will follow!

[RobT]

Thanks for the input folks. Some things I'll definitely consider being and older gentleman myself I hope to avoid aggressive behavior by any reasonable means. I like to be prepared for the worst but it seems there are cultural untruths/misdirections perpetuated by our society that need to be overcome in order to be prepared with the proper mindset as well and not only armed to make ourselves 'feel' safe.

[siggaltx]

Massad Ayoob has some comments on this subject in his "Shoot to Live" video on youtube. It's a good idea in theory but the application is extremely tricky. Check out Massad's take on it.

[RobT]

Thanks siggaltx! I'll certainly check it out.

[stealth]

I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't thought about this a great deal, but here's my take:

I think when it is said "shoot to kill" (which is not a phrase I'd use, precisely because it is ambiguous and could be taken as referring to intent, which it is not), this is referencing the action taken but isn't indicating the intent or reason for the action. It is meant that you believe lethal force is necessary and justifiable in defense of yourself, and so that is the action you are taking, but not that your intention is to kill the other person. If that isn't the case, that lethal force is justifiable and necessary, then you should probably not fire your firearm at the other individual at all. The purpose of you employing your firearm is not to kill the person, it is to stop them (intention), but the force that you're applying in order to stop them (justifiable action) is lethal force. Regardless of where precisely you aim, if you draw a firearm and aim it at another individual and fire, you are using lethal force. In such a case, lethal force must be justifiable. If a situation escalates to the point that you believe lethal force is necessary and justifiable in defense of yourself, then you should employ that force in the most effective way, which is to shoot center mass.

It is sometimes said that if you "shoot to wound", that might indicate that you believed lethal force was not necessary, and would therefore not be justifiable, and therefore you unlawfully used lethal force (because "shoot to wound" is still lethal force). I don't buy that logic, but, I'm sure there are people that would buy it, so it is best to avoid being in a situation that would require others to try and make that judgment.

That's my 2 cents.

[perrydave]

Your idea is precisely great and I admire you for writing it out here as I feel your kind of idea really comes from a man who not only wise but so smart as well.

__________________
automatic knives legal

[jaxfl]

"if I'm being approached in an aggressive manner, and after giving a stern warning, is it ever justifiable, or advisable, to shoot 'to wound' and stop the aggression instead of 'shoot to kill'? I find it hard to believe that we should always 'make sure they're dead', so to speak. I look forward to your opinions."

SO why do you have the gun? If you don't intend to kill then why not carry maze, or a club, or pepper spray?

Besides....  "I'm being approached in an aggressive manner," So what? Maybe he just wants to whip your rump but not kill you. So are you now justified to kill? Did you have a way to run away? Is he about 5 foot tall and you are 6 foot? Do you out weight him by 50 pounds? The only justification to KILL for most jury members is if you KNOW you are going to be KILLED.

[777099]

I have often wondered what degree of force I could use if I see two or more men beating up another man; like what happened after a football game in the parking lot. I just wouldn't want to stand by and watch, but I would be no match against the two men. If I display my gun or shoot off a round, I would get in trouble. If I shoot one or both of the attackers, I had better be sure the victim is near dead. Is there any legal way I could protect this poor man?

[MIO]

I have often wondered what degree of force I could use if I see two or more men beating up another man; like what happened after a football game in the parking lot. I just wouldn't want to stand by and watch, but I would be no match against the two men. If I display my gun or shoot off a round, I would get in trouble. If I shoot one or both of the attackers, I had better be sure the victim is near dead. Is there any legal way I could protect this poor man?

Being a 2 on 1 would put it in the category of saving his life MAYBE. Do you know the entire story?
Did he just assault one and two finished him? Did the "victim" cop a feel in the crowd on ones girlfriend or child? If you dunno then you might wanna think hard and limit your actions. That weapon is to protect you and yours not the remainder of America. They have/ had the same options you did and chose not to.
There was a local case many years ago round here where 2 were fighting and it was a game ranger and cop both off duty one sleeping with the others wife. You jump in that hero and who's the winner in the end?
Think bout pepper spray or other LTL devices for this scenario you list.
Protect yourself and IF you get involved remember no good deed goes unpunished.

[777099]

Thank you for replying to my post. You made some excellent points. I don't know what was said between them, only that they were where supporting opposing teams.  The news said they did not know each other and the attack was not provoked. The victim spent several weeks in the hospital and eventually sued the attackers. Since then,I have often wondered what I would have done to protect him.