I teach "shoot to stop the attack/assault". I think that "shooting to wound" or "shooting to kill" shows pre-meditation, I'm NOT a lawyer, but the attorney's I've asked about it, agree with me. Many States laws make it pretty clear, like Indiana.....
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force
; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force
, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
I'd shoot until I knew my kids were safe. That could mean missing and watching someone run away... or not. I only own a gun, only carry a gun, to protect my children. That's the whole point for me.
Originally Posted by 45Sidekick
sounds like what i posted earlier, except more accurate in legality, in a legal document. thanks for the back-up to my op on this thread usmcj
Originally Posted by usmcj
the indiana law is a very good version of the castle doctrine combined with a stand your ground clause..... and it is based on what the defender BELIEVES to be a threat, and it gives immunity from legal jeopardy. only ambiguity i see is the word "reasonable" without definition. but it looks to be enough to hang a jury
Originally Posted by usmcj
legality is a huge issue if you want to stay out of prison, so be sure to know it or learn it for your particular area.(city, state, etc..)
There is a slippery slope to these topics of discussion and in reality this is a multi-facted object, not just two sides of a coin.
I remember when there was no catch phrase of "Shoot to stop", "Shoot to stop" derived from the "blood thirsty" image that certain segments of society associated with the "Shoot to Kill" mentality.
I have seen several people confuse "Shoot to stop" with "Shoot to Wound" and the two are not the same.
In reality, all or at least most of us here agree that you shoot till the threat is no longer a threat, and that shots are aimed with the intent to cause potential lethal harm. We all should also know that handguns are horrible when it comes to immediate cessation of aggressions, and that despite well places shots with todays advances in medical care the odds of killing someone with a handgun (long guns are a different story) are slimmer than many think.
Taking into account an effort to stop the attack, and the known fact that handguns suck, shots are to be aimed "center mass" of your attacker, this does not mean you can not shoot a limb of an attacker if that is all that is available to shoot, it's that you shoot for the largest available part of your attacker. Commonly this is the torso. The best bet of immediately stopping an attacker is with a (or multiple) central nervous system (CNS) hit(s)...
...That kills them. Immediately.
The odds of getting that CNS are slim, despite one's best efforts, that projectile(s) have to get through a lot of muscle, bone, and other goodies to get to the CNS. A skilled shooter is going to keep that in mind and probably instead go for a higher volume of fire to more exposed goodies in the thoracic cavity of the torso. The heart & lungs. These hits will not be immediately incapacitating by themselves. The human brain can function for up to 5 minutes or longer without fresh oxygen being taken in. Less time without all ready oxygenated blood making it to the brain, but still minutes. A determined attacker can pull a trigger a good many times in a matter of minutes.
Shooting outside of the thoracic cavity or CNS leaves you only one option for survival. That the attacker doesn't want to play any more. I do not want to leave it up to chance.
So, looking at what I just typed, in my opinion shooting to the thoracic cavity does not equal shooting to wound as you are wanting to hit the heart to cease blood flow if possible or remove oxygen (the ability to breath via lung damage to a human being...you can't "choke" someone to death and call it anything other than intention to take human life), removing oxygen and the ability to pump blood kills.
You can call it "shooting to stop" all you want, but if you're shooting for the chest cavity, you ARE shooting to kill.
We are all here carrying firearms in accordance with our state's laws. If you use lethal force against another human being and try to claim you were "just trying to stop him" and he or she is dead, you have met the criteria of manslaughter. If you are going to use lethal force, USE LETHAL FORCE.
Now, the other facet of this is that if I start shooting, and the attack ceases and I am no longer in immediate danger or great bodily harm or death, MY defensive actions need to cease.
So, back to the original question,
If I am not in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death, I will do everything I can to NOT have to shoot someone. They will either cease their actions and wait for the police, or run like hell out the back door, I'm not going to try and stop them from escaping peacefully.
Sorry for being long winded. The true question, and correct me if I missed a thread on this, but:
If an intruder breaks and enters your premises, what is the proper procedure? Some might simply fire to kill a person with no weapon or thread (catburglar ie.) I truly understand that if my gun is drawn, I have to accept the fact that I may have to shoot to kill an intruder.
If I or my family is in danger, I will shoot until we are out of danger, be that by my attacker not wanting to fight anymore or being physically unable to do so due to lack of blood and oxygen or other physical injury.
In parting I will add that if you by the "I'm just going to shoot to wound" mentality, you are wrong.
There have been plenty of bag guys that were "shot with the intent to wound" that wound up dead. There are lots of other vital arteries and organs in the human body that can result ind death if shot.
In PA a few years ago, a guy "shot to wound" via a shot to the leg which knicked the femoral artery and the attacker bled out in minutes. There are no guarantees so don't try to sugar coat your actions by playing the "shoot to wound" card as it can eat you up should you take a life you did not intend to take. A determined attacker can take a lot of hits before being killed or stops fighting.
To anyone doubting this I ask that you look up the following:
"Steve Chaney: Ultimate Survivor”.
"Officer Down: A Warriors Sacrifice"
"Officer Down: The Peter Soulis Incident"
i think you make a very good point here..... and there are three different issues.
first is the shooters intent and the second is his actions and the third is the consequences of the shooter actions.
if i am the shooter i intend to stop the threat with what ever means i have available. the action will be to use a firearm and place bullets into the bad guys vitals until the threat stops. the third is that the bad guy stops being a threat due to a severe wound or death.
in a home defense scenario, my intent will never change. it will be my statement and my ONLY statement. i was threatened in my home, i responded.
the action will not be disputed, a firearm was used until he stopped threatening me.
the bad guy was harmed/killed. i shot at the biggest part of him, the fact that he died is not the issue, its a foot note.
remember, while we are not criminals when we defend ourselves or loved ones, we are going to be SUSPECTS. do not make any statement without your lawyer ever. right after you call 911, call your attorney
Inssane, I believe your topic may be a little misleading. Tresspassing comes to my mind as "one who intentionally tresspasses upon anothers property". To kill or wound a tresspasser would be more likely a topic for a Texan than a Chicagoian. The crime of tresspassing is a far cry from 1st degree burglary (i.e. breaking into an occupied dwelling). CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Originally Posted by inssane
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961. Article 7. I'd read this statute very, very carefully. My take is that you have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death, or you must believe a forcible felony is to occur. Very far from a true castle doctrine whereas if someone breaks into an occupied residence there is an presumed intent of great bodily harm or injury.
There is a lot of very good advice being given here but, it is up to you to decide what you are going to do, if you read the laws, get the training, practice till it's muscle memory, and sit down and think about what is going to take before you are ready to change your life by using your gun on an intruder. The best time to make the decision on what you are willing to do and when to do it is now not when it hits the fan. As for my self I would take every class that is offered and ask lots of questions, get the instructors take and find out my legal pitfalls, do's, and don'ts. Get informed then decide for yourself, after all you are the one that will have to live with whatever you do.
Search tags for this page
can i legally kill someone for trespassing in pa
can you shoot a trespasser in alabama
can you shoot a trespasser in illinois
can you shoot a trespasser in pennsylvania
can you shoot a trespassers in indiana
can you shoot someone for trespassing in idaho
can you shoot someone for trespassing in illinois
can you shoot trespassers in illinois
can you shoot trespassers in indiana
illinois shoot trespasser
illinois shooting trespasser
is it legal for you to shoot someone for tresspassing in illinios
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» Springfield Armory
» HGF Sponsors