You have it wrong.
Every cop I've ever talked to and every self defense course I've seen or book I've ever read - says shoot to kill.
Every cop you've talked to and every self defense instructor that you spoke to was wrong.
You shoot to stop the threat. Once the person stops being a threat, you stop shooting. Your intent is not to kill them. Your intent is to stop them from attacking you. Yes, intent matters in the law. It isn't just semantics. No, shooting to stop doesn't mean that your aiming point changes. Shooting to stop is defined by your intent and when you stop shooting.
A lot of people here on NES will argue that there isn't any difference between shooting to kill versus shooting to stop. That simply isn't correct.
Suppose, for example, you are in your home when a perp holding a crow bar breaks in. He sees you and raises his crow bar as if to strike. Does he have the ability to cause death or grave bodily injury? Yup, he is armed with a deadly weapon, a crow bar. Does he have the opportunity to do so? Yes, he is in your home and can quickly run up to you. Are his actions placing you in jeopardy? Yes, they sure are. AOJ is satisfied so you are justified in using deadly force.
So, you draw your gun. Now let's consider several different ways this scenario might play out and what the differences would be if you are shooting to kill versus shooting to stop.
A. The burglar drops the crow bar, turns around and runs towards the door. As he reaches the door you do one of the following:
A.1. Shoot to kill. You shoot the burglar multiple times in the back. After he falls, you walk up to him and shoot him in the head. You have achieved your intent -- you killed him.
A.2. Shoot to stop. You hold your fire as the perp runs out the door. Your goal was to stop the attack and once he turned to flee, you were no longer in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You achieved your intent -- the threat was stopped.
B. The burglar steps towards you. You fire two rounds at the center of his chest. He drops the crow bar and collapses on the floor. You then do one of the following:
B.1. Shoot to kill. You walk up to him and shoot him in the head. You have achieved your intent -- you killed him.
B.2. Shoot to stop. You move to cover/concealment, keeping your gun pointed at the perp. You call 911 and ask for police and an ambulance. The perp survives. You have achieved your intent -- the threat was stopped.
C. The burglar steps towards you. You keep firing as he keeps coming towards you. You have shot him several times in the chest before he drops the crow bar and collapses on the floor. You then do one of the following:
C.1. Shoot to kill. You walk up to him and shoot him in the head. You have achieved your intent -- you killed him.
C.2. Shoot to stop. You move to cover/concealment, keeping your gun pointed at the perp. You call 911 and ask for police and an ambulance. The perp was dead before he hit the floor. You have achieved your intent -- the threat was stopped.
Your goal is to protect yourself. Once the perp is no longer a threat, you are no longer legally justified in using deadly force. The perp may cease to be a threat in multiple ways. He may run away. He may give up. You may shoot him and he collapses. You may shoot him and he dies.
But if you fire a single shot after the perp ceases to be a threat, then you have broken the law and may spend a long time in jail as a result.
Last edited: