Is There a Legal Number of Shots Fired in Self Defense?

Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
730
Likes
114
Location
Too Close to MA, NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I'm sure info on this must exist somewhere, but I searched and was unable to locate any.

I've been reading a lot lately on MA gun law in preparation for my first steps into firearm ownership. I remember once reading something about a state that had laws on a maximum number of times you can fire at an attacker in self defense, before it's considered excessive violence.

If hypothetically I'm attacked in my home or on the street, is there a written legal number of shots I can fire before I could be in legal trouble, or is it situational and up for interpretation? My thinking had always been to use the least force necessary to end the threat but after reading Jim Higginbotham's article on 'The Center Mass Myth and Ending a Gunfight', I have begun wondering about this. I'm sure I will learn about this in one of the classes I'm planning on taking but I wanted to ask here.
 
You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat or as some would say "shoot to stop". Whether that means one bullet or ten will depend on the situation.
 
My question is if that's the law or the general feeling on the matter? I know that's how every firearm owner seems to feel about it, but if there were some dumb law that I could be in legal trouble after shot number three, I'd rather shoot, wound, and run, than shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot and go to jail. I know what's right and what I should be able to do to defend my life. I just want to know if this absurd state has something else to say. Maybe a legal code to the effect of "You have the right to die if your attacker has not stopped after three shots". Seems like something MA would do.
 
Does it really matter? What if the law said you could only shoot twice? What if after you fired those shots the guy you were shooting was still upright and 5 feet away from you? Do you really think you would have the fortitude to stop shooting, turn around and run. No, you would shoot until he went down because you life would depend on it. But to answer your question...I am not aware of any limits on how many shots are you are allowed to fire in MA.
 
There is no law anywhere (well, at least that is relevant in the northeast) that delineates an exact number of shots allowable in a self defense altercation.

If you're worried about going to jail (or legal bills) more than dying or getting seriously injured by some bad guy, then just leave the gun at home- because you'll never be able to use it to protect yourself effectively with that mindset in place.

There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but you're doing yourself a huge disservice by making up fake laws and applying them to yourself. I'll start by saying that even in MA's legal system in regards to self defense is not as bad as the kind of silly stuff you've just invented there.

If you want a rundown of how "the law" works, taking a class like Ayoob's LFI-1 is probably a good idea. I don't agree with him on some of the finer points, but the stuff he talks about addresses the bulk of these kinds of legal concerns.

-Mike
 
Ive never heard of there being any "legal maxamum" number of shots defigned as a numberic value. Perhapse the idea of "too many shots" comes from instances where someone is charged with murder because the attacker was down, no longer a threat, and the guy put one more in his head "just to be sure" or some such thing. When the original attacker is no longer a threat, and you shoot again, YOU are now the "attacker". Thats "one shot too many". The pharmacist that went for a 2nd gun then shot the guy again comes to mind.
 
I have never heard of any such statute, and based on the instruction I received from Mas Ayoob and the reading I did in The Law of Self Defense I doubt there has ever been such a law.

The number of shots that would be legal to fire is entirely situationally dependent. In many (most?) instances, it wouldn't be legal to fire a single shot. In other instances, it might be legal to fire 50 rounds.

The basic principle is that in order to use deadly force you, or another innocent, must be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If the danger stops, whether because Mongo gives, or Mongo goes away, or Mongo is unconscious and bleeding out on the floor, you must stop shooting.

As said above, your goal is to stop the attack. Once the attack stops, you must stop shooting. If you fire one additional shot after the attack stops, you might end up turning a justifiable homicide into first-degree murder.
 
I'm sure info on this must exist somewhere, but I searched and was unable to locate any.

I've been reading a lot lately on MA gun law in preparation for my first steps into firearm ownership. I remember once reading something about a state that had laws on a maximum number of times you can fire at an attacker in self defense, before it's considered excessive violence.

If hypothetically I'm attacked in my home or on the street, is there a written legal number of shots I can fire before I could be in legal trouble, or is it situational and up for interpretation? My thinking had always been to use the least force necessary to end the threat but after reading Jim Higginbotham's article on 'The Center Mass Myth and Ending a Gunfight', I have begun wondering about this. I'm sure I will learn about this in one of the classes I'm planning on taking but I wanted to ask here.

There is no law regarding the number of rounds but common sense must prevail. As others have said, you shoot to stop the threat. That doesn't mean opening fire and emptying a 15 round pre-ban mag. If you do that you will likely have a tough time showing that you're in the right.
 
There is no law regarding the number of rounds but common sense must prevail. As others have said, you shoot to stop the threat. That doesn't mean opening fire and emptying a 15 round pre-ban mag. If you do that you will likely have a tough time showing that you're in the right.
If you've fired 14 shots and the perp is still attacking, you are going to have to fire that 15th shot.
 
I have researched this in the past, never found anything about some time of limit, but i m sure if you unloaded a few mags into someone, the DA is coming after for you, after all we are in Mass. Common sense says you would just shoot until the person is no longer a threat.

IE the last scene in trianing day, I am pretty sure they would press charges with out question

YOU WANNA GO HOME OR YOU WANT TO GO TO JAIL?
 
Shoot to stop, end of story. If you have worries about how you will be treated legally after the fact, then maybe you should just wait for the police to show up and handle the situation.
 
All that completely answers my question. Everyone has backed up what I assumed and hoped would be the case and I of course know it is not a good idea, or even legal, or continue shooting after the threat has stopped. Assuming the attacked has no malicious intent, I don't know why they WOULD continue after the threat had stopped. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything on the books and it seems there isn't.

Thanks all.
 
Though I'm coming late to this party I'd say that one shot or an empty mag is about the same, WRT criminal statute. If the situation was bad enough that deadly force was required...well...dead is dead. The DA may not see it that way, but what's reality got to do with it?

Now...in the possible (inevitable?) civil suit...well....you can bet your last bullet that your twitchy finger will be at issue, as a matter of "attitude" - if you did a 4-second
, 15 round mag dump, you must have been looking for trouble, and the poor dead guy was just about to turn his life around....

The thing that really got Bernie Goetz, was that after he shot one of the guys, he said something along the lines of, "You don't look too bad....here's another [bang]"
 
Let me ask this question, since I am in a mood to answer by means of a question. If you are attacked, and it takes you 15 rounds to end the threat, How is the DA going to know it did or did not require the "15th" shot, or how quick it happened, etc. You have to remember, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime, and Self Defense is Self Defense. If you were justified under the Self Defense doctrine's in Massachusetts, I don't see how the number of rounds is going to matter unless its so clear by forensic evidence that the first shot killed and the follow ups were for good measure.
 
Let me ask this question, since I am in a mood to answer by means of a question. If you are attacked, and it takes you 15 rounds to end the threat, How is the DA going to know it did or did not require the "15th" shot, or how quick it happened, etc. You have to remember, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime, and Self Defense is Self Defense. If you were justified under the Self Defense doctrine's in Massachusetts, I don't see how the number of rounds is going to matter unless its so clear by forensic evidence that the first shot killed and the follow ups were for good measure.

Well if there are 14 holes in his torso, and one in his head that goes through the floor where he is laying....
 
If you are worried more about legality vs surviving it is a no-shoot scenario. And if you were shooting...great place to stop.
 
I think that if you are calm enough to actually count the shots you fired, it probably was not a life threatening situation.

We all like to think that we can keep our wits about us in a situation that causes us to shoot an assailant, but when the adrenaline starts pumping I bet you will be squeezing the trigger pretty quick. I'd be willing to bet that you would not really start to come back into focus until the gun went "Click" or the slide locked back.

IANAL, but if I was on a jury, I could see a guy shooting until the mag was empty due to sheer adreniline rush. If the shooter reloaded twice I might take pause and say "Hmmm"
 
Back
Top Bottom