Shooters Forum banner

If I shoot to wound, can I get into more trouble than killing?

7K views 89 replies 49 participants last post by  unclenick 
#1 ·
This seemed like the most appropriate place to post this question: If I shoot to wound someone that is threatening me to the point I am scared for my life, can I be brought up on charges for not killing the perpetrator? I live in Maryland and some years ago when I was a kid I remember a Harford County man being tried because he wounded a man who broke into his house. The prosecutor said if he was so afraid that he needed to use a firearm, he should have killed the intruder.

I cringe at the thought of killing somebody, so if an intruder is coming at me with a knife and I shoot his leg to incapacitate him will I be a criminal? Obviously my family and I's safety comes before the intruders life, but Id rather incapacitate a person until the police arrive. I know that in the real world I would probably have to kill someone who decided to break into my house while my family was in it, I'm just curious If anyone knows what the legality of it is.

Can I be brought up on charges for wounding instead of killing?
 
#7 · (Edited)
Exactly! If you fire the first shot or two and they hit the ground then you stop but don't drop your aim, make sure the assailant has given up and distance yourself a little, have someone call 911 and tell them you need assistance. Do not talk to the police or anybody without a lawyer and ask all witnesses to do the same. People don't tend to think clearly when traumatized by such an event and someone running their mouth could get you into some trouble. This is you're "right to remain silent" and a self defense shooting is the perfect time to excercise it.

Emptiying your handgun into someone laying down on the floor is not going to look good, even if you were justified in the first place, but you always shoot to stop the threat, which generally means till the assailant hits the floor or gives up and turns away. Never shoot anyone who is trying to get away, just let them go. Your justification to shoot ends when you are no longer threatened.

As to getting sued for wounding an attacker, it can happen, but it's better than you being dead. It's a really F'd up system we have but sometimes bad people still get rewarded in the end.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Free advice

Get some education/training before the gun! The idea is to stop the threat as quickly as possible, ideally with the first shot center mass or in the head. You do not shoot to wound, or kill, but to save a life/stop a threat, not to take a life. "Can you get into more trouble wounding than killing?" YES you can be killed, a wounded guy with a gun may still be able to pull a trigger. Be aware of what may happen after a shooting, or even brandishing a gun, local laws, yada yada.
 
#47 ·
Get some education/training before the gun! The idea is to stop the threat as quickly as possible, ideally with the first shot center mass or in the head. You do not shoot to wound, or kill, but to save a life/stop a threat, not to take a life. "Can you get into more trouble wounding than killing?" YES you can be killed, a wounded guy with a gun may still be able to pull a trigger. Be aware of what may happen after a shooting, or even brandishing a gun, local laws, yada yada.
Add to that getting sued in civil court for wounding the perp.
 
#4 · (Edited)
motobreath138,

Are you for real, or are you a Troll? IF you have a home invasion and "are afraid for your life", why would you think about shooting to wound? Would wounding a home invader END his/her hostile intent upon you or your family? As has been said, you shoot to END the attack. If you opt to shoot to wound, would the home invaders give you the same consideration? Your question seems to be less than genuine to this old agent/instructor.

If you really want an answer to your "wounding" question, may I suggest you chat with a lawyer in Maryland. Second, how will you have enough time and light to "shoot to wound?" Are you that good of a pistol shot? If you wish to employ less-than-lethal force, may I suggest you get a Taser, a dog or my mother-in-law. ALL are viable options.

Webley
 
#11 ·
And if you are not mentally or emotionally capable of taking life to save life/lives, then I always suggest a good tazer and good can or pepper spray. Less lethal shotgun loads are okay too if you use the right one. But again, these can all do severe damage to a person. Don't cheap out on the tazer or pepper spray. There are a lot of gimmick junk tazer for sale right now. You want one to incapacitate, not piss off. Believe me on this, I know. We tested a few different tazer's to see what gave acceptable performance for self defense and I was a volunteer for a few of them. The little ones don't feel good, but they do not deliver enough of a shock to do much of anything towards stopping an attacker and would actually just agitate someone more. A good tazer should run you a couple hundred bucks most of the time.
 
#13 ·
There is always a risk of death when shots are fired. No guarantees that a shot anywhere on the body, will, or will not, be fatal. Take your chances once the bullet leaves the barrel so make up your mind ahead of time if you are justified in your political jurisdiction.

Making decisions on the basis of "I heard about a case where...." is probably the poorest possible methodology. Start by reading your state's deadly force statutes, etc., and see legal guidance if those aren't clear.

Keep in mind, too, the history of your local prosecuting attorney who may have a bias toward self-defense with a firearm, etc.

Lots of things to consider. Some story I heard probably wouldn't be one of them, unless I could look up the case and review it.

Good luck.
 
#17 ·
If you "shoot to wound", you are telling the jury (and there WILL be one) that you really didn't think the situation required deadly force... so YOU have become the criminal for shooting someone that was not a threat.
 
#22 · (Edited)
RE; California, and Los Angeles City: There are Laws in Place that Require Firearms not in Actual Possession of the Owner to be Stored, with a Trigger Lock, in a Locked 'Gun Cabinet' or Safe in an Unloaded Condition and Separate from the Ammunition. These Provisions were 'Justified' to prevent minor children getting possession of the Loaded Firearms.

So if a Private Citizen defends himself and/or his Family from a Home Invasion with 'Deadly Force' they are Subject to charges and Prosecution for Felony Violating Gun Safety Laws, Strange though it seems. Oh, by the way there is a Los Angeles City Ordnance Prohibiting the possession of 'Detachable Ammunition Feeding Devices' capable of holding more that ten (10) cartridges with NO 'Grandfather" Clause.

Complements of our Democratic Party controlled State, County, and City Governments.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
I believe this L.A. Ordnance is being Challenged in Court.
 
#23 ·
In many states including Massachusetts, the use of deadly force such as a firearm, automatically, as a matter of law, is interpreted as attempted murder. It doesn't matter what your intent was or where you shoot a person. Use of deadly force is attempted murder. In other words, if you decide to use a firearm, you'd better be able to justify it by being in fear for your life and know your states laws. If you decide to shoot, shoot center mass with the intent to stop the threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Webley
#25 ·
Shooting to wound sounds like a silly notion, until you start to think that not every person who could be a threat to your life is an easily identifiable big, ugly, mean, and evil stranger. I can easily imagine many scenarios where lives are in danger in a domestic violence situation, especially when drugs and alcohol are a factor, when a person might be reluctant to shoot a family member, or loved one, (or a child) in the head or center mass, even if they do pose a fatal threat. If you come home from work and your teenage son is higher than a kite, becomes violent and picks up a knife, could you point a gun at his nose or chest and pull the trigger?

The problem of most training and pre-thought plans is that they don't take into account situations where concern for the attacker's fate might be a concern that outweighs even your own safety. The OP asks a good question in that context.
 
#53 · (Edited)
I would disagree. The OP presents a question based on ignorance of self defense laws and self defense tactics.

First of all. There really is no such thing as shooting to wound since ANY GSW anywhere on the body can be immediately or latently deadly fro infection, blood loss, etc. Shooting someone in A lower extremity can be rapidly fatal if you hit the femoral artery in the thigh or groin or the popliteal artery near the knee.

Second of all, shooting to wound implies less than an imminent threat jeopardizing you or your family with grave bodily injury or death likely did not exist. That means there is no justification for self defense legally. It is a very unstable legal situation. Shooting to STOP an immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death from a jeopardizing culprit exhibiting the ability to cause that great harm is the center of a legal justified self defense shooting. If you remove any of those elements of self defense, you no longer have the legal justification to shoot anyone. Shooting to wound could be intent to do malicious harm to another person which will place that person in jeopardy of criminal and civil actions.

Lastly, tactically, aiming for an extremity is much more likely to result in a missed shot than aiming center of mass. So, legally and tactically, shooting to wound is a failed strategy.
 
#26 · (Edited)
Moto,

I did not read the other posts but let me tell you from experience:

The first time I had to confront a would be robber at my house in the pitch dark and him coming for me I could not get myself to pull the trigger. I very nearly got killed as he was in control of himself all the way. They always are I have come to learn. Why would you feel the need to shoot in any case? You darn well know why. So if he intends to kill or severely injure you a shot in the leg will not stop him as he will not even feel the bullet or pain. The pain only comes much later, ask me.

You shoot him one shot into the heart and then another until he is down.

Experience show (as do the FBI results) that it takes an average of five shots with either a .45 ACP or 9mm Parabellum to take a resolute man down unless the very first one is into the heart or brain.

He is the expert at what he is doing and you are not. He WILL be resolute and you are not and will not be if the mindset remains. BE resolute, my friend. The moment you have every reason to produce your handgun you have reason to kill to prevent yourself from being killed. Wounding an attacker that had already given you a firm indication of what his plans are for you will not be in YOUR favour.

To pull the trigger on another human being is a very hard thing to do. Should you survive the subsequent ordeal like I did then the next time there is no hesitation - just immediate and focused violent pre-emptive action. That is the one thing they do NOT expect and the only thing you have. Words have no effect. Racking a pump action has no effect. The criminal is a dangerous animal and wounding it has no effect.
 
#29 ·
I'll stir the pot a little. When Gary Kleck at the U of Florida did his survey studies of self-defense he found it much more common than generally is thought to be the case. Around 2.7 million instances of successful self-defense a year at the time (early 90's when violent crime was near peaking). He found that in 80% of those cases, no shots were fired at all; the bad guy merely saw the gun and changed his mind and went away. But neither were there 540,000 people (the remaining 20%), shot in self-defense each year. More like 0.5% to 1% of that. So in most instances of shots being fired, they missed, either intentionally or unintentionally, and that served as a "warning shot" to get a reluctant retreater started moving the other way.

Kleck also found most self-defense events are never reported to authorities because people fear having their guns confiscated by those same authorities. The majority of these events will be where crime rates are highest, and trust between the residents and authorities is at its lowest. You can bet a criminal who has been grazed and then runs is going to treat himself if he can, and certainly won't report it to police. If he has to seek medical attentions, he is likely to tell a tale that doesn't incriminate himself when asked what happened. The bottom line here is that real numbers are larger than reported numbers, and by a large margin.

Having to shoot happens. Don't let me get you thinking your chances of encountering that is insignificant. It is more likely in some places harboring some subset of perpetrators rather than in others. And you never know when your luck of the draw may go south. Your mindset always has to be that you are serious and will shoot as needed to get the stop. Jeff Cooper taught that mindset wins most fights, but you can't be bluffing. You need to be trained and be practiced and be serious about executing what you've practiced. The fact you are confident you have the tools to win the fight and the will to use them is what communicates subconsciously to the BG through body language and facial expressions and micro muscle movements, and most often that prevents an encounter from escalating to having to fire. You train to fight so you don't have to. At least, not most of the time.

Shooting to kill with a handgun is problematic without executing something like the Mozambique drill. I've seen various numbers, but it looks like roughly 93% of single-wounds from handguns that are not self-inflicted but are bad enough to require medical intervention (not mere grazing) are now survived, and the number drops to about 86% when multiple wounds are included. Modern medicine has gotten better and most handgun wounds are not to vital areas. So, if you are using a handgun for self-defense, the probability is your decision to shoot to stop will not produce a fatality unless your shooting ability under stress is well above average. If it is well above average, the chances are also greater that your mindset will communicate a serious threat to the BG and will stop the fight before it begins.

Long guns are another matter. Fatality from long gun wounds is more like 80%, depending on whose estimates are involved. The reasons are simple. Long gun cartridges are more powerful and it takes less skill to hit a paper plate at 7 yards with a long gun than with a handgun, so long gun hits are more likely to be within center of mass and not flinched to the periphery of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasbucks and Webley
#30 ·
Jeff Cooper taught that mindset wins most fights, but you can't be bluffing.
Let me take this one step farther, there is no bluff in the way Jeff thought about this or approached the issue. It went beyond "no second place winner". That's what he used the color code for mind set and situation awareness was a large part of the training, but you know that.

So, if you are using a handgun for self-defense, the probability is your decision to shoot to stop will not produce a fatality unless your shooting ability under stress is well above average. If it is well above average, the chances are also greater that your mindset will communicate a serious threat to the BG and will stop the fight before it begins.
And in reality while practicing for IPSC the way we did also really helped you deal with the stress of this kind of situation. We had a lot of people coming to the matches in the 70s that would surprise people. It's also why Mike Horne put on the "exercises" he did. It was done in part to test ideas and how people would react and deal with it.
 
#32 ·
This question leads into the old axiom about gun use " don't ever point a gun at something you aren't willing to kill." There is a lot of good logic behind that lesson. Anytime you pull the trigger, no matter where you "aim", there is the possibility of causing the death of the target. All the other wisdom quoted here, while it is wise, is secondary. If you aren't willing to kill the target, why shoot it?If the target is retreating, why shoot it? If you do not feel in fear for your life, or someone else's, why shoot it? The list goes on ad infinitum. The basic premise remains. If you are not willing to kill the target, don't even pull the weapon, and for sure don't point at something you aren't willing to kill. Shoot to wound is just silly, and silly and guns are a terrible mix.
 
#33 ·
This question leads into the old axiom about gun use " don't ever point a gun at something you aren't willing to kill."
The version I'm familiar with is slightly different. "Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot".


Aren't we constantly being told by the "experts" that after a shooting we should never say to authorities that "we intended to kill a bad guy, and that we were only trying to stop threat?

You come home from work. Your teenage son is on drugs. You start yelling. He becomes agitated, picks up a knife, and starts advancing towards you. You pull your gun and order him to stop. he ignores your warnings, and continues to advance. Shoot to kill, or shoot to wound, or holster your weapon and fight him with your bare hands?
 
#34 ·
My son? First of all the drug situation is unknown in my culture - but looking at the hypothetical possibility: man, if his brain processes are so polluted that he had forgotten the words of the Fifth Commandment I shall let him advance whether the drugs had limited his acuity or not and when he wakes up I'll explain the reason for his discomfort, hand him the knife again and invite him to try better this time.
 
#35 ·
The deadly force laws do not discriminate in terms of an attacker being a family member, friend, or complete stranger. You are either justified in the use deadly force, or not - subject to the legal statutes of the political jurisdiction you are in. That's the legal side. The moral side is up to the individual.

It really is that simple. Lots of stuff gets blown out of proportion due to silly crap on TV, armchair experts in magazines, etc.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top