Shoot to kill, or wound....

[Jtp 5]

I was going through a couple of the various forums here, and saw people commenting saying you always shoot to kill, to people who were talking about less than lethal loads.

The less than lethal people want to shoot to wound, and then there are those that say shoot to kill is the correct legal way..

The answer to both is wrong,

You never, ever shoot to kill, or wound in a defensive situation, you only shoot to stop the threat, and you only shoot until there is no longer a threat.

Obviously 3 rounds of 00Buck is going to kill the guy, but that his problem, for picking a well armed victim.

 

Legal use of lethal force only means using enough force to stop the threat, that is all, no more.

Should the person dies who had legal lethal force used against them, is incidental injury to being stopped from being a threat.

 

Never say you shot to kill, you just shot to stop the threat of assailant, aggressor, home invader, arsonist, rapist, or whatever.

Saying you shot somebody to kill them, is murder, saying you shot them to stop them, and the threat, is self defense, because you were simply defending yourself, and/or family, or other third party.

Laws vary, but this is the general rule, and how LEO training is taught nationwide,

 

Just try to remember you have the right to use lethal force, but not the right to execute.

Execution is only the right of the government after a trial, and lawful adjudication of a criminal case.

[Twinsen 86]

I think a lot of people know that, but yes, it is lost on some. However, if you are dumping 3 rounds in under a second, that threat was probably still coming at you when its heart stopped and it flopped over.

[DogMan 2,343]

I was going through a couple of the various forums here, and saw people commenting saying you always shoot to kill, to people who were talking about less than lethal loads.

The less than lethal people want to shoot to wound, and then there are those that say shoot to kill is the correct legal way..

The answer to both is wrong,

You never, ever shoot to kill, or wound in a defensive situation, you only shoot to stop the threat, and you only shoot until there is no longer a threat.

Obviously 3 rounds of 00Buck is going to kill the guy, but that his problem, for picking a well armed victim.

 

Legal use of lethal force only means using enough force to stop the threat, that is all, no more.

Should the person dies who had legal lethal force used against them, is incidental injury to being stopped from being a threat.

 

Never say you shot to kill, you just shot to stop the threat of assailant, aggressor, home invader, arsonist, rapist, or whatever.

Saying you shot somebody to kill them, is murder, saying you shot them to stop them, and the threat, is self defense, because you were simply defending yourself, and/or family, or other third party.

Laws vary, but this is the general rule, and how LEO training is taught nationwide,

 

Just try to remember you have the right to use lethal force, but not the right to execute.

Execution is only the right of the government after a trial, and lawful adjudication of a criminal case.

[dlcjr1973 24]

jtp,

 

Since my only training and experience in the use of lethal force is from the military, is it safe to say that I am justified in emptying a 10-round S-12 mag of .00 buck to "stop" a threat? The U.S. Army has a bad reputation for overkill, and I wouldn't want to get into trouble for falling back into old habits! That being said (tongue firmly in cheek of course), thanks for making the distinction. Sometimes the terminology we use can get us into more trouble than the acts we commit. Even in the desert we learned very quickly to fill our after-action reports with "safe" words. How does the Castle Doctrine apply to the concept of "stopping the threat?" I'm asking because it seems to me that the self control that I would require to allow a wounded rapist to lie on the floor of my daughter's bedroom unmolested while awaiting medical care is far beyond me. I guess if I emptied the magazine BEFORE he hits the ground I'm safe, but if I make sure he isn't available to testify against me in court after he goes down I'm screwed. Anyway, thanks for the info. I hope no one here is ever put into this situation, but it's nice know what to say if we are.

 

Regards,

 

Sapper

[RobRez 1,895]

That is a good clarification on the wording for a lot of folks. Most can agree that we don't look forward to any such incident, but can also agree that a "chest wound" is going to "stop a threat" more dependably than a "foot wound". I don't mean nothin' , I'm just sayin'...

[GeorgiaPD 408]

I was going through a couple of the various forums here, and saw people commenting saying you always shoot to kill, to people who were talking about less than lethal loads.

The less than lethal people want to shoot to wound, and then there are those that say shoot to kill is the correct legal way..

The answer to both is wrong,

You never, ever shoot to kill, or wound in a defensive situation, you only shoot to stop the threat, and you only shoot until there is no longer a threat.

Obviously 3 rounds of 00Buck is going to kill the guy, but that his problem, for picking a well armed victim.

 

Legal use of lethal force only means using enough force to stop the threat, that is all, no more.

Should the person dies who had legal lethal force used against them, is incidental injury to being stopped from being a threat.

 

Never say you shot to kill, you just shot to stop the threat of assailant, aggressor, home invader, arsonist, rapist, or whatever.

Saying you shot somebody to kill them, is murder, saying you shot them to stop them, and the threat, is self defense, because you were simply defending yourself, and/or family, or other third party.

Laws vary, but this is the general rule, and how LEO training is taught nationwide,

 

Just try to remember you have the right to use lethal force, but not the right to execute.

Execution is only the right of the government after a trial, and lawful adjudication of a criminal case.

 

Good post JTP. You are one thousand percent correct. Whatever you choose to use as a defensive weapon, the answer is always "I was in FEAR that my family, others or myself were about to receive serious bodily injury or death and I used this(insert weapon) to stop the threat against myself or others!" Remember, a person only has split seconds, if that amount of time, to make a decision. The courts and juries have months to evaluate your decisions. That is why the word FEAR is so important to add into the equation.

[Azrial 1,091]

Good post JTP. You are one thousand percent correct. Whatever you choose to use as a defensive weapon, the answer is always "I was in FEAR that my family, others or myself were about to receive serious bodily injury or death and I used this(insert weapon) to stop the threat against myself or others!" Remember, a person only has split seconds, if that amount of time, to make a decision. The courts and juries have months to evaluate your decisions. That is why the word FEAR is so important to add into the equation.

Good Post! This is the real answer, you are trying to STOP them from doing whatever it was that caused you to be in fear for your life or for the life of an innocent other. Leave the implications of bullet wounds to the doctors, all you were trying to do was stop them.

 

BUT, as I have said many times, you as a private citizen can not use a firearm to intentionally deliver less then lethal force and claiming that you were trying to do so is highly legally problematic.

 

(Edited to clean up my late night typos... )

Edited November 20, 2009 by Azrial

[raftman 1]

I agree with these principles. One should only apply the amount of force necessary to stop the the threat. The tricky thing is, from the onset of the situation, you actually have no way to know how much force is enough. If an attacker comes at you armed with a knife and you pull out your pistol, and the attacker then shouts "Oh s***!" and takes off running in the other direction, you've already ended the threat, you're not justified using any more force. But he may not be scared so easily, maybe he persists despite the gun barrel pointed at him, Maybe you shoot once, and he's clearly alive and conscious, but he gives up. Maybe he persists despite having been shot. This tends to illustrate how one must be prepared for the circumstances to change at the drop of a hat and to be prepared to react accordingly. Sometimes that means shooting several times, and sometimes it means not shooting whatsoever, heck sometimes it may not require you to pull your gun out at all, maybe strong language will suffice. You don't have to look too hard to find cases where excessive force against the attacker actually landed the defender in serious trouble. And justifiably so, if you think about it. If the attacker does turn and run in fear when realizing his target was armed, and the would-be victim chooses to shoot anyways, because the attacker gave up, the would-be victim is no longer acting in self-defense, in which case the shooting is unjustified murder.

 

I also agree it's a bad idea to shoot to wound, but JTP didn't expand on why that's the case. But I suspect his reasoning is the same as mine. In no order of importance, first, because under high-stress circumstances, this would be very difficult to do effectively. Most instructors in the defensive use of handguns recommend shooting for the center of mass, as it's the easiest to hit and is also fairly likely to stop the attacker, unless the unlikely situation that the attacker is wearing a kevlar vest or something. You may be able to empty your 1911 into a silver dollar from 25 meters at the range, but your marksmanship is gonna suffer a lot in a life or death situation. You will not be able to hit the attacker in the knee if he's running at you and means to cut you up or something. Second, if you shot to wound, you tacitly accept that lethal force wasn't necessary, yet the gun is a deadly weapon, and shooting someone, even if not intending to kill, is still the use of deadly force. So therefore, you used deadly force in a situation you didn't believe called for deadly force. The legal implications are obvious.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

 

The U.S. Army has a bad reputation for overkill, and I wouldn't want to get into trouble for falling back into old habits!

 

Not to go off topic..... but you may want to "FEEL THE CHANGE!"

 

 

 

From Washington Post article on the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I'm not making these up; General McChrystal is. After all, we don't want any Afghans to get hurt.

 

#7 Only women can search women. ( After all, it's not as if they would "cheat" by wearing women's clothing.)

#6 No night or surprise searches.

#5 Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

#4 ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. ( Assuming the Afghan army or police feel like showing up. NO penalty for not showing up.)

#3 U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

#2 Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid

 

And the #1 - and my personal favorite- reason

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. ( Which, since the Taliban plan the use of human shields whenever there is danger, means that U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy 90% of the time. But the Tailban can still engage U.S. forces anytime they wish. Their commanders feel no need to be politically correct.)

 

So much for overkill.......

[chupa 34]

This is what is on all my doors.

 

[Azrial 1,091]

I agree with these principles. One should only apply the amount of force necessary to stop the the threat. The tricky thing is, from the onset of the situation, you actually have no way to know how much force is enough. ...

You have put a lot of thought into this, maybe too much...

 

I would suggest that you are over thinking the problem. The courts do not expect/require you to be a psychic, nor a doctor that specializes in wound trauma, or even a marksman.

 

They require that your fear of death be as reasonable as your actions to end that threat.

 

 

If I am legitimately in fear of my life I will just shoot till the threat ends, it is that simple. All of these moral and legalistic vacillations that you are suggesting will get you killed in a real firefight.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Azrial

[dlcjr1973 24]

 

The U.S. Army has a bad reputation for overkill, and I wouldn't want to get into trouble for falling back into old habits!

 

Not to go off topic..... but you may want to "FEEL THE CHANGE!"

 

 

 

From Washington Post article on the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I'm not making these up; General McChrystal is. After all, we don't want any Afghans to get hurt.

 

#7 Only women can search women. ( After all, it's not as if they would "cheat" by wearing women's clothing.)

#6 No night or surprise searches.

#5 Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

#4 ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. ( Assuming the Afghan army or police feel like showing up. NO penalty for not showing up.)

#3 U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

#2 Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid

 

And the #1 - and my personal favorite- reason

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. ( Which, since the Taliban plan the use of human shields whenever there is danger, means that U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy 90% of the time. But the Tailban can still engage U.S. forces anytime they wish. Their commanders feel no need to be politically correct.)

 

So much for overkill.......

 

Jugs,

 

Thanks for the painful and humiliating reminder of what the bleeding hearts have done to our beloved services. It is depressing that people much smarter than me have been warning against just such a softening of our military for years. The liberals just refuse to learn from history, and by doing so have doomed us ALL to repeat it.

 

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." -- Admiral Sir John A. Fisher (Admiral of the Fleet & First Sea Lord)

 

"It is worth remembering too that in the reconstruction of Japan there were no insurgents, no Japanese roadside bombs killing our soldiers. One reason is that the United States had shown, in the clearest possible terms, our willingness to wage total war against our enemies. Our military strategists in Iraq could learn from those who, sixty years ago, decided to spare no means in bringing the Japanese nation to its knees." -- Dr. Yaron Brook (president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute)

 

On a more positive note, though:

 

"The United States military is now evolving geometrically as it gains experience from near-constant fighting and grafts new technology daily. Indeed, it seems to be doubling, tripling, and even quadrupling its lethality every few years. And the result is that we are outdistancing not merely the capabilities of our enemies but our allies as well - many of whom who have not fought in decades - at such a dizzying pace that our sheer destructive power makes it hard to work with others in joint operations." -- Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at Stanford University)

 

If only the enemy within would allow us to turn these capabilities against the enemy without...

 

 

Regards,

 

Sapper

[raftman 1]

I agree with these principles. One should only apply the amount of force necessary to stop the the threat. The tricky thing is, from the onset of the situation, you actually have no way to know how much force is enough. ...

You have put a lot of thought into this, maybe too much...

 

I would suggest that you are over thinking the problem. The courts do not expect/require you to be a psychic, nor a doctor that specializes in wound trauma, or even a marksman.

 

They require that your fear of death be as reasonable as your actions to end that threat.

 

 

If I am legitimately in fear of my life I will just shoot till the threat ends, it is that simple. All of these moral and legalistic vacillations that you are suggesting will get you killed in a real firefight.

 

I think the point of thinking about it now, is so that if, heaven forbid, a situation arises you don't have to think about it then. I'm sure that no two self-defense situations have been alike. And like you suggested, there are many cases in which the threat is so sudden and so immediate, that you have no choice but to shoot fast and until the threat is stopped. In which case, your actions are likely to be understood from logical and legal perspective. I just think, it's important to bear in mind that there are situations in which you really do not want to use any more force than is necessary.

 

Take for example that recent Oklahoma pharmacist case. Armed robbers barged into the pharmacy, the pharmacist was initially justified using his gun in self defense. He shot one robber, and the other fled. Then this is where he goes from being a victim to a murder suspect, the pharmacist then pursued the guy who fled, eventually giving up. He then returned to the pharmacy to "finish" off the guy he already shot, and who was already lying on the ground. When he shot the guy for the first time, the threat was over, one robber laying on the ground, the other ran off. If he had left it there and just called the cops (and furthermore if he was actually truthful, as his story didn't match what was on the surveillance tape), it would have been an open and shut case and we'd have another story of how an armed citizen defended himself and his coworkers from the threat of death at the hands of robbers. However, because he attempted pursuit, and more importantly, because he killed someone who longer posed a threat, the guy is on some serious hot soup and we all as gun owners look pretty bad.

[Paulyski 2,227]

Great post.

 

I will be redundant, as the first words out of a persons mouth are of the utmost importance.

If your not too bright & you don't say "I have to gather myself, I can't talk about it right now." & request a lawyer if they persist, YOU BETTER SAY "I was trying to STOP them. I was in fear for my life (or the lives of others). Also you need to be able to show intent & that you perceived an ability on the part of the assailant(s) to do great harm to "whoever".

 

Still expect a free tour of your local police station & most likely a short stay at your county crossbar hotel, but the differance could be a long rommate arrangement with "Bubba" if you say anything else.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Paulyski

[Azrial 1,091]

Take for example that recent Oklahoma pharmacist case. Armed robbers barged into the pharmacy, the pharmacist was initially justified using his gun in self defense. He shot one robber, and the other fled. Then this is where he goes from being a victim to a murder suspect, the pharmacist then pursued the guy who fled, eventually giving up. He then returned to the pharmacy to "finish" off the guy he already shot, and who was already lying on the ground. When he shot the guy for the first time, the threat was over, one robber laying on the ground, the other ran off. If he had left it there and just called the cops (and furthermore if he was actually truthful, as his story didn't match what was on the surveillance tape), it would have been an open and shut case and we'd have another story of how an armed citizen defended himself and his coworkers from the threat of death at the hands of robbers. However, because he attempted pursuit, and more importantly, because he killed someone who longer posed a threat, the guy is on some serious hot soup and we all as gun owners look pretty bad.

Your understanding of the matter is flawed here, the pursuit is not legally problematic, the execution of a downed suspect is.

 

You are well within your rights in most states to attempt the private citizen arrest of a fleeing felon.

 

Honestly, you are out of your depth here. You are making these matters more complicated then they really are. There will always be someone to second guess what you have done, there is no protection from that.

[camon 233]

In a situation that would call for me to have to shoot someone I would always shoot to kill. If I am not threatened enough to have to kill then I am not threatened enough to fire the firearm.

 

That said I first would attempt a citizens arrest. Should the suspect flee I would not attempt to chase, but should they not respond to my commands and instead try to draw on me, well then, god or buddah or nothingness gets a new plaything.

[Wolverine 10,360]

You're too kind. There won't be any words spoken in my house. If an intruder comes up the stairway, he will be immediately going back down in pieces. He can explain his intent to the cops or coroner. No citizens arrest here.

[camon 233]

You're too kind. There won't be any words spoken in my house. If an intruder comes up the stairway, he will be immediately going back down in pieces. He can explain his intent to the cops or coroner. No citizens arrest here.

 

Well yea I would too.. I guess I should have said that if I sneak up on them I would attempt an arrest, but if I'm in bed, someone breaks in the second they open my bedroom door they're going to become part of it.

[Paulyski 2,227]

In a situation that would call for me to have to shoot someone...

No, You wouldn't.

 

You would shoot to STOP THEM! If they die that is just happenstance.

 

Trust me bro... A lot of people are in prison for saying one wrong word.

Go to a CHL class. The whole reason for them is to teach you when it is okay to shoot & how to deal with the world after you do. It is the best $30.00 you'll ever spend.

It may save you a whole lot of trouble.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Paulyski

[22_Shooter 1,560]

 

The U.S. Army has a bad reputation for overkill, and I wouldn't want to get into trouble for falling back into old habits!

 

Not to go off topic..... but you may want to "FEEL THE CHANGE!"

 

 

 

From Washington Post article on the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I'm not making these up; General McChrystal is. After all, we don't want any Afghans to get hurt.

 

#7 Only women can search women. ( After all, it's not as if they would "cheat" by wearing women's clothing.)

#6 No night or surprise searches.

#5 Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

#4 ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. ( Assuming the Afghan army or police feel like showing up. NO penalty for not showing up.)

#3 U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

#2 Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid

 

And the #1 - and my personal favorite- reason

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. ( Which, since the Taliban plan the use of human shields whenever there is danger, means that U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy 90% of the time. But the Tailban can still engage U.S. forces anytime they wish. Their commanders feel no need to be politically correct.)

 

So much for overkill.......

 

What in the shit????

 

It seems crazy to apply so many "rules" (and ridiculous ones, at that) to something as chaotic and unpredictable as WAR, for shit's sake.

 

Are these rules in effect right now?

[raftman 1]

Take for example that recent Oklahoma pharmacist case. Armed robbers barged into the pharmacy, the pharmacist was initially justified using his gun in self defense. He shot one robber, and the other fled. Then this is where he goes from being a victim to a murder suspect, the pharmacist then pursued the guy who fled, eventually giving up. He then returned to the pharmacy to "finish" off the guy he already shot, and who was already lying on the ground. When he shot the guy for the first time, the threat was over, one robber laying on the ground, the other ran off. If he had left it there and just called the cops (and furthermore if he was actually truthful, as his story didn't match what was on the surveillance tape), it would have been an open and shut case and we'd have another story of how an armed citizen defended himself and his coworkers from the threat of death at the hands of robbers. However, because he attempted pursuit, and more importantly, because he killed someone who longer posed a threat, the guy is on some serious hot soup and we all as gun owners look pretty bad.

Your understanding of the matter is flawed here, the pursuit is not legally problematic, the execution of a downed suspect is.

 

You are well within your rights in most states to attempt the private citizen arrest of a fleeing felon.

 

Honestly, you are out of your depth here. You are making these matters more complicated then they really are. There will always be someone to second guess what you have done, there is no protection from that.

 

No need for insults, I did say the execution was the biggest part of what he did wrong, let's not ignore that. I don't understand how one can object to the actual main idea of what I said. My point was, if you use far more force than is necessary to stop an attack, you're liable to get in serious legal trouble and it can quite literally ruin your life indefinitely. That is a fact, not on opinion or flawed thinking, because it's something that's happened before and quite a few times at that. The Oklahoma pharmacist story is a perfect illustration. You are right in that these situations do unfold quite fast and you usually won't have time to weigh things, but there are cases in which the use of deadly force was so blatantly and obviously excessive that it goes beyond the "I was in fear of my life" justification and folks that know what's good for them, they don't do something that falls into the excessive force category. When those robbers barged into the pharmacy, the pharmacist didn't have time to think things through or weigh them out, so he started shooting. On his walk back into the pharmacy from the failed pursuit, and during the time he spent back inside of the pharmacy after the pursuit, he DID have time to weigh things out, think things through, and he decided to execute a robber. Things don't look very good for him now.

Edited November 22, 2009 by raftman

[DogMan 2,343]

With regard to these life and death scenarios.........

 

If your're shitting...start shooting.

If your're smiling...start dialing.

 

Other than that I'd say you are thinking too much about it.

 

BTW, I can think of nothing more sad, pathetic, and outrageous than a gravestone that says....."I did everything I could under the law".

Edited November 22, 2009 by DogMan

[GeorgiaPD 408]

With regard to these life and death scenarios.........

 

If your're shitting...start shooting.

If your're smiling...start dialing.

 

 

 

Dogman,

 

I think that your post just about sums it up in the easiest possible way...Sounds like a great phrase for any self defense or CCW class and an easy one for everyone to remember

[BronCobraJet 80]

But, if you just wound the assailant, they will most likely come back and sue you to the stone age. So, whats a guy to do? Defend to kill, or soot to wound/kill (and if the perp lives) and hope you don't get sued. What a ridiculous tightrope they have us on to defend ourselves. If you shoot and the perp lives, don't you think at some point that he or his 'bros might be coming back for vengence? I just don't get how the system is set up for the perp to have all of the advantages. Why not put him away for awhile for attempt on every charge you can think imaginable, instead of making the homeowner out to be the bad guy? What is wrong with this system? (besides lawyers).

[TacSat 90]

It is simple a gun was built for one purpose only. God forbid you every have to use it for that reason. But if you do. Dont miss. If you have pulled out your gun it is either him or you. My guess is you will win. Other than that you should have used a baseball bat or a rolled up newspaper.

[Paulyski 2,227]

But, if you just wound the assailant, they will most likely come back and sue you to the stone age. So, whats a guy to do?

When at the range, practice your double tap & you won't have the problem of worrying about it. You should be doing this any way. For all intensive purposes, my G-17 really only has 9 rounds... 9 double taps.

But still you are shooting to stop. The fact that the assailant died is just happenstance.

 

The whole thing is,

 

1. If you say you were shooting to "only wound" the guy, some ambitious prosacutor may say that you didn't see him as a real threat, or you were trying to torture him.

 

2. If you say you were trying to kill the guy, then you just admitted your intent to kill him.

 

This is why STOP is the magic word.

 

The thing is though, If a guy is dead or wounded on your living room floor, you are likely going downtown anyway. All you can do by talking while you are in the shock induced, surreal mindset of a traumatic situation, is ease yourself into a prison term.

 

Just shut the hell up & ask for a lawyer.

 

And if you get a public pretender, DO NOT let them talk you into a plea bargain right away.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Paulyski

[kdbutler 563]

In a situation that would call for me to have to shoot someone...

No, You wouldn't.

 

You would shoot to STOP THEM! If they die that is just happenstance.

 

Trust me bro... A lot of people are in prison for saying one wrong word.

Go to a CHL class. The whole reason for them is to teach you when it is okay to shoot & how to deal with the world after you do. It is the best $30.00 you'll ever spend.

It may save you a whole lot of trouble.

 

People can't read your mind, but they can read the posts you post on a web forum. be careful. You never know when this may pop up if god forbid the unthinkable happens.

 

+1 for getting a CHL. Have held one for 2 years. Next to marrying my wife, its the smartest thing I've ever done.

 

Whether I wound an assailant or not is immaterial in the eyes of the law. I have employed lethal force. If my assailant dies as a result of my actions, its purely incidental. My intention was to STOP the assailant. Its his misfortune should he die from my well-placed bullets.

 

Whether that takes 1 round, or multiple reloads, I will service that threat until it STOPS behaving in a threatening way. Just my .02

[GeorgiaPD 408]

 

This is why STOP is the magic word.

 

 

 

Paulyski,

 

While you are correct, the word "STOP" is only one of the magic words. If the word "FEAR" is not in the same sentence, then you will be spending way more time with the popo and your attorney than needed. There has to be the FEAR that a person is about to or already has caused serious bodily injury or death to yourself or another. Without FEAR, then the STOP can be considered a violation of a persons 4th Amendment rights and your intentions will then come under fire by the courts for either criminal or civil liabilities.

 

Just want to make sure that everyone covers themselves as much as possible if the worst case scenario becomes a reality. So the two magic words are FEAR and then STOP. Either way, plan on a civil suit in the end, unfortunately.

[Paulyski 2,227]

 

This is why STOP is the magic word.

 

 

 

Paulyski,

 

While you are correct, the word "STOP" is only one of the magic words. If the word "FEAR" is not in the same sentence, then you will be spending way more time with the popo and your attorney than needed. There has to be the FEAR that a person is about to or already has caused serious bodily injury or death to yourself or another. Without FEAR, then the STOP can be considered a violation of a persons 4th Amendment rights and your intentions will then come under fire by the courts for either criminal or civil liabilities.

 

Just want to make sure that everyone covers themselves as much as possible if the worst case scenario becomes a reality. So the two magic words are FEAR and then STOP. Either way, plan on a civil suit in the end, unfortunately.

Good point.

[Jtp 5]

 

The U.S. Army has a bad reputation for overkill, and I wouldn't want to get into trouble for falling back into old habits!

 

Not to go off topic..... but you may want to "FEEL THE CHANGE!"

 

 

 

From Washington Post article on the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I'm not making these up; General McChrystal is. After all, we don't want any Afghans to get hurt.

 

#7 Only women can search women. ( After all, it's not as if they would "cheat" by wearing women's clothing.)

#6 No night or surprise searches.

#5 Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

#4 ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches. ( Assuming the Afghan army or police feel like showing up. NO penalty for not showing up.)

#3 U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

#2 Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid

 

And the #1 - and my personal favorite- reason

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. ( Which, since the Taliban plan the use of human shields whenever there is danger, means that U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy 90% of the time. But the Tailban can still engage U.S. forces anytime they wish. Their commanders feel no need to be politically correct.)

 

So much for overkill.......

 

7 reason why the USA will never win a war again, and has not won a war since WW2, and why we are a country in decline.

 

Oh sure, nobody can match us for military strength, and we win all the battles, but that is irrelevant if you lose all the wars, because your afraid somebody might get hurt,, or you will piss off the enemy