Massad Ayoob - "Shoot to Kill" or "Shoot to Stop"

[Le Français]

On the other hand, fear of pain, grievous harm, and death may be a deterrent to attackers prior to and during an attack? I would worry if the bad guys could beat, rape, and shoot anyone they want to, but could assume nothing bad--except possible incarceration--will happen to them. Kind of like in gun-free zones, ban states, and much of Western Europe?

Well said. Deterrence is undoubtedly a factor in some cases, but is hard to measure and perhaps less of a factor than many assume. A large number of violent crimes are committed against rival gang members who are assumed to be armed. In many other cases, criminals choose carefully, assess the likelihood of the victim being armed and able to overcome the element of surprise, and adjust tactics accordingly.

In still other cases, the attacker’s mental state is sufficiently altered by certain drugs or mental illnesses that no deterrent effect is achieved: Consider the many, many cases in which police officers are forced to shoot people who a) are not deterred by firearms and b) would likely not present the same threat if they were well.

[Totem Polar]

Even worse, what happens when they have the means...?

^^^Boiled down to the essence.

If one is going to incarnate on this planet, one has to deal with the fact that the first person to pick up the jaw-bone blade and be good at using the advantage wins.

Hell, look at plants competing for light. Posture, base, and positional dominance in the entanglement, anyone?

Plants don’t photoautotroph to kill; they photoautotroph to live.

[Le Français]

If one is going to incarnate on this planet, one has to deal with the fact that the first person to pick up the jaw-bone blade and be good at using the advantage wins.

Hell, look at plants competing for light. Posture, base, and positional dominance in the entanglement, anyone?

Let us speak in practical terms. How many times in your life have you "won" because you used lethal force, when you would have lost if you had been able to incapacitate your opponent without harm? Do you anticipate a scenario where this could occur in your future?

I agree that force is necessary sometimes, and that on a broad, strategic level, deterrence can be a deciding factor. But for the individual interested in self defense, if a tool existed (I'll be honest and call it a magic wand) that eliminated the risk of immediate physical harm to everyone involved, including bystanders, and also eliminated the worst of potential legal liability (a murder charge), I don't think that would be a bad choice because of some high-flying theories about jaw-bones and the emulation of plants.

@Mas, I have the utmost respect for your contributions to this field, and I hope I haven't taken this discussion too far off course.

[Totem Polar]

Let us speak in practical terms. How many times in your life have you "won" because you used lethal force, when you would have lost if you had been able to incapacitate your opponent without harm? Do you anticipate a scenario where this could occur in your future?

I agree that force is necessary sometimes, and that on a broad, strategic level, deterrence can be a deciding factor. But for the individual interested in self defense, if a tool existed (I'll be honest and call it a magic wand) that eliminated the risk of immediate physical harm to everyone involved, including bystanders, and also eliminated the worst of potential legal liability (a murder charge), I don't think that would be a bad choice because of some high-flying theories about jaw-bones and the emulation of plants.

@Mas, I have the utmost respect for your contributions to this field, and I hope I haven't taken this discussion too far off course.

All I’m saying is: how do you restrict this magic wand to only the folks in the proper Harry Potter camp, and guarantee that the voldemorts of the world won’t figure out how to use it faster and more often to better self-actualize their rape and torture fantasies?

I will admit this: if such a unicorn fart mist tool existed, I’d take the ECQC class dedicated to it, more than once, because our own relative proficiency is about the only variable we can control: skillset before toolset. I’d totally be all in favor of practicing IFPA*

For the record, I think my theories fly closer to the root.

*In Fight Phaser Access; use your Greco-Roman chops and your tool set to stun. Fine by me.

[Le Français]

All I’m saying is: how do you restrict this magic wand to only the folks in the proper Harry Potter camp [?]

You can't. Gun control doesn't work very well. In a theoretical world where such a tool exists, the choice is whether or not to employ it ourselves.

My underlying point is this: If you would prefer to carry a weapon that stops an attack by causing penetrating trauma rather than a tool that would also stop an attack, but without injury, then are you really only carrying to stop the threat?

[blues]

@Le Français

I think the idea / concept has merit...but what frightens me more than its potential utility as a means for LEOs (or civilians) to stop and incapacitate without lethal force being employed...is the danger of it finding its way into the hands of evildoers who now have the means to render one or more innocents incapable of resistance...allowing them cartes blanche to rape, murder pillage, etc. with relative impunity.

In such a scenario, I'd rather take on an assailant armed with a conventional weapon (like a firearm). Clearly it would suck to be at the mercy of miscreants no matter what the setting, but the chance of being taken by surprise seems even more of a potential issue with the non lethal tool.

It's bad enough these guys have pepper spray, cattle prods, stun guns etc.

I realize there's no practical way to keep these tools out of the hands of predators.

Anyway, I wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was making light of the idea. (But I think you probably already knew that.)

[Le Français]

@Le Français

I think the idea / concept has merit...but what frightens me more than its potential utility as a means for LEOs (or civilians) to stop and incapacitate without lethal force being employed...is the danger of it finding its way into the hands of evildoers who now have the means to render one or more innocents incapable of resistance...allowing them cartes blanche to rape, murder pillage, etc. with relative impunity.

In such a scenario, I'd rather take on an assailant armed with a conventional weapon (like a firearm). Clearly it would suck to be at the mercy of miscreants no matter what the setting, but the chance of being taken by surprise seems even more of a potential issue with the non lethal tool.

It's bad enough these guys have pepper spray, cattle prods, stun guns etc.

I realize there's no practical way to keep these tools out of the hands of predators.

Anyway, I wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was making light of the idea. (But I think you probably already knew that.)

Thanks, @blues. I understand your valid concern, and I know that you know this topic first hand. In any event, for good or ill, all we have are the old ways.

[DDTSGM]

Kind of looping back to the video:

Did not watch the court video of the 'wrong floor, wrong apartment case' so I don't know exactly how her testimony went and at what point she offered the 'shoot to kill' nugget.

Nor do I know what happened after her testimony in terms of damage control, specifically did the prosecutor have a chance to redirect, and if so, did he? Because that could have been cleaned up a bit, maybe not squeaky clean, but I believe clean enough to convince several jurors she wasn't shooting to kill, rather was misinformed during her training.

Based on the video in the OP, it was stated that the judge said there wasn't grounds for appeal because 'she testified she shot to kill.' That sounds as if the defense attorney didn't clean it up her testimony on redirect.

[Hambo]

You can't. Gun control doesn't work very well. In a theoretical world where such a tool exists, the choice is whether or not to employ it ourselves.

My underlying point is this: If you would prefer to carry a weapon that stops an attack by causing penetrating trauma rather than a tool that would also stop an attack, but without injury, then are you really only carrying to stop the threat?

I have no idea what you and @Totem Polar are discussing, but regarding this statement and the real, non-theoretical world: if you want it to look like you don't want to kill someone, having LL as well as lethal weapons on you could go a long way in having a jury believe it.

[Totem Polar]

I have no idea what you and @Totem Polar are discussing…

I admit to being a bit unclear on the concept, myself.