Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Defense or intent to kill?

Handcannon

Handcannon

Well-Known Member
This is just to get some opinions. LEO & attorney input is welcome. And of course input from the members here is always welcome. The question of concealed carry caliber size got me wondering.

When you kill a criminal you will have to prove your need for self defense & more than likely you will have a civil suit filed against you by the criminals surviving family members saying that "you didn't have to kill the #%&*>! he would've given up & been willing to be arrested just by the sight of your weapon" or "he just wanted to use your (car or phone) for an emergency & there was no time to explain" or whatever lame ass excuse they come up with. So...

If you shoot the criminal once (one round of ammo) & kill him it might be in self defense to the police & court.

If you shoot him twice (two rounds, double tap, a controlled pair) & kill him is it still self defense after the 1st shot is fired? Would the 2nd shot be considered intent to kill?
 
I was told in concealed carry class it doesn't matter how many times you shoot because as soon as you make the choice to pull the trigger your intent is to kill the threat. Legally if you pull the trigger your intent has to be to kill.
 
Yes, the intent is to eliminate (kill) the threat but if the criminal is not dead after the 1st shot is the 2nd shot viewed by the courts & a jury differently than the 1st shot?

This Iowa where we are more like California everyday. A dentist in Iowa City fired his employee for being to hot & the court ruled it's OK to fire people for that.
 
Last edited:
I guess it could be viewed the same way as the Geneva Conventions views it... After intial contact in which an enemy soldier is wounded, you can not just walk up and put a kill shot on them to clear the area. As ridiculous as it sounds, you must administer first aid. Probably the dumbest rule ever. I'm sure it's not followed more than it is. Your probably best off doing a double tap simultaneously. Then it couldn't really be proved that it was a "kill" shot on a defenseless "victim"
 
I can't speak for Iowa, but in AZ (reciprocity with Iowa), if you shoot them once and the person is incapacitated and then you shoot again without calling 911, you can be prosecuted. If you intentionally shoot someone in the leg to wound them, its automatically assault with a deadly weapon and you are going to jail. I took the class almost 13 years ago, but the law was very clear. They did, however, show amazing stats indicating that most people in a self defense situation don't only shoot once and then check the threat. Most people unknowingly (unconcsiously?) shoot multiple times, including emptying the pistol, before realizing what they've done. With the exception of Texas, I can't imagine too many states would let you get away with shooting someone once and then walking up to them and finishing them off. So to answer your question in your last post, I imagine the 2nd shot would be viewed differently under the scenario you present in your last post. If its a case of a true double tap or multiple shots fired in self defense to eliminate the threat the first time around, that is different. I know there is a book out there somewhere that discusses the laws of each state for concealed carry. Our instructor kept emphasizing its value in knowing the laws.
 
Ya I guess idk about that, everyone would pry act different in the situation but maybe look at it the same way as when a cop shoots. If the threat is subdued and the culprit lives they live. I've never heard of a case where somebody gets in trouble as long as they used the proper amount of force for the situation, and I'm no expert but I think you can keep shooting till you feel the culprit is no longer a threat wether that be one bullet or ten. Good question. It will be interesting to see others responses.
 
Bowtech84 said:
keep shooting till you feel the culprit is no longer a threat wether that be one bullet or ten.
Click to expand...

That was the basic premise of our CCW class, with the caveat described above. If you shoot once and check on the threat, you can't resume shooting if the threat is still alive.

After a huge SNAFU with a self defense case, our legislatures finally changed the law in Arizona a few years ago so now the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to determine it wasn't self defense whereas before, the burden of proof was on the defense to prove it was. The bar has now been swayed in favor of the defendant in self defense cases that go to court.
 
Ok boys I'm not going to get real long winded typing on my phone, but a few quick things from a LE firearms instructor.

1. You do not shoot to kill- you shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Not kill it, not wound it, but STOP it.
2. In the process of stopping the threat you aim center mass. No warning shots, and no shots to the leg. The reason being is that center mass is the biggest target and under that kind of stress you need as big of a target as you can get. Also, center mass is where all the things are that make a bad guy go are located- make no mistake he can still fight with one in his leg, but it's a lot harder for him to fight with a few in the vitals.

On the subject of how many shots my SUGGESTION is however many it takes to STOP THE THREAT ( see a theme here?). In other words if you have successfully stopped the threat, and the guy is on the ground gasping don't walk up and put one in his temple. It's going to be pretty hard to convince a jury that the last shot was in self defense. That being said, if you shoot him twice and he's still coming, you better keep shooting.

Remember guys if you get in a gunfight statistics say its going to be very close(less than 10 feet) and very fast (less than 5 seconds). Someone mentioned it, and they were correct in saying that most people have no idea how many rounds they even fire- and it's usually more than one or two.

Sent from my iPhone using IW
 
AZHunter said:
I can't speak for Iowa, but in AZ (reciprocity with Iowa),
Click to expand...
When I took the CCW class they encouraged participants to apply for AZ and Utah on top of the Iowa permit for maximal state coverage. So even it Iowa has reciprocity with Iowa, AZ must have some state coverage that Iowa lacks. Sorry, this is outside the original thread, but thought it worth mentioning.

A link to the class I took: LegalHeat.

A point made in the class is that Iowa is not a "stand your ground" state. IF YOU CAN AVOID a confrontation, you are required to.

The final say is that if you HAVE to protect yourself from a THREAT, aim for body of mass and stop the threat. When the person goes down, they are probably not legally considered a threat.

Also covered in the class was the legal nightmare you are probably going to encounter for pulling the trigger, let alone killing someone: a right not to be taken lightly. It will be a life altering event on many levels.
 
JNRBRONC said:
Also covered in the class was the legal nightmare you are probably going to encounter for pulling the trigger, let alone killing someone: a right not to be taken lightly. It will be a life altering event on many levels.
Click to expand...

This can't be stressed enough. You WILL end up in court.

Sent from my iPhone using IW
 
JakeWym said:
Just hope that I never have to make the choice.
Click to expand...

Mr. Miyagi said it best: "Best defense no be there!"

In all seriousness, Timekiller said everything I was trying to say but he said it way better. And I remember the "avoid at all effort" part from Iowa. When I took the class in Texas, I was amazed at how liberal Texas is when it comes to justified ask defense. It's been 15+ years, but I vaguely remember something about stopping a threat while it is running away from you being legit! I do know that you can use deadly force to stop a kidnapping or arson attempt in AZ.

After having some run-ins with armed drug runners on the U.S./Mexico border in SE AZ (way out-gunned, so I hid), I truly hope none of us EVER have to be in that situation or find out any of the consequences of those actions!
 
Timekiller pretty well summed it up. I am not in LE, but both of my brother in laws are. They say the exact same thing. You have to STOP the threat, no matter how many shots.

One thing to keep in mind, you will be arrested. You probably will not have any charges against you, but it seems to be normal protocol with LE. If you had to use a firearm to protect yourself from a life threat to you life, you will be fine with no charges.

Another thing to keep in mind, never pull your weapon out unless there is intent to use it. Once again, this is just what my brother in laws say. Someone watching can interpret you pulling a weapon on a knife packing criminal (which is more dangerous than a gun at times, especially close range), and you stop the criminal, but a witness see's you pointing a gun at someone, you can be at the mercy of the witness, which doesn't know the whole story.
 
Some great info in this thread. I may have missed it but one thing that was stressed in my class and not mentioned yet is the recommendation to have your mind made up before you carry. Know you can or would shoot before you carry. Don't get into a situation where you would have to draw and then decide if you can pull the trigger. That hesitation probably shouldn't work out very well...
 
Guys i read this topic and i want to say that I guess it could be viewed the same way as the Geneva Conventions views it..... After intial contact in which an enemy soldier is wounded, ....
 
It is an attempt to stop the threat. It just so happens that the threat being dead is also stopping. That's why you shoot for the chest and shoot until the person stops coming after you (if that ever happens). You aren't intending to kill, you are wanting to stop the threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom