In the confines of being shot is incapacitation and death a separate term or are the synonymous with what is defined as a stoppage.
Although I have my own opinion on the matter I am curious as to how others define a stoppage.

The should be synonymous with being stopped. I know, personally, that if I'm in a situation where I have to use my firearm, I do not care which as long as the attacker is down and out for the count,

"Stopped" means the attacker has immediately ceased his attack. That may mean he's dead, physically incapacitated by injury, or persuaded by the sudden realization of his own mortality to split the scene.

I do not think I would want to play that word game with a lawyer...especially

incapable of fighting
and incapable of breathing are two ddifferent things

truth of the subject, in my opinion, has been answered here already.

When younger I used a 30-06 for everything. I was taught to drill deer, antelope and elk through the shoulders. Invariably if my shot was where it needed to be they would drop right on the spot.

Later on I started having reservations about tossing so much bloodshot meat. That and when I started using lighter caliber rifles I chose rib, neck and head shots. A good connection in the head or neck is lights out. Ribs are a different deal. A double lung or heart shot is fatal, just takes the animal some time to realize it. From the time of the hit to when dropping, I've had a few cover a fair amount of ground.

Was the one with the broken down shoulders any more dead? Not in my opinion, just inmobile.

while i don t think its something you can afford to consider while in the act of defending yourself..
ive got to admit,,i would always rather know the person survived..taking a life no matter how
necessary,,is gonna stay with me a while ,i believe..that said the mugger has to be, no danger at all before i breakoff my actions..jmo

I consider "stoppage" the minimum amount of force required to dissuade someone from continuing their attack.

However, in my opinion, while "stoppage" is the first priority, prevention is important as well. Is it not also my responsibility to prevent a subsequent attack either upon myself or others? So I would have to say that I would aim more for incapacitation. Obviously death would result in incapacitation, however it is not my goal. Obviously it is a very fine line that exists between incapacitation and death, but if thats what it takes....

In the confines of being shot is incapacitation and death a separate term or are the synonymous with what is defined as a stoppage.


Absolutely different and not even a matter of opinion. If you don't believe that, look in a dictionary. In particular, in the case of defensive shooting it is important to be able make the distinction if you don't want to chance jail time.

As a general rule, in most of these United States, the only acceptable reason for using deadly force against another human being is that he is doing something that must be stopped right now, won't stop voluntarily, and for which using force that incidentally happens to kill him is legally justifiable. Normally, that something is committing an assault with a deadly weapon against you or someone else, though terminating a kidnapping or a rape would likely be viewed as justifiable in most places. In some jurisdictions even breaking and entering is adequate justification. You need to know your local laws.

Note that in defensive shooting, it is the perpetrator's action that must be stopped, not his life. If his life stops as a result of you stopping his actions, that is acceptable damage, but incidental to stopping his action. Stopping the action is primary, and if you succeed in disabling him to the extent his actions are stopped, but without killing him, you would be on very shaky legal ground delivering a coup de grace, and would likely to go to jail for it.

Hunting is different, partly in that it is considered humane and best sportsmanship to stop the animal by ending its life as quickly as possible, and also in that delivering the coup de grace after a non-lethal stop is expected rather than discouraged. Nonetheless, to acquire meat for the freezer, again it is the stop rather than the kill that makes achieving the objective possible.

During a Police Pistol Course, You are taught to shoot for center mass. That is your answer to a lawyer. ("I was taught to shoot for center mass in training. When it hit the fan, reflexive instinct took over, and that is where I aimed." That is the safest statement in court, and the one I advised all of my students to use.

It's a good answer, but you might not be taking it far enough? I was told that intentionally shooting only to incapacitate can be taken as evidence the shooter didn't think the situation actually required lethal force to resolve, thereby bringing justifiability into question? The original posted question was whether there is a practical distinction between stopping and killing, and there is, whether you intend to find yourself in a situation where you need to discern the two or not? Given that most shots in firefights miss, one that makes a hit may miss a vital area. That is when it becomes important to understand the difference between the purpose behind shooting (to stop the perp's actions) and killing him.

Forensics is imperfect, but most examiners will be able to reconstruct a shooting from entry wound angles and other evidence well enough to tell what happened? You don't want to be seen as firing at someone who'd already been rendered defenseless by any earlier badly placed shot(s). A string of rapid center shots in a row won't be evidence of that. Indeed, I recall some police departments training their people to empty their guns into a perpetrator, at least back in revolver days, so it might even be policy in some jurisdictions now?

The use of a firearm is defined as deadly force. Death is an acceptable and predictable outcome when applying deadly force to stop an attack if you are justified in doing so to begin with.
When using a firearm against another human being you are not applying less than lethal force.
It is therefore concluded the only reliable mechanism for an incapacitation would be the reduction or elimination of life giving necessities critical for maintaining life because persuasion otherwise was not possible
Shooting center of mass is the standard in LEO training and is so because it is the likeliest place to hit a target and hit in a way to stop the life giving processes the body needs to function.
Not because its less lethal.
The reality is the vast majority of LEO misses their target during the event.
If competency in marksmanship were better the death rate would be much higher.
Also you must take in to account the medical community has become very good at saving lives when it comes to gunshots and that also plays a huge role in survivability post shootings. From 50% survivability pre 1970’s to 80+ now.

Death and incapacitation are only separated by the will to live and luck.
I don’t think it is possible to separate the two with in the confines of using deadly force.
The term they used to use was eliminate the threat. But you can see that was to close to the reality of the sitiuation and the bleeding hearts found it repulsive so the term incapacitate was born. It use to be hard to even say it with a straight face but has become accepted as the correct term.
Incapacitation is a fancy legal term used to veil the reality of shooting someone.
You are doing so to kill them rather you think you are or not.

>Is it not also my responsibility to prevent a subsequent attack either upon myself or >others?

No, it is not -- beyond notifying police and giving them a full description and any other aid you can in apprehending the assailant.

I did not get my concealed carry permit to become a law enforcement officer, or caped crusader. I did not get it so that I could play world-saving hero. I got it so that in the moment of the gravest extreme I could protect myself, my family, and other innocents from harm. Once the immediate threat is ended, my reponsibility for further action, except as already noted, has ended.

pisgah. I think realization of his own mortality is a great answer.:D

The use of a firearm is defined as deadly force. Death is an acceptable and predictable outcome when applying deadly force to stop an attack if you are justified in doing so to begin with.
When using a firearm against another human being you are not applying less than lethal force.
It is therefore concluded the only reliable mechanism for an incapacitation would be the reduction or elimination of life giving necessities critical for maintaining life because persuasion otherwise was not possible



Is this a case law citation or your own reasoning? If it is case law I have a certain curiosity for a citation. Thanks.

I started this thread with the intention of opening up a great dialog.
In my previous life I was a member of a LEA. Having been exposed to many opinions on the matter I was interested in the mindset of the contributors to this forum. As I have found them interesting and worth a listen.
As I stated at the start of the thread I have my opinion on the matter and was waiting to state it later in the thread. I am able to reevaluate any opinion I already have given a good persuation.
It has never been nor will be my intent to attack the members here as I think they are providing valuable insight to many questions.

As to your question the term deadly force speaks for itself and is defined as the force applied the can or did cause death.
Intent is not implied in the term deadly force. Intend is a stand along term and subject to interpretation.
You can’t intend to wound someone while engaging in the use of deadly force. You accepted the fact your actions can cause death by engaging in the use of deadly force. If you kill him while in the action you intended to but may be remorseful. If you wound him you are lucky.
Regardless if you are brought before a prosecutor for using a gun in self defense it will be for the use of deadly force even if he survived or not.
Case law is still opinion based.

I think you got people talking, and I don't think anyone takes a difference of opinion as an attack unless they are prickly in the first place. Internet communications is mainly between persons who are not professional writers, and that leads to a lot of miscommunication and misinterpretation of attitude. But that's always going to be present on an Internet board, so don't worry too much about it.

Your initial post asks if incapacitation and death and stopping are synonymous? As a physical reality, your statistic on gunshot survivability suggests they are not, assuming any of those survivors were stopped, justifiably or otherwise? Perhaps you were meaning to ask whether the combat mindset is the same for killing and stopping? I think the answer there is that, when deadly force is used, it has to be the same because death is a possible outcome. When employing non-lethal force, such as a Taser to stop someone, then they are not the same mindset, and it is implicit in the choice of a non-lethal weapon that it is not.

Speaking not within any legislative definitions which vary from State to State, but just within myself, I'm wondering: Is deadly force that which actually results in death, or merely that which could result in death? If it is the former, it appears to me the question is nullified. If it is the latter, which of course a shooting is as evidenced by the fact pointed out that not all who are shot die, then an attack with a fork is also a deadly-force attack. Though that illustration is a little ridiculous, I believe it adequately makes the point, and I end up wanting to ask a question along the lines of Nick's re-phrasing above.

I have to say that am not certain I would be able to make a rational, objective, deliberate consideration of whether there's a difference in the 'combat mindset' between stopping and killing while under the duress of such a situation. To me, that is a choice or decision made prior to drawing, and made under the fluid and likely rapidly-changing factors in play as I perceive them at the time. To me, to draw my pistol (for example) on someone is not to be done lightly. If circumstances cause me to believe the situation is so grave as to make it necessary, it (my draw) is the signal that the attacker(s) must immediately cease whatever it is he is doing, with me firing as the alternative, and with his death as one probability resulting from that firing. At that point I see it as his decision to make, not mine?

sounds to me like the judges opinion is the one thats gonna matter..
i guess each person should do some looking back over previous cases
where they live..
as for me i might just go on and break some laws as they stand.. if say four young hoods jump me the law says i cant use my gun..it dont matter that im to old to out runum and not able to scrap like i once could..but im still gonna use my gun .. my brother in law says just make sure you dont leave any body to talk against you in court..could not just shoot them to death either..
but i guess id just try an get outa there quick as i could,,assuming nobody saw it,, but me an them..
each situation calls for good judgement.. not all situations leave you an choice that won t be more trouble than any of us need..jmo

I believe in the scenario you pose, you certainly could use an affirmative defense in court of self defense. In general, self defense is based upon the "reasonable man" doctrine, and I believe this holds true in NC. This doctrine states that deadly force is justified if a reasonable man in a given circumstance believes that his life is at risk. I'm too old to run, too. In a situation where four younger, stronger thugs are beating me and I have no avenue of escape, it is certainly reasonable for me to believe I may die. An obvious "disparity of force" exists, and it's not in my favor. It's the same sort of situation as a 100 pound woman being raped by a 225 pound unarmed man -- he may not have a weapon, but he's certainly capable of killing her and his actions are enough for her to reasonably assume he may.

Now, shooting then hiding bodies, or failing to report the incident -- those are things that will point directly to guilt, and seriously erode, if not destroy, your defense.

Agree. In most states the test that applies is "were you in fear of losing your life?" When questioned by authorities, some advise that you make it a point to specifically and clearly state that you feared for your life. That the fear was reasonable is all justification requires. It gets stickier when you fear for someone else's life, on whose behalf you intervene, but the reasonableness and prudent man tests still apply in principle.

By a recent Legislative law, in Arizona, the prosecutor has the burden to prove it wasn't self defense, instead of the other way around.

Whoa! What kinds of scenarios does that apply to, I wonder? Surely not all dead bodies with bullet holes in them are presumed to be attackers shot by a potential victim? Are we talking when inside the home? Know any details or where a person could go to look up that statute?

Well gents as our national economy continues to errode and the crime rates soar, we may get to test some of these theorys!
If I find myself in a life threatening situation while being robbed or car jacked ect; I mean to ensure that the other guy eats the dirt instead of me. If he happens to die as a result then it is his fault not mine and I think I'll sleep quiet well knowing that I survived to do so.