Use of lethal force to defend your home.

[Zoink]

I'd shoot the ground/air first. If that didn't work, I'd shoot to injure someone (closest gets it).

If that didn't work, or if they were advancing such that the above is not possible, I'd open up.

I'd have no moral qualms about the resulting carnage.

[Knife]

Angry mob shows up threating to burn my house down, possible threatening violence to me and the family.

Glocksman's scenario was seriously flawed. He clarified later that it was not supposed to imply a threat to your safety or the safety of your family. It was supposed to strictly pit property rights against the attacker's life.

Unfortunately, I agree that the scenario strongly implies a threat to your life, not just your property, hence everyone keeps trying to answer the wrong question.

To answer the question as it was INTENDED to be read, I would grab the family photo albums off the shelf (they're the only thing that you really can't replace with insurance money), boot it out the back door with my family in tow, and file a claim. I'm not going to snuff out a human life for a house and a bunch of furniture, all of which will be replaced (newer and better, I might add) by the insurance company.

Then the treat level drops and my response drops slightly. I go outside with the gun and butt stroke the cocksucker in the coco-nut and drop him that way. If the threat level rises from there, then so does the select lever on my gun.

[Perinquus]

I'd shoot the ground/air first. If that didn't work, I'd shoot to injure someone (closest gets it).

If that didn't work, or if they were advancing such that the above is not possible, I'd open up.

I'd have no moral qualms about the resulting carnage.

Never "shoot to wound". From a legal standpoint, it may actually get you into trouble. A firearm is a lethal weapon, and attempting to use one in a nonlethal way is chancy at best - for example, you shoot him in the leg: whoops! You also hit the femoral artery, and he bleeds to death in minutes. If you are not justified in killing someone, you are not justified in shooting someone. Period. You only shoot when the situation is so grave that it calls for deadly force, and then you shoot center mass, unless he's wearing body armor, or is behind cover.

Aiming for an extremity also entails more practical difficulties than most people realize. For one thing, in a life or death situation, your body will be charged up with adrenaline, and all your fine motor skills will desert you. You're going to be moving and you opponent is unlikely to be standing still either. An arm or a leg which is moving rapidly is not an easy target. You may miss. You need to shoot for the largest target, which is the torso.

Finally, guns are lethal, but they are not the magic wands of doom that you see in movies. No handgun has enough power to throw someone off his feet. Unless the target is hit in the heart, spine, or head, he will not drop as if poleaxed. Even rifles and shotguns fail to stop someone immediately sometimes. If someone takes a bullet to the torso, and it hits other than the heart or spine, he may be able to continue the fight long after you would think he couldn't. He may even continue to fight effectively after he's mortally wounded. Remember, it doesn't help you if he kills you and then dies of his wounds later. Even powerful handguns are actually poor manstoppers. The reason police use handguns is that rifles and shotguns are not practical to carry everywhere, and a handguns is the only option you have left.

Here's an example that may prove instructive:

A few years ago there was a South Carolina state trooper named Mark H. Coates, who was killed by a shitbag named Richard Blackburn, while carrying out a routine traffic stop. Said shitbag had a little .22 snubby revolver, but the bullet it fired hit Trooper Coates just under the left arm, where his vest didn't protect him, and struck Coates' aorta, causing him to bleed to death internally. Mortally wounded, Coates was able to return fire, and hit Blackburn five times in the torso with a .357 magnum at close range. Not only was Blackburn able to keep fighting, he did not die of his wounds. No vital organs were hit, even though he was struck five times in the torso (some of the misses to vital organs were by fractions of an inch), and even the .357 magnum, generally regarded as the best manstopper of any practical defensive sidearm, didn't get the job done in this case.

If you have to shoot someone the outcome is uncertain enough to begin with without you adding to that uncertainty by taking half measures. If you are faced with a lethal threat, you better pull out all the stops if you want to live. Keep shooting until he drops. Maybe he'll die of the wounds and maybe he'll live, but if you hold back, chances are you will be killed by your more aggressive opponent.

[The Question]

A few years ago there was a South Carolina state trooper named Mark H. Coates, who was killed by a shitbag named Richard Blackburn, while carrying out a routine traffic stop. Said shitbag had a little .22 snubby revolver, but the bullet it fired hit Trooper Coates just under the left arm, where his vest didn't protect him, and struck Coates' aorta, causing him to bleed to death internally. Mortally wounded, Coates was able to return fire, and hit Blackburn five times in the torso with a .357 magnum at close range. Not only was Blackburn able to keep fighting, he did not die of his wounds. No vital organs were hit, even though he was struck five times in the torso (some of the misses to vital organs were by fractions of an inch), and even the .357 magnum, generally regarded as the best manstopper of any practical defensive sidearm, didn't get the job done in this case.

That is a great example. Do you have a link to any online sources for this? I'd love to read more about it.

[Glocksman]

As Mike said, I'm not the best scenario writer because people are focusing on the 'angry mob with torches' and ignoring the 'You can, however, make it to your car and safely flee'.

What brought this on was the Indiana Code's 3 differing standards for use of deadly force in self defense of yourself, your home, and your property other than your home.

I'll quote them here:

Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).

Note that by far the most liberal standard is that of defense of the home.
The person doesn't even have to pose a threat to your life in order to use deadly force, if you reasonably* believe such force is necessary to terminate the intruder's entry of, or attack on, your home.

This law is even a little looser than it used to be.
Formerly, the home defense portion read 'prevent or terminate the felonious assault on' instead of 'prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on'.


Clearly the IC permits the use of deadly force (if needed. You still can't shoot a 5 year old wandering in the screen door) to defend your home regardless of the danger to your life.

Where does this distinction between your home and other property come from and is this morally right?


*Reasonable is usually defined in legal terms as what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' knowing the facts as you knew them at the time, would do in the same situation.

[Perinquus]

A few years ago there was a South Carolina state trooper named Mark H. Coates, who was killed by a shitbag named Richard Blackburn, while carrying out a routine traffic stop. Said shitbag had a little .22 snubby revolver, but the bullet it fired hit Trooper Coates just under the left arm, where his vest didn't protect him, and struck Coates' aorta, causing him to bleed to death internally. Mortally wounded, Coates was able to return fire, and hit Blackburn five times in the torso with a .357 magnum at close range. Not only was Blackburn able to keep fighting, he did not die of his wounds. No vital organs were hit, even though he was struck five times in the torso (some of the misses to vital organs were by fractions of an inch), and even the .357 magnum, generally regarded as the best manstopper of any practical defensive sidearm, didn't get the job done in this case.

That is a great example. Do you have a link to any online sources for this? I'd love to read more about it.

http://www.lineofduty.com/library/volum ... gram_4.pdf

I've seen the video numerous times during training. It's hard to watch.

[Perinquus]

Oh, and a slight modification to something I said earlier. I had indicated that you should keep shooting center mass. Actually, put your first two or three rounds center mass, and if he doesn't drop, try for a couple to the head if possible. If for some reason you can't take a head shot, the pelvic area is good, since he will fall down if you break the pelvis. But whichever shot you take, keep firing until the threat is neutralized.

[The Question]

A few years ago there was a South Carolina state trooper named Mark H. Coates, who was killed by a shitbag named Richard Blackburn, while carrying out a routine traffic stop. Said shitbag had a little .22 snubby revolver, but the bullet it fired hit Trooper Coates just under the left arm, where his vest didn't protect him, and struck Coates' aorta, causing him to bleed to death internally. Mortally wounded, Coates was able to return fire, and hit Blackburn five times in the torso with a .357 magnum at close range. Not only was Blackburn able to keep fighting, he did not die of his wounds. No vital organs were hit, even though he was struck five times in the torso (some of the misses to vital organs were by fractions of an inch), and even the .357 magnum, generally regarded as the best manstopper of any practical defensive sidearm, didn't get the job done in this case.

That is a great example. Do you have a link to any online sources for this? I'd love to read more about it.

http://www.lineofduty.com/library/volum ... gram_4.pdf

I've seen the video numerous times during training. It's hard to watch.

From one 'gun nut' to another, thanks bro.

[Zoink]

If you are not justified in killing someone, you are not justified in shooting someone. Period. You only shoot when the situation is so grave that it calls for deadly force, and then you shoot center mass, unless he's wearing body armor, or is behind cover.

I would only shoot someone when I felt deadly force was required. Although I may have the option to kill, I would choose to shoot in a less lethal area by personal choice. I need not express to the police that it was my intention to shoot the guy in the shoulder/arm or something. If the person dies from his wounds, so be it.

Anyways, that'd be my desired action (what I wish I could do, I don't even own a gun). Given the situation, I might act differently:

Here in Canada its against the law to carry any device that is considered a "personal defense weapon." If you have a Swiss Army Knife in your pocket, and you tell the cop its for "protection" rather than "box cutting", you're breaking the law. You can't own a handgun, sawed-off gun, stun gun, mace, switch blade, ninja star, blow gun, mini crossbow, num chucks, etc, etc (anything considered anti-personel, you can get special collector permits for some stuff). People that carry pepper spray call it "bear spray", for all those bears in the city....

I think that if I were to get a "hunting rifle" and use it to defend my house, when fleeing was an option, I'd be in trouble no matter what. If I were fighting for my life, that'd be a different story.

[Perinquus]

[I would only shoot someone when I felt deadly force was required. Although I may have the option to kill, I would choose to shoot in a less lethal area by personal choice. I need not express to the police that it was my intention to shoot the guy in the shoulder/arm or something. If the person dies from his wounds, so be it.

I am telling you, as a man who faces the possibility of getting into a gunfight every time he goes to work, that you would be EXTREMELY unwise to try and "shoot in a less lethal area". In fact, if that is your philosophy, I would strongly suggest that you flee rather than try to fight. You lack the will to do what is necessary. As I said earlier, the outcome of a gunfight is uncertain enough without you taking half measures, and that is precisely what you propose doing. As the example I pointed out shows, even center mass hits may not put your attacker down, if you try and shoot an arm or leg, not only are you FAR more likely not to hit your opponent in the first place, because you are aiming for a far smaller and more difficult target, but you are even less likely to neutralize the threat he represents to you.

Be assured, your opponent will have no qualms about using the maximum level of force against you. If you meet him, less willing to go to the necessary extremes than he is, even to save your own life... Buddy, you're going to lose.

I am a sworn police officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and prior to that I was an infantryman in the U.S. Army. I have acquired a fairly high degree of skill with firearms. I have put more time in at the range than most of my fellow officers, partly because I am something of a firearms afficionado, and partly because I am determined that if I ever lose a gunfight, it will not be for lack of training or skill. Furthermore, I have made some study of wound ballistics, the performance of various types and calibers of ammunition in real police shootings. I am also well acquainted with the legal aspects of shooting in self defense. I have studied this issue from just about every angle. Putting in bluntly, I have far more training, knowledge, and experience in this area than you have, and I am telling you frankly, in my professional opinion, that your idea is simply foolish in the extreme. You don't know what you are talking about. And if you ever get into a gunfight determined to try and wound your attacker if possible, rather than focusing on neutralizing the threat in the most expeditious manner possible, you will simply get yourself killed. You will be holding back, your more agressive attacker will not, and he will overcome you. If you doubt your ability to kill your attacker when your life or the lives of those you love are on the line, you had better be prepared to flee then, rather than fight, because trying to fight by half measures will only get you killed.

[Zoink]

As I said earlier, the outcome of a gunfight is uncertain enough without you taking half measures, and that is precisely what you propose doing.

I was basing my actions on the fact that the person in question was not armed with a gun, I have an AK-47, and the person in question was attempting to assault my property and not myself.

Someone with a gun obviously has the intent to harm myself if needed, and my actions wouldn't give him the opertunity.

The rules of engagement I listed are actually the same for many military situations where overpowering firepower is in the hands of the soldiers, and they are faced with violent citizens (ie. demonstrate force, less-than-lethal force, lethal force).

I can appreciate your concern as a police officer, I'm certain you're trained to respond only when absolutely necessary, and then with deadly force. I'm certain you wouldn't "take-someone-out", nor advocate doing so, for vandalizing a house.

Although, I've seen on TV (COPS) examples of police officers with overpowering manpower surrounding a guy with a knife, who used less-than-lethal shots to subdue him following a sudden lunge. I wouldn't fault them for that.

Again, this is hypothetical. In Canada I'd have to consider going to jail for defending my property.... its this concern that would keep me from acting, jail time isn't worth my saving my furniture.

[Knife]

Perinquus is right. If the situation is dire enough for you to have a gun, the situation is dire enough to kill someone. There is really no in between with a gun. Military personell and law enforcement people are trained that if you draw your gun, your going to kill someone. Wounding shots are Hollywood, and anyone attempting to do that in a situation is foolish and should be either retrained or dropped from whatever force they are in.

The first determent is the fact that you have a gun. If by chance they are unimpressed with that little factoid, and you have to point the thing and pull the trigger, be sure that you are ready to kill someone. If you don't want to kill the fucker, choose a different weapon. Taser, club, whatever.

[Zoink]

Military personell and law enforcement people are trained that if you draw your gun, your going to kill someone. Wounding shots are Hollywood,

...

If you don't want to kill the fucker, choose a different weapon. Taser, club, whatever.

No its not Hollywood. The I.D.F. rules of engagement for violent civilians are: demonstrate force (shoot weapons), less-than lethal (shoot at legs), then lethal.


What if I don't have a tazer handy? Only the AK-47 (per the thread). I would not approach someone wielding a melee weapon, my goal isn't to make the fight fair.

[Perinquus]

Military personell and law enforcement people are trained that if you draw your gun, your going to kill someone. Wounding shots are Hollywood,

...

If you don't want to kill the fucker, choose a different weapon. Taser, club, whatever.

No its not Hollywood. The I.D.F. rules of engagement for violent civilians are: demonstrate force (shoot weapons), less-than lethal (shoot at legs), then lethal.


What if I don't have a tazer handy? Only the AK-47 (per the thread). I would not approach someone wielding a melee weapon, my goal isn't to make the fight fair.

The I.D.F. has rules of engagement that you as a civilian will not have. Soldiers following those rules of engagement are protected from criminal and civil prosecution to a degree that you will not be. They are also not acting by themselves, and if their "less than lethal" shot fails to stop the attacker, they are in comparatively little danger because there will be many of them, and they can perforate the bad guy like a swiss cheese in about two seconds if need be, and the body armor they wear gives them some protection should he get a shot off - protection that you, as a civilian, are most unlikely to have available to you. There are a host of factors enabling them to operate in this fashion, none of which would apply to a civilian, alone, facing a thug who intends to kill him. There will be no squad or platoon of buddies to bail you out if your attempt at being less than lethal fails to stop the attacker, which it all too likely will. You will have no ballistic armor that may still save you in the event he gets a shot off. Also, you seem to be refering to crowd control scenarios, and for that, they usually have rubber bullets that are meant to be fired into crowds, and are usually non-lethal if used correctly. Again, your situation, should you find yourself embroiled in a self defense shooting, would be totally different.

If you have no less than lethal weapon, like a taser or pepper spray (and you shouldn't try to use these against a gunman, even if you do have them), and you fear to kill the bad guy, either because you have doubts about your ability to pull a trigger on another human being, or because you fear the legal consequences you will face in the aftermath, then you need to unass the area. Flee. Get out. If you face the attacker while setting limits for yourself concerning the action you will take, you will get yourself killed.

[BrYaN19kc]

In Missouri, if you shoot the guy, you better make sure he falls and dies inside the house and if he doesn't, you best drag him back inside. Otherwise, you can be charged with a crime.

I'm joining this debate a bit late to reply to this post, but as a law enforcement officer I feel almost a public duty to disabuse as many of you as possible of this notion.

If circumstances force you to shoot someone while he is outside your house or outside the curtilage of your property, do not ever, under any circumstances, even consider for an instant dragging the body inside your house! I cannot stress this point highly enough. And if anybody ever tells you to do this (it may even be a cop himself who tells you - don't listen to him; even cops can be dumbasses), point out to him that he has just committed an offense called "suborning perjury", and in most U.S. states it's a felony.

If you move the body, you may take a completely justifiable self-defense shooting and make it look like a murder! I've got news for you: the fact of whether or not a person was inside or outside of your house, or on or off of your property has little to nothing to do with whether or not you are justified in killing him. What justifies you or not is the level of threat he represents to you. The only way the property may enter into it is that some states require you to make every reasonable effort to escape the threat, but most (not all) do not require you to leave your home - there you can stand your ground. And it is still perfectly possible for someone to represent a deadly threat to you while he is outside your house. If he is getting ready to throw a molotov cocktail through your window, he most certainly represents a potentially lethal threat to you, and as you are in your home, from which you may not be required to flee, you can shoot him, even though he's outside. If someone is pumping rounds from a high powered rifle into your house, he most certainly represents a deadly threat to you, since those bullets will easily pierce the walls of your house, and may go clean through the whole building. Shoot the bastard and leave him where he drops; you're justified. It doesn't matter that he's outside. If the threat to you is sufficiently great to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

SNIP

County statute here notes that if you shoot someone exiting your home or outside of your home you can be charged. You can still be charged even if you shoot them inside your home if no deadly threat is present or evident.

And yes, there was an article in the paper here about dragging them back inside... It happened when the person was advised to do this by a relative who was a cop. (geeish, even I know better than that )

[RedImperator]

Shooting someone in the back is bad news. You don't get to use lethal force as a civilian unless your life, your family, or your home is in immediate danger, and 9 times out of 10, someone with his back to you is not an IMMEDIATE danger.

[Perinquus]

County statute here notes that if you shoot someone exiting your home or outside of your home you can be charged.

Key word here is exiting. If he's in the act of leaving your home he's obviously not posing a deadly threat to you. But he can still pose a deadly threat to you even when he's outside your home under certain circumstances. Under those circumstances, you're still justified in shooting him, even though he's outside, and you should leave him where he drops.

You can still be charged even if you shoot them inside your home if no deadly threat is present or evident.

And yes, there was an article in the paper here about dragging them back inside... It happened when the person was advised to do this by a relative who was a cop. (geeish, even I know better than that )

And what penalty was he given?

[Slartibartfast]

This entire thread, is thus, misleading, as if we could leave unopposed at any time as you now imply all your findings are incorrect at the very least or indeed, just plain false.

In the opening post, I stated very clearly that you had time to safely flee in your car.

Thats not the point, the point is that you made it appear that the target was YOU, not YOUR HOME. It was reasonable to assume that they would follow you in your car, rather than just go after your house. The thread remains flawed and misleading.

Maybe your car is in the back and they won't see you leaving, or they don't have cars of their own to follow you.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, what I do is aim my gun at a specific individual and yell at the mob "If I see any of you even farting in my direction, I'm shooting the little girl with the ponytail and the teddy bear!" That would dissuade them from coming, since my threat has a face. Probably that specific person won't be too thrilled that the mob doesn't care about his/her life.

If they choose to ignore me, I cap that person (I'll actually chose a person who's armed or looks dangerous/willing to do harm... probably not the leader since leaders tend to want to accomplish the goal, so my threat wouldn't do much).

If they insist, I start frothing at the mouth while I shoot a single bullet at each person's chest. I start with those with the most dangerous items like molotovs or mini-nukes. Then I continue with the ones with rocks, then pipes, knives, and lastly I kill those with teddy bears.

If, after all my effort, I fail to stop them, and get hurt, or manage to stop them but get my ass in prison, I'll reload the last saved game. Remember: save always.

[Thunderfire]

Inspired by this thread.

Let's take the shoot a burglar scenario and the mob attack scenario and combine them.

Let's say that for whatever reason, a mob of about 10 people has formed and is determined to run you out of your house. They are carrying cans of fuel and lit torches and are screaming 'burn the motherfucker out'. You have every reason to believe that they are going to do exactly that. Other than the torches and gas cans, the group appears to be unarmed.

You are inside armed with either a semiauto AK or AR15 (your choice) with a fully loaded 30 round magazine (and 2 extra mags) and you are wearing a handgun for backup. The police cannot help as the nearest police station is 30 minutes away. By the time they arrive your house will be in ashes. You can, however, make it to your car and safely flee.

I don't think I am able to stop the attackers if they really want to burn down
my house with just one gun. Getting killed is worse than loosing your property.

[Perinquus]

Inspired by this thread.

Let's take the shoot a burglar scenario and the mob attack scenario and combine them.

Let's say that for whatever reason, a mob of about 10 people has formed and is determined to run you out of your house. They are carrying cans of fuel and lit torches and are screaming 'burn the motherfucker out'. You have every reason to believe that they are going to do exactly that. Other than the torches and gas cans, the group appears to be unarmed.

You are inside armed with either a semiauto AK or AR15 (your choice) with a fully loaded 30 round magazine (and 2 extra mags) and you are wearing a handgun for backup. The police cannot help as the nearest police station is 30 minutes away. By the time they arrive your house will be in ashes. You can, however, make it to your car and safely flee.

I don't think I am able to stop the attackers if they really want to burn down
my house with just one gun. Getting killed is worse than loosing your property.

Don't forget the psychological factor. If you can intimidate them, you might still scare them off. If they were all willing to die, you'd never beat them. But odds are, they'd scare more easily. None of ttem would likely want to end up one of the dead heroes. Shoot one or two, and the others might all to easily take flight. They might hate you, but burning you out is not as important to them as preserving their own skins.

[Thunderfire]

Don't forget the psychological factor. If you can intimidate them, you might still scare them off. If they were all willing to die, you'd never beat them. But odds are, they'd scare more easily. None of ttem would likely want to end up one of the dead heroes. Shoot one or two, and the others might all to easily take flight. They might hate you, but burning you out is not as important to them as preserving their own skins.

They psychological factor can also turn against me. One of their pals has just
been killed by me - the rest wants to avenge him here and now. No the risk
isn't worth it.

[Zoink]

They psychological factor can also turn against me. One of their pals has just been killed by me - the rest wants to avenge him here and now.

They might also want to revenge his death a day/week/month from now. Maybe while you're mowing the lawn.... I guess avoiding violence is best.

[SAMAS]

A lot of people would say that property and personal posessions aren't worth your life.

And in 99.9% of cases, they're right.

On the other hand, one's home is, in many ways, the culmination of one's life and work. It may not be one's life, but it is a symbol of it. Even posessions are more than just stuff, but it also represents the effort that went into aquiring it. For example, a kid who worked and saved to buy a PS2 would normally treasure it more than a kid who got their parents to buy it for them. I think most people would at least consider the use of force to protect it.

In the above(albeit flawed) scenario, I would at least attempt to disuade the crowd. I might even shoot the ringleader, but that's a big if. But I don't think I could hurt a group of people, even over my home. I would have to get out after that.

But if my family is in the house, and they can't also get out, that mob has gotta go, one way or the other.

On the other little argument, between Iguana and Question, I can see Question's point. If a person has broken into your house, you don't know if he only wants to grab some stuff and run, or if he intends to do anything else to you or your family. And by the time you find out, it may be too late if the answer is the latter. Question feels that it's better to err on the side of caution for the safety of himself and his family.

In that situation, I would point the gun at him, and tell him to get out. If he does anything other than leave, I shoot.

[Knife]

Military personell and law enforcement people are trained that if you draw your gun, your going to kill someone. Wounding shots are Hollywood,

...

If you don't want to kill the fucker, choose a different weapon. Taser, club, whatever.

No its not Hollywood. The I.D.F. rules of engagement for violent civilians are: demonstrate force (shoot weapons), less-than lethal (shoot at legs), then lethal.


What if I don't have a tazer handy? Only the AK-47 (per the thread). I would not approach someone wielding a melee weapon, my goal isn't to make the fight fair.

Are you sure that the 'demonstrate force' = 'shoot them in the legs'? Or is demonstrate force = to warning shot that is fired into the air? As stated before, unless you have specific non lethal projectiles (rubberbullets, beanbag guns or something of the like) a shot to the leg or arm can be as life threatening as a shot to the torso. A warning shot that breaks open a major artery is not a warning shot but a killing shot and hitting a leg is harder than a big fat torso.