TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:"Shoot to stop" puts nice moral patina on it, but in reality, the overlap between "killing" shots and "stopping" shots is pretty large. At the time you are shooting, very unlikely that you can choose between shots that "stop but don't kill" and "shots that stop by killing." I don't think I have ever seen a serious defensive shot placement strategy that did not involve Center of Mass, head shots, central nervous system, and/or major blood vessels, with the possible exception of pelvic girdle shots intended to break the pelvic ring. But there are major blood vessels in this area, so the chance of death from bleeding is significant. (And it doesn't seem a great strategy, since it leaves the upper body able to inflict mayhem.)

In other words, "trying to stop" is functionally equivalent to "trying to kill," and Texas law recognizes this when it authorizes one to use "deadly force" for defense of self or others. If you manage to stop your attacker without killing him, well that's a bonus for him, but it is not required.

That jury's struggle with that question either reveals a lack of serious thought about how things really work, or they were just looking for an excuse not to hang attempted murder on this guy.