TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.suntimes.com/6269890-417/jur ... a-cop.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Chicago cop stops a guy (Bobby Selvie) he has dealt with before to ask questions. Selvie shoots the cop in the back not fatally), is subsequently caught and put on trial charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery.

During deliberations, jury sends out a note telling the judge 'they were “struggling” with whether “shooting a gun at someone means intent to kill.”'

Jurors acquitted Selvie of attempted murder, convicted on aggavated battery.

In case the name Selvie rings a bell, it might be because his relative Michael Selvie was convicted last year of murdering the bodyguard of a Chicago Bears player.

What is it that SeamusTX says? Another day in Daley's...er, Rahm's paradise?

Wow! This is an interesting use of what we are taught in the CHL class. We do not shoot to kill. We shoot to stop.

C-dub wrote:Wow! This is an interesting use of what we are taught in the CHL class. We do not shoot to kill. We shoot to stop.

That's true that we "shoot to stop the threat" but we must keep in mind that there is a high possibility that the round we use in an
attempt to stop a threat is "deadly force" and death may be the result.

Does anyone recall a recent thread where the Pakistani security forces shot a young man in the hand and leg? He bled out from the thigh
wound (died), which I'm assuming was a hit to the femoral artery.

SIA

"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.

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.

Not to mention that, whatever the shooter's intentions, something like 80% of gunshot patients survive their wounds anyway.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...
Not to mention that, whatever the shooter's intentions, something like 80% of gunshot patients survive their wounds anyway.

Indeed. This is a tribute to the fact that the handgun round is a relatively puny cartridge and getting "good placement" is difficult in a fight. From reading most accounts, criminal attackers who get shot with a handgun just "give up" by either running away or surrendering, excepting those that have seriously altered their minds with chemicals.

I understand and agree with all said. I just find it interesting and surprising that this strategy was used successfully as a defense in the shooting of a LEO. I wonder if the prosecution tried to get that there was a reasonable expectation that by shooting the officer that he could die? I guess it is also worth asking or noting whether or not this was a legitimate case of self-defense against the officer. I don't think that was the case.

I think it is reasonable to expect that a person could die if shot, but was that the intent? I'm still shocked this strategy worked in this case.