Too good at shooting, the court will convict you?

[ELB]

...
Please, keep in mind that I was asking for the individual who posted that to provide some sort of proof to back up what he claimed. Looking at the guy's profile, it didn't seem like he was a troll, just someone who was very, very misinformed, and didn't want to admit he might be wrong, or at least overdoing it.

Understand, but I still think this was a troll . The business about "top gun" in "academy" along with the bogus argument just sets off alarm bells. I predict he will either disappear/ignore you, or come back with a blustery response, pounding the table, because fails to provide any references.

[mojo84]

I can see a prosecutor trying to make an issue of it. I just don't think it will "get someone convicted".

[srothstein]

It is rubbish. Texas law treats all shootings the same. A firearm is deadly force, by legal definition, so the portion of the anatomy targeted is not part of the legal issue.

As the former director of the TABC academy, we did not rank the shooters for the simple reason that it was easier on the paperwork. TCOLE (or TCLEOSE as it was then) requires proof that the officers qualified by their standards, so that is what is kept in the records. When I went through the SAPD academy (back in what seems like the dark ages now), we not only scored the target, but gave an award to the best shooter in the class. We also wore NRA qualification badges and tracked them for the Distinguished Expert badge there. I am not aware of any case where the prosecutor, or even a plaintiff's attorney, basing any argument on the ability of the shooter.

I am also aware of the one case where a sniper actually shot the pistol out of the suicidal man's hand. One of the problems discussed was how far off target he was (he was aiming for the body not the hand) and how it would affect people's opinions of other police shootings by making them think this could be done at will.

He is a youtube clip of the shooting (but please ignore the obviously idiotic British narrator who is not familiar with our police wearing camo):

[WildBill]

It is rubbish.

[JP171]

the only case that can be made about an "expert marksman" is the decision process. I have qualified expert in every semi- annual qualification( standard is yearly) since 1983, I wear my qualification badge proudly. We shoot for center mass in quals we don't go trying to hit hands legs or arms. with the appropriate equipment we may and I say may try a head shot but most likely not, the human head is incredibly difficult to hit. I know that I can meet the military tables for expert pistol and its all center mass and controlled for number of shots and mag changes and I know for a fact the grand jury cannot and will not use that as some kind of rational to try to increase the charges against me

[mojo84]

Good feedback Steve. Appreciate the insight.

[VMI77]

What "Academy" did this clown supposedly go to? Farside's Midvale school for the gifted?



As I see the theoretical possibilities: 1) the guy is a liar an never attended an actual police academy as he implies, making him a troll, an idiot, or both; 2) the guy "attended" a police academy of some kind and flunked out, making him the same as #1; 3) the guy actually graduated from some kind of police academy and is an idiot. I said theoretical possibilities because I don't think it's possible to graduate from a police academy and believe such completely idiotic hogwash. To the extent anyone actually believes such stupidity it is pure liberal idiocy or idiotic Hollywood fantasy of someone who knows absolutely nothing about self-defense, much less had any actual training in self-defense, and has never shot a gun outside a video game.

[FCH]

When I qualified for my CHL the instructor told us not to save our targets or to take pictures of them. He said that it could be used against us in court if we were involved in a shooting

My CHL instructor said the same thing. He implied, right or wrong, the target could be collected and waved in front of a jury with all kinds of implications. In the civil trial world, the lawyer could imply just about anything from us being good enough that we did not have to shoot the way we did to us being poor enough a shot that we shouldn't be given any leeway.

[K.Mooneyham]

When I qualified for my CHL the instructor told us not to save our targets or to take pictures of them. He said that it could be used against us in court if we were involved in a shooting

My CHL instructor said the same thing. He implied, right or wrong, the target could be collected and waved in front of a jury with all kinds of implications. In the civil trial world, the lawyer could imply just about anything from us being good enough that we did not have to shoot the way we did to us being poor enough a shot that we shouldn't be given any leeway.

Not one bit of personal offense intended toward you, but I would love to ask that instructor, where is the proof of this happening? What case law backs this up? I'm certain the mass media machine would have ran with it if this sort of thing had been used against someone. I've certainly never heard anything like this before, so again, color me skeptical.

[Richbirdhunter]

When I qualified for my CHL the instructor told us not to save our targets or to take pictures of them. He said that it could be used against us in court if we were involved in a shooting

My CHL instructor said the same thing. He implied, right or wrong, the target could be collected and waved in front of a jury with all kinds of implications. In the civil trial world, the lawyer could imply just about anything from us being good enough that we did not have to shoot the way we did to us being poor enough a shot that we shouldn't be given any leeway.

Not one bit of personal offense intended toward you, but I would love to ask that instructor, where is the proof of this happening? What case law backs this up? I'm certain the mass media machine would have ran with it if this sort of thing had been used against someone. I've certainly never heard anything like this before, so again, color me skeptical.

I understand and appreciate your line of thinking. The instructor is a retired cop and that just what he recommended. I'm not sure what the differences between that target and any other target I've shot. I don't save my targets,I look at them for successes and failures

[ELB]

I had a CHL instructor who also directed us to trash the targets because it somehow avoided problems in court later. I had my doubts then and do still, maybe it's just some kind of CHL instructor lore that gets passed around.

And I still think the "expert marksman" dude is a troll.

[JagsfanNtexas]

When I qualified for my CHL the instructor told us not to save our targets or to take pictures of them. He said that it could be used against us in court if we were involved in a shooting

Mine said the same thing. I think I understand what the guy was trying to say, but he's not able to articulate it very well. Basically, if you save a bunch of targets with key hole grouping, the prosecution can hold them up in court and state something along the line that you practice all the time and couldn't wait to shoot someone. However, I don't think they could make the argument of "you should have shot them in the hand, leg, etc.", but they could try to use it to paint you as someone who couldn't wait for the opportunity to deploy their weapon.

They can do all kinds of crazy things when they want a convection and have neither the law or the facts on their side.

[FastCarry]

When I qualified for my CHL the instructor told us not to save our targets or to take pictures of them. He said that it could be used against us in court if we were involved in a shooting

Mine said the same thing. I think I understand what the guy was trying to say, but he's not able to articulate it very well. Basically, if you save a bunch of targets with key hole grouping, the prosecution can hold them up in court and state something along the line that you practice all the time and couldn't wait to shoot someone. However, I don't think they could make the argument of "you should have shot them in the hand, leg, etc.", but they could try to use it to paint you as someone who couldn't wait for the opportunity to deploy their weapon.

They can do all kinds of crazy things when they want a convection and have neither the law or the facts on their side.

Prosecutor: You just couldn't wait to shoot someone huh?! All this practice. All this preparation, refining your technique for that moment, it finally came and you just couldn't wait any longer, right?

CHL: Yes, you are correct, I couldn't wait for the cops to arrive to protect myself.

[baldeagle]

So, there I was reading the ol' FB postings, and on an article about some UT anti-2A student trying to make CHL training look bad, I see the following reply:

One thing they don't understand is that if you are considered an expert shooter, they will hang you in court if you kill in self defense for not just shooting in the leg or hand to stop the threat. Law enforcement is taught "center mass" and it is pass/fail. I was top gun in my academy for most points, not expert shooting.

I asked the individual who posted that (NOT ME!) about any relevant cases he may know of, and we'll see what he has to say, if anything. But, this bunch is about as savvy a group as I know when it comes to this kind of thing, so I'll put the question to all of you. Do any of you know of a case where the defendant shot a "bad guy", killing said bad guy, but was convicted because the defendant was "too good" at shooting? The whole idea seems rather preposterous but then again, I learn something new every day, so I figured I'd run it by y'all.

Anybody who says they were trained to shoot in the leg or hand is a complete and utter liar. Find ONE training course where that is taught. Just one. All deadly force training teaches to shoot for center mass because it's the largest area of the body and the most likely area to not miss. Even then cops generally only hit 25% of the time. Reduce that area to the size of a hand or leg and the odds of hitting the person drops to a dramatically lower number. That person has likely never even shot a gun. Have you ever seen a target with a bullseye for the hand and/or leg? Why do you think that is? If ANYONE was training to shoot the hand or leg, there would be a target for that which you could buy.

Utter foolishness.

[Distinguished Rick]

I will keep with the "One shot, one kill" mantra. End it fast and clean and not endanger innocents. I'll take my chances in court. A good lawyer will argue that training is a benefit, not a reason to convict.