I haven't been following this thread, but perhaps I have have paid more attention. The "Necessity" defense in TPC 9.22 is just that, a defense to be asserted after arrest, bonding out, hiring an attorney and going to trial. HB56 would create an exception meaning first responders couldn't even be arrested for crossing a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.ninjamedic2293 wrote:Zoo 9.22 by my understanding would provide a defense against prosecution for actions such as obtaining a weapon to engage a known threat. I dont think you would be successful arguing in court against a 30.06 case that the exigent circumstances which brought you to the location were equivalent to the imminent harm cited in 9.22 and justified a non emergent premeditated action such as carry a concealed weapon. Nor would it be sufficient to allow you to carry a weapon in a hospital for example.Zoo wrote:That's a good point ninja. We already have 9.22 on the books. First responders behaving responsibly are already covered by that law. There's no need for this new exception for first responders who do what's right. However, if they don't even meet that very low hurdle of competing harms, well, it doesn't seem worth expending limited political capital to provide cover for bad apples.ninjamedic2293 wrote:You are not legally allowed to break down the door to my home, is that a bad law? No it's an excellent law. First responders working under exigent circumstances are legally allowed to trespass on your property and break down your door, is that a bad law? No it's an excellent law.
Chas.
