TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Also, there would be no need for the statute to define the term "criminal homicide". The simpler and more general term "homicide" would be adequate.

txinvestigator wrote: Here we disagree. The acts ARE illegal, unless you meet the justification AND can prove it.

OJ was found "not guilty". Does that mean he did not kill Ron and Nicole?

I don't think we disagee at all.

You say yourself the acts are illegal unless you meet the justification AND can prove it.

And I'm saying that if you can meet the justification and can prove it, they are not illegal.

This seems to be exactly the same thing that you are saying.

Where we might disagree (but merely on a technicality) is where you say,

txinvestigator wrote: The murder was committed, it was just justified.

"Murder" is a criminal act by (dictionary) definition. I would regard it as what is defined in the statute as "criminal homicide".

"Homicide" is the general case of the killing of a human being. It may be criminal or not, depending on whether the killing was legal under the law.

In the case given in the OP, I would not say that a murder was committed. It would take a jury trial to fully determine that. All we know at the outset is that a homicide was committed, and that the person who did it freely admits to doing it. So all we need to do is determine whether it was a legal homicide or a criminal homicide.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In the case given in the OP, I would not say that a murder was committed. It would take a jury trial to fully determine that. All we know at the outset is that a homicide was committed, and that the person who did it freely admits to doing it. So all we need to do is determine whether it was a legal homicide or a criminal homicide.

THAT! is what people need to understand about using force.

Yes. I did read the definition.

"Knowingly is defined; (b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge,
with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result."


I know that my actions (shooting someone with a handgun) are reasonably certain to NOT cause the death of the person being shot.

Maybe the problem is with the term "reasonably."

Most persons, being ignorant of firearms wounds, "reasonably" assume that if one shoots another with a handgun, the person shot will automatically die.

Photoman wrote:Yes. I did read the definition.

"Knowingly is defined; (b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge,
with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result."


I know that my actions (shooting someone with a handgun) are reasonably certain to NOT cause the death of the person being shot.

Maybe the problem is with the term "reasonably."

Most persons, being ignorant of firearms wounds, "reasonably" assume that if one shoots another with a handgun, the person shot will automatically die.

So if you got mad at your neighbor and shot him with your pistola, they could not charge you with murder if he died?

txinvestigator wrote:
So if you got mad at your neighbor and shot him with your pistola, they could not charge you with murder if he died?

You have to admit, it would be a novel defense.

To close, if I've learned anything from this forum, it is that Texas law makes about as much sense as a painting by Escher. I'm not going to consider myself a criminal or a murderer, nor do I think God the creator and supreme authority of such matters will, if I shoot someone in self defense and they die.

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:So if you got mad at your neighbor and shot him with your pistola, they could not charge you with murder if he died?

You have to admit, it would be a novel defense.

People try to use the defense, "I was just trying to scare him," all the time. It doesn't work unless maybe your defense attorney is Dick DeGuerin.

This conversation is starting to look a lot like a discussion of whether when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

- Jim

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:
So if you got mad at your neighbor and shot him with your pistola, they could not charge you with murder if he died?

You have to admit, it would be a novel defense.

To close, if I've learned anything from this forum, it is that Texas law makes about as much sense as a painting by Escher. I'm not going to consider myself a criminal or a murderer, nor do I think God the creator and supreme authority of such matters will, if I shoot someone in self defense and they die.

That one won’t fly. You don’t have to intend to kill the person, it is sufficient to intend to cause serious bodily injury by an act that is dangerous to human life. Serious bodily injury is defined rather broadly, so shooting someone with a pistol is going to produce injuries that are very likely to come within the scope of the definition.

Below are the statutory provisions at issue:

TPC §19.02(b) wrote:(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or . . .

TPC §9.01(a)(3) wrote:§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

TPC §1.07(a)(46) wrote:(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

ctxpta wrote:Do you break the law if the following happens??

Person trying to rob you shots at you. Their shot hits you. They appear to be taking another shot. You draw your weapon and shot the person. The person dies.

Did you commit a crime?

Did you break the law? Yes or no?

Was a crime commited? Yes or no?

As Txi said, we're getting too wrapped up in the term "crime." The Penal Code describes conduct that is prohibited, but it also describes circumstances under which it isn't prohibited. These circumstances can be "exceptions" or "defenses."

Note the Penal Code doesn't say "A person commits a crime, if . . .� it says "a person commits an offense if . . . When we use the word crime in the context of whether a "crime" has been committed, we are actually talking about whether a person had been convicted of, or pled guilty to, the offense with which they were charged.

Chas.

Photoman wrote:

ctxpta wrote:Do you break the law if the following happens??

Person trying to rob you shots at you. Their shot hits you. They appear to be taking another shot. You draw your weapon and shot the person. The person dies.

Did you commit a crime?

Did you break the law? Yes or no?

Was a crime commited? Yes or no?

This will be determined if and only if a jury makes a final decision. Yes, I know juries find a defendant "not guilty," rather than "innocent," but we just playing word games at this point.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: This (whether or not a crime was committed or the law was broken) will be determined if and only if a jury makes a final decision.

Chas.

I agree completely.

Going back to the OP, I think the idea was to illustrate the differences between exceptions (to a statute) and defenses to prosecution. And I guess you can do that with the scenario that was presented.

But I think that asking "if a crime was committed" was the wrong question.

I also think that the difference between an exception and a defense is pretty easily explained and grasped, and that class time might be better spent on teaching what constitutes the lawful use of deadly force vs. the unlawful use of such force.

Because in the end, that is the important issue for those who choose to get CHL's.

I think it might be time to lock this thread. We are all in agreement that the shooting was justified and that you should not be convicted.

The debate seems to be revolving around the word "crime". This is not a legal term and each of us seems to be defining it differently. To some of us, it is only a crime if you could be found guilty of it under the law. To others it is a crime if the act is proscribed by law, even if there is a defense. I think there have even been other definitions used in some people's minds where the differences can be more subtle than these two.

This is what will generally happen when we try to discuss technical points of the law with non-technical words. If we are not understanding the basic language being used, we can never agree on the result. So, I think we might consider agreeing to drop this thread.

srothstein wrote:I think it might be time to lock this thread. We are all in agreement that the shooting was justified and that you should not be convicted.

The debate seems to be revolving around the word "crime". This is not a legal term and each of us seems to be defining it differently. To some of us, it is only a crime if you could be found guilty of it under the law. To others it is a crime if the act is proscribed by law, even if there is a defense. I think there have even been other definitions used in some people's minds where the differences can be more subtle than these two.

Actually, my main point is not how the word "crime" is defined. What I see as significant is that the penal code defines the term "criminal homicide". What possibly could be the reason for this, except to distinguish criminal homicide from some other, presumably non-criminal, type of homicide?

There would be no need to define criminal homicide unless there were another type or types of homicide that are not criminal.

When one person kills another, what you have is a homicide. Whether or not it is a criminal homicide remains to be determined, ultimately by a jury.

All in all, I think CTXPTA (troll?) did a bang up job on this one.

I think Liberty, Srothstein and TXinvestigator all were following the path of Instruction I use. I hope many of you read and followed these thoughts and explanations. From my prospective being the one that posed the question...first and foremost YES the law was broken. You most understand this in order to be able to defend yourself. If you cannot prove your justification to a degree that 12 others will believe then you may serve time in prison. Does it mean you will or will not get off? That DEPENDS on your attorneys abilities and the 12 people that sit on that jury. Also, if you do not commit the crime you may not be able to sit in a trail to defend yourself...you may be carried by 6.

To a few of you...saying you DID NOT commit a crime. Think of this. Will there or could there be a grand jury? (before you say NO ask a Law Enforcement in a cut and dry case if a grand jury will review the case.) (This also largely depends on who your DA is and where you live. I would not want to live in Harris County for ANY use of force situation and Travis isn't far behind.) If you answer yes then there is a chance you will go to trial. How can you be in trial if you DID NOT commit a crime? If you go to trial is there a chance that you can be found guilty?

But again...it is best to sit in front of 12 than be carried by 6.

Have a great week all and thanks for participating.

BTW...CHL Instructor/Level 3 combined Instructor/Security Licensed Manager