Technically true, but if the prosecutor is out to indict you, you're going to get indicted, 30.06 or no. If you find yourself in a position where you need to pull the trigger, you really ought to pull it (even if you're in a school that gets 51% of its revenue from on-premises alcohol sales). When being careless about violating a class c misdemeanor, like 30.06 or speeding, one is generally balancing the penalty against the circumscribed conduct. The penalty is in line with what society feels the damage caused by the crime is. That's why every case is not capital. Intentionally, shooting someone is aggravated assault at a minimum, a felony. So you're much better off putting your concern into whether shooting is right, than scrutinizing the mishmash of signs on a (perhaps) posted location.thetexan wrote:Almost...ScottDLS wrote:Yes. It's been discussed before if you use deadly force while committing a non-traffic crime (even class C), you lose your automatic presumption of justification for deadly force. First, if I need to use my gun, that's the last thing I'm worrying about. Second, if the DA decides you weren't justified, you're going to get indicted, presumption or not. It's like if you're speeding 1 mile over and somebody jumps in front of you and you hit them, it's going to be a little harder to "beat the rap" for vehicular manslaughter IF you're charged with it.bear94 wrote:I loved the jest but it does bring up a very real scenario that I don't think has been tested in trial yet; that is a LTC holder having to defend themselves in any area that has a proper 30.06 posting. Let's be honest, it's a class C in most cases and many people are going to pass right by those signs, however, you are still breaking the law as it is currently written. I can't think of the specific statute but I remember something about unlawful carry while engaging in criminal activity that isn't a class c traffic misdemeanor.ScottDLS wrote: So are we going to sic the mods on the people telling us to turn right on red from the outside lanes?
So I don't advocate that anybody walk past a 30.06, or turn right on red from the outside lane...
What you lose is the presumption that your BELIEF that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force was reasonable, a key element of the statute. If you are committing a crime you lose the legally imputed presumption of reasonableness and therefore must defend that belief at trial. The difference is that in the first case you will be acquitted as a matter of law (assuming you are not in violation of any other elements) and in the latter your claim of reasonableness will be challenged and left up to the jury to decide if indeed it was reasonable. Then, if they do not, you might go to prison for any number of years.
tex
The reason the presumption is limited to those not committing a crime, is to make it harder for bad actors to plead self defense when they did something that caused the situation to develop. (e.g. disorderly conduct, fighting, stealing, then the proprietor physically restrained you, then you shot him...). If you shoot someone, the likelihood of being prosecuted is not likely going to be increased by something unrelated to the situation that caused the shooting. Technically, if I shoot someone breaking into my house while I'm watering my lawn on the wrong day (class c in my town) I lose the presumption that my belief was reasonable. Now if it was the City Code inspector, I'd deserve it, but if it was an ISIS terrorist with a SIG MCX...I'm going to be a little less worried if my watering timer was set correctly.
\
\
