TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:[
I wasn't attempting to describe his actions under the law. I was just describing in plain English what he did...attempted to kill someone. In my view there is no negligence here, just an attempt to kill that failed. He didn't shoot at the tires. He clearly didn't accidentally or carelessly shoot out her window, he did it deliberately. Whether that action satisfies a statutory definition is another matter, but I think anyone shooting into your vehicle, knowing it is occupied, is trying to kill you.

Actually, you do not know what he was trying to do. Intent is totally at question here. As stated before, was he just intending to scare her? Was he even intending to do any harm at all? We don't know what was running through his mind, if anything, so until he makes a statement or it comes out in questioning, then it is totally speculation that he was trying to kill her.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I get what you're saying but I don't think there is any ambiguity in this case. Shooting into a vehicle you know to be occupied is attempted murder. I don't think there is any mystery about intent here. His actions tell us all we need to know about his intent. He may now claim he only intended to "scare" her....but his actions belie such a claim.

There is no such thing as attempted murder in Texas. There is criminal attempt, in penal code 15

§ 15.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to
commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to
effect the commission of the offense intended.

The mens rea (mental state) is specific intent to commit an offense. For instance, the mens rea of attempted murder is
the same as the mens rea of completed murder. The offender must have the specific mens rea of the
attempted offense.

Texas courts have held that the language “with specific intent” precludes attempts to commit crimes of
recklessness or criminal negligence. Thus, for instance, there can be no crime of attempted criminally
negligent homicide or attempted manslaughter.

So, basically I think they will stick with the current aggravated assault charge which is a 2nd degree felony.

MechAg94 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:As far as I am concerned, if you fire four rounds into the back of someone's car for no reason other than being cut off, you deserve the same penalty as murder would bring. For the life of me, I don't know why bad shots get dealt more leniency than good shots.

I bet that guy's ears are still ringing. Setting off a .45 inside my car is just about the last thing I ever want to do, let alone four times.

No. Punishment is based mostly on what actually was done as it should be. If you go by intent, you will have to start guessing and imagining what you think the suspects intent was. There isn't anything beyond a reasonable doubt in that.

The guy apparently pulled over and admitted what he had done to the officer on the scene. He may have a sharp temper, but he calmed down pretty quick.