TexasCHLforum.com

Frank,

The law defines criminal homicide instead of just homicide because not all homicides are criminal. This is just as you think it is. The difference is that the example I refer to when I think of a non-criminal homicide is one where there is no criminal negligence. One example of this is when I am driving down a street and a child runs out in front of me. If I kill him in the accident, this is a homicide (death of a person by another person) that is non-criminal.

The reason I think you are actually debating the word crime is in your last post. You say the DA thinks a crime was committed. The Grand jury thinks a crime was committed. Then you change to the jury finds you guilty or not guilty of violating the law. This implies to me a different definition of a crime.

As one example of why I think the crime was committed when the act happened, no matter what the jury says, look at the Sixth Amendment. It gives you rights in a criminal prosecution that is where the crime occurred (its wording). If the jury says it was not a crime, where does the trial have to take place?

It is a crime to violate the law. It is not always punishable under the law to commit a crime. Does that help you understand my position better?

And since I recommended that we lock this one, I am going to have to agree to disagree and not post in this thread again. At least I hope I can resist the temptation.

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.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If you're found not guilty, doesn't that mean that in the collective judgement of the finders of fact (the jury) that you did not commit a crime?

As was previously posted, a jury does not decide if you committed a crime, but if the state has proven that you are guilty of an offense against the laws of the state. They may find you not guilty because you have conclusive evidence you did not do it (such as the Perry Mason/Legally Blond trick of getting another person to confess while on the stand). They may decide you are not guilty because the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did the act (as in many cases), they may decide you are not guilty because the law said the act was justified (as in the case with the CHL in Austin and the car burglar), or they may decide you are not guilty because the law is wrong and should not apply (jury nullification).

Compare it to the case of a robber who is never arrested. Just because the police cannot solve it to make a case, did the person commit a crime when he robbed the store?

In most cases, the law would say the crime is in the act committed, not in what happens afterwards. We even use this as the common definition of unsolved crimes.

Another way to look at it is to see if the reason you could do your act was if it was a defense or an exception. It is not a crime for a CHL to carry a pistol on or about his person because it is an exception to the law of unlawfully carrying. It is a crime to shoot someone, even though you may have a defense of justification.

What the three year old would answer, and where some of the posters here may be having a problem, is in the morality of the act. Is it wrong to shoot someone to defend yourself? I don't think so, and I am willing to bet that the majority, if not all, of the posters in this forum would agree with me. Is it illegal? Yes.

Never confuse the law with morality or right and wrong. Also do not confuse it with fairness or justice. While we like to think we strive for fairness and justice and morality through the law, the law is just the law and not necessarily any of the above.[/quote]

Plus, all one is trying to do is stop the attack. One is not intentionally trying to kill the BG.

Now what is intentional is the use of deadly force. So one would be aware that their actions could cause the death of the BG. But that is not the same thing as intending to cause that death.

Actually, it would still be murder. The second clause on murder is that you intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act dangerous to human life which caused a death. If you wanted to argue you did not intend to injure at all, and were just trying to get him to stop the attack, you could still be charged with various other felonies, possibly aggravated assault or deadly conduct. Deadly conduct is just pointing a firearm in someone's direction, with the felony upgrade if you fired it. It does not have to be aimed at him or the intent to injure anyone.

All of this is debating which crime, not if you committed a crime at all though.

As a peace officer, a TCLEOSE certified instructor, and the training coordinator for a law enforcement agency, let me take a stab at this question. It is a great one for getting students to understand the law.

First, we have to define a non-legal term here. What is a crime? If we go with the normal definition, a crime is a violation of the laws of the state. If you define this word differently, you may come up with a different answer than I did.

Given the situation as described, you have committed a crime. You have committed the offense of Murder in violation of Penal Code section 19.02. Please note that this chapter reads as follows:

(a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(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
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

It is clear to me that you have intentionally killed a human being, thus have committed a crime as shown above. Now, were you able to do so legally? Yes. There is a justification of self-defense and we all agrree it applies. But what most of you have forgotten is that justification is a defense to prosecution, not an exception from the law. Penal Code chapter 9.02 shows us this as follows:

It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

So, you have committed a crime and can be arrested and charged for it. You should be found not guilty by virtue of the justification defense, but you did commit the crime.

And when you think about it, we all know that this is true since we can all think of examples of people who justifiably used force and were still charged and tried. We even talk about having a lawyer available to defend us if we get involved in a shooting. If it was not a crime, could a lawyer defend us from the police?