Yes. My new Senator, Kirk Watson, added a very good ammendment to the Committee Substitute which would eliminate the 'presumption of reasonableness' if a person were in a place he did not have a right to be or if he were engaged in criminal activity (other than Class C traffic violations) at the time of the incident, or if he provoked the initial assault.jrosto wrote:Did the Senate Committee change the wording like the House committee did?
The purpose of this change was to address the concerns that a real 'Bad Guy' might offer the presumption as a means to defend against prosecution. As an example, a dope dealer selling out of his car who gets hijacked or a thug in a bar with a firearm (a felony) who shoots another thug in the bar. A DWI/DUID violator could not use this defense.
They still would start with the presumption of innocence (properly so) but they could not use the presumptions of this bill, as its purpose is to protect truly law abiding folks who were met with a forcible threat through no fault of their own.
I was impressed with Sen. Watson's grasp of the situation and his well-thought-out ammendment. He is a former Mayor of Austin, and he gave me a very pleasant suprise.
I have not yet been able to find the exact wording of the Committee Substitutes of either bill at this point.