TexasCHLforum.com

Agreed.

I would defend myself under any circumstance and take my chances. Unrelated class c crimes probably won't sway the jury much. However violating .06/.07 notification goes to the very essence of the issue. In that case the crime itself is directly related to the matter at trial, that is, how can a self defensive shooting take place if you, by law, can not be there with a gun. The shooting would not have been necessary because you have no legal right to be there (another element, by the way) and should not have been there in the first place. In other words, had you followed the law and not been there you would not have needed to defend yourself. Therefore your illegal presence with a gun was an integral ingredient to the circumstance that resulted in the illegal use of deadly force even though it was in self defense. Illegal because you fail to meet the requirements of 9.31, .32.

That makes .06/.07 violations particularly dangerous as it relates to succeptibility to conviction compared to having marajuana in your pocket.

How can you argue that you needed to defend yourself resulting in the death of another when you, as a matter of law, we're prohibited, by law, from being there in the first place? How can you NEED to defend yourself at a location you are prohibited from being at (because you have a gun) and should not have been at? That's what the prosecutor will demand you explain. And it's a very good question. No one made you go into that mall and in fact INSISTED that you do not by legally notifying you by .06/.07 that you were PROHIBITED from doing so, in effect, placing yourself in harms way.

Of course all of this simply triggers whether or not the presumption of reasonableness will be imputed to you.

In my opinion, violating a .06/.07 prohibition is a very dangerous proposition indeed.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:

bear94 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: So are we going to sic the mods on the people telling us to turn right on red from the outside lanes?

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.

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.

So I don't advocate that anybody walk past a 30.06, or turn right on red from the outside lane...

Almost...

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