Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, I'm ignoring them. They're not relevant to the definition of murder.
There are four kinds of criminal homicide in Texas: murder, capital murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. The existence of defenses like self-defense has nothing to do with whether a person's acts meet the definition any of those crimes.
When an act of homicide takes place, the circumstances of the act are compared to each section to see which one best "fits"--otherwise, a conviction is unlikely.
If the homicide fits self-defense as defined by section 9:31, the other sections are not even considered.
So in Texas you can't define a particular homicide as "murder" without looking at how the circumstances might fit every section.
That's why other posters have pointed out that the single section you've quoted leaves big holes...those holes are covered by the other sections.
It's not a change. Self-defense is a "defense". A "defense" is a legal excuse that applies where the defendant's' conduct technically satisfies the elements of the crime (or civil cause of action).
Right but the burden is on prosecution to prove it was not self defense. They have to show you intended, knowingly, recklessly or negligently killed someone not in self defense. She was certainly negligent maybe reckless so that would be manslaughter at most.
Right but that's only if you ignore the entire circumstance that led to the homicide. You can't ignore the circumstances that led to the homicide, namely that she entered the wrong apartment allegedly without intent or knowingly or awareness. That being the case she would only be criminally negligent which is considered criminally negligent homicide. You can't just isolate the part where she intentionally pulls the trigger.
So it appears clear the defense will be a non complying victim leading to the shooting.
And why she would not have known she was not in her apartment is reasonably clear if you look at the floor plan for the apartment. Basically there is nothing visible that would differentiate her apartment from the victims until you penetrate the first hallway. So with the lights out she would not know it is not her place.
When an act of homicide takes place, the circumstances of the act are compared to each section to see which one best "fits"--otherwise, a conviction is unlikely.
If the homicide fits self-defense as defined by section 9:31, the other sections are not even considered.
So in Texas you can't define a particular homicide as "murder" without looking at how the circumstances might fit every section.
That's why other posters have pointed out that the single section you've quoted leaves big holes...those holes are covered by the other sections.
Exactly, one could intentionally pulled the trigger on someone in one of the following scenarios:
Acting in self defense- innocent, no charges
Believing you are acting in self defense because of your negligent actions -criminally negligent homicide
Aware you are shooting or acting in a dangerous or risky manner but do it anyway and someone unintentionally or in self defense gets shots-manslaughter
Intended and or knew you were shooting the victim not in self defense-murder.
She knew him. She knew there was likely pot there.
Yeah but, why would any judge worth his oath sign off on that? She committed a nefarious deed costing someone their life. Criminal intent might not be present, but stupidity and lack of the correct training sure was.
Her mistake cost a life and that's all the system need be concerned with now.
Why is it now relevant in any way as to the character of the victim?
I'm obviously missing some aspect of the justice system that has nothing whatsoever to do with "justice".
When an act of homicide takes place, the circumstances of the act are compared to each section to see which one best "fits"--otherwise, a conviction is unlikely.
If the homicide fits self-defense as defined by section 9:31, the other sections are not even considered.
So in Texas you can't define a particular homicide as "murder" without looking at how the circumstances might fit every section.
That's why other posters have pointed out that the single section you've quoted leaves big holes...those holes are covered by the other sections.
This is all wrong. Murder is defined by the murder statute. If something meets that definition, it's murder, and no other sections are relevant to that determination. That doesn't mean it's not also some other crime, but it is murder.
If a murder is committed (according to the definition in section 19.02), the prosecutor can decide not to charge because he thinks the killing was justified. Or, if the prosecutor charges someone with murder, the accused can raise the defense.
Yeah but, why would any judge worth his oath sign off on that? She committed a nefarious deed costing someone their life. Criminal intent might not be present, but stupidity and lack of the correct training sure was.
Someone tell me. Why would a judge sign one under any circumstance here? They did.
Quote:
Her mistake cost a life and that's all the system need be concerned with now.
Why is it now relevant in any way as to the character of the victim?
I'm obviously missing some aspect of the justice system that haves nothing whatsoever to do with "justice".
But the law is operating under the principle of you have to have acted with a guilty mind to be considered guilty. In other words, even if you intentionally shoot someone your mental state has to intend or know it was not in self defense for it to be murder.
The murder statute is not operating in a vacuum or alone and other sections and principles apply.
So it appears clear the defense will be a non complying victim leading to the shooting.
No, that's what your link says at all. There's nothing about "non-complying victim". All there is is a claim from a criminal defense lawyer that the arrest warrant doesn't specify a crime, which is something completely different from whether there actually was a crime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
