TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:So in our scenario even though you clearly engaged in conduct that meets the statutory requirement of criminal homicide, you can use the defense to prosecution based on 9.32 (deadly force in defense of a person) to be found not-guilty.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes. Thanks. As I am not a lawyer and have never been invovled in a criminal case in Texas, I have trouble with concepts like "defense" and "presumption."

On a practical level, it seems that when you clearly have a defense, you may not even be arrested. Many justified self-defense shooters are not arrested.

- Jim

txinvestigator wrote:For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

kauboy wrote:I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!

The legal term for that is exception.

I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

- Jim

There have been a number of incidents where nutcases damaged works of art. Probably the museums' lawyers told them to ban weapons.

- Jim