PC 22.05 Deadly Conduct

[A-R]

Just perusing through the penal codes and was wondering what is the exemption to PC 22.05 Deadly Conduct for an otherwise "justified" use of deadly force? It's not explicitely stated in PC 22.05

Common sense of course tells you a prosecutor is not going to charge you with deadly conduct if you meet all the justifications for deadly force in Chapter 9, but what is the legal exemption or "defense to prosecution"? In other words, what's stopping a pinko commie prosecutor from charging everyone who fires a gun at another person with deadly conduct?

Is the "recklessly" portion of the statute what differentiates this from a "good shoot"?

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[speedsix]

...oughta put the bite on a driveby banger...

[WildBill]

Probably the word "reckless". For example if someone was threatening you with deadly force and you pulled your gun and you starting shooting at the person who was in the middle of a crowd of people and you shot or killed some one.

[Ameer]

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

Why aren't they arresting the people at gun shows who are reckless waving guns around?

[A-R]

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

Why aren't they arresting the people at gun shows who are reckless waving guns around?

Good question. Obviously, common sense prevails. But perhaps one or two should be arrested as an example.

[Ameer]

(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.

Why aren't they arresting the people at gun shows who are reckless waving guns around?

Good question. Obviously, common sense prevails. But perhaps one or two should be arrested as an example.

Make an example of the trouble makers is better than posting 30.06 signs to punish good guys.

[sugar land dave]

Probably the word "reckless". For example if someone was threatening you with deadly force and you pulled your gun and you starting shooting at the person who was in the middle of a crowd of people and you shot or killed some one.

That is a very good example.

[srothstein]

Chapter 9 justifications apply to all violations in the Penal Code. There does not have to be a specific exception listed for the section of code.

So, if your use of deadly force is justified in chapter 9, then 9.02 is the defense to prosecution that you are looking for.

The "recklessly" mentioned in section 22.05 is the minimum culpable mental state required. If you can prove recklessness, then you have automatically covered if the offense was done knowingly or intentionally. Similarly, if something was done negligently, then it also covers if it was done recklessly. This is all explained much better than I can if you read Chapter 6 of the Penal Code on culpability.

[A-R]

Chapter 9 justifications apply to all violations in the Penal Code. There does not have to be a specific exception listed for the section of code.

So, if your use of deadly force is justified in chapter 9, then 9.02 is the defense to prosecution that you are looking for.

The "recklessly" mentioned in section 22.05 is the minimum culpable mental state required. If you can prove recklessness, then you have automatically covered if the offense was done knowingly or intentionally. Similarly, if something was done negligently, then it also covers if it was done recklessly. This is all explained much better than I can if you read Chapter 6 of the Penal Code on culpability.

Thank you, Steve. That's the explanation I was looking for.