Calculated to alarm

[cb1000rider]

LSUTiger sorry are you saying there is a right to resist police officers? I'm a bit confused by your post.

I think he quoted the law correctly. If you're not resisting and the police are using "excessive" force with you, then you get to resist....
Good luck finding anyone who has used that kind of defense successfully.

[b322da]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

[WildBill]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

Good point!

[Cedar Park Dad]

LSUTiger sorry are you saying there is a right to resist police officers? I'm a bit confused by your post.

I think he quoted the law correctly. If you're not resisting and the police are using "excessive" force with you, then you get to resist....
Good luck finding anyone who has used that kind of defense successfully.

That sounds like an excellent way to end up in the hospital or..dead depending on what you're trying to resist with.

I thought the law had actually been changed where this was no longer a defense?

[nightmare]

What is the deffinition of "in a manner calculated to alarm?"

Not wearing a uniform.

I think you're on to something there. If a citizen is carrying in a holster like a police officer, how can that be calculated to alarm unless the uniform is the difference.

Maybe they think only the police and military need guns.

[anygunanywhere]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

Good point!

So exactly how can the determination be made that someone was carrying in a manner intended to alarm when no one is in fact alarmed by what they are doing?? That is like saying someone gets arrested for murder whan no one has been killed.

The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

[b322da]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

Good point!

So exactly how can the determination be made that someone was carrying in a manner intended to alarm when no one is in fact alarmed by what they are doing?? That is like saying someone gets arrested for murder whan no one has been killed.

The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

The defendant's intention is very often an element of a criminal offense, and his intention must be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. If not admitted, his intention must necessarily be proved by circumstantial evidence. Criminal statutes of the several states, including Texas, are liberally sprinkled with the intention to commit a crime being a crime itself. For example, if the law has not changed recently, if one enters a habitation in Texas intending to commit a felony, with one exception, he has committed a felony of the first degree. He does not have to succeed in committing the intended felony, he only has to have the intention to do so as he enters the habitation.

Is "calculated to" any different than "intended to?" Indeed your question itself uses "intended to" rather than "calculated to." "Calculated to" is proved in exactly the same way as "intended to" would be proved, usually of necessity by circumstantial evidence.

I will not enter into a debate about the correctness of your final sentence. I will leave that to others, should there be any here on the forum who might suspect that the legislature intended instead to protect the general population from being intimidated, frightened, "alarmed," if you will, and such, which might under some circumstances lead to conflict, perhaps armed conflict, endangering the safety or the lives of the actors and others.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

"Calculated to cause alarm" is a crime for the thought police to investigate.

Anygunanywhere

[WildBill]

Is "calculated to" any different than "intended to?" Indeed your question itself uses "intended to" rather than "calculated to." "Calculated to" is proved in exactly the same way as "intended to" would be proved, usually of necessity by circumstantial evidence.

I believe they both mean the same thing.

cal·cu·lat·ed /ˈkalkyəˌlātid/
adjective: calculated1. (of an action) done with full awareness of the likely consequences.
"a calculated decision"
synonyms: deliberate, premeditated, planned, preplanned, preconceived, intentional, intended, willful;

[A-R]

I'm certainly no lawyer, and don't really have much to back this up other than my own personal connotation; but "calculated to" seems to me to be a small step down from "intended to" on the sliding scale of "whut were you thinkin'?", or - in legal terms - "criminal culpability".

As detail below, the Texas Penal Code lists 4 levels of culpable mental states. The question is WHY did the legislature deem necessary to use a different mental state for PC 42.01 (a)(8)? Is this an anachronism left over from past versions of Texas law? If any lawyer types know I'd be very interested to hear the history and (more importantly) any modern interpretation of "calculated to".

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

[texanjoker]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

Good point!

So exactly how can the determination be made that someone was carrying in a manner intended to alarm when no one is in fact alarmed by what they are doing?? That is like saying someone gets arrested for murder whan no one has been killed.

The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

In this modern day people walking into Walmart slinging loaded chambered ar15s are going to cause alarm.

[b322da]

I'm certainly no lawyer, and don't really have much to back this up other than my own personal connotation; but "calculated to" seems to me to be a small step down from "intended to" on the sliding scale of "whut were you thinkin'?", or - in legal terms - "criminal culpability".

As detail below, the Texas Penal Code lists 4 levels of culpable mental states. The question is WHY did the legislature deem necessary to use a different mental state for PC 42.01 (a)(8)? Is this an anachronism left over from past versions of Texas law? If any lawyer types know I'd be very interested to hear the history and (more importantly) any modern interpretation of "calculated to".
SKIP

It could be argued, A-R, that the words "intentionally or knowingly," in 42.01(a) are made into surplusage as to 42.01(a)(8) by the use of the words "calculated to" therein. If they are not surplusage as to 42.02(a)(8) we could be led deeper into the brambles as to the meaning of "calculated to." I would never dare to speculate as to the intent of the Texas legislature, which, of course, I would have to do to attempt an answer to your question.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.

Jim

Good point!

So exactly how can the determination be made that someone was carrying in a manner intended to alarm when no one is in fact alarmed by what they are doing?? That is like saying someone gets arrested for murder whan no one has been killed.

The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

In this modern day people walking into Walmart slinging loaded chambered ar15s are going to cause alarm.

Don't disagree. It should not be a criminal offense to get the sheeple's panties in a wad.

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

As written it allows LEOs to determine our 2nd amendment rights at will.

[A-R]

It could be argued, A-R, that the words "intentionally or knowingly," in 42.01(a) are made into surplusage as to 42.01(a)(8) by the use of the words "calculated to" therein. If they are not surplusage as to 42.02(a)(8) we could be led deeper into the brambles as to the meaning of "calculated to." I would never dare to speculate as to the intent of the Texas legislature, which, of course, I would have to do to attempt an answer to your question.

Jim

No, I think at least 2 of the 3 are necessary to constitute the offense:

You must intentionally or knowingly DISPLAY the gun (in other words if you unintentionally left your rifle bag unzipped, thus displaying your rifle, then no offense ...

... AND the MANNER of display must be calculated to alarm. So even if you intentionally display your gun, if it's not done so in the "manner calculated to alarm" you should be ok.

So there are two culpabilities that must be met for two different conditions.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;