The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
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....Cedar Park Dad wrote:LSUTiger sorry are you saying there is a right to resist police officers? I'm a bit confused by your post.
b322da wrote:The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.
Jim
Good point!That sounds like an excellent way to end up in the hospital or..dead depending on what you're trying to resist with.cb1000rider wrote: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....Cedar Park Dad wrote:LSUTiger sorry are you saying there is a right to resist police officers? I'm a bit confused by your post.
Good luck finding anyone who has used that kind of defense successfully.
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.gringo pistolero wrote:Not wearing a uniform.MeMelYup wrote:What is the deffinition of "in a manner calculated to alarm?"
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.WildBill wrote:b322da wrote:The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.
Jim
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.anygunanywhere wrote: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.WildBill wrote:b322da wrote:The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.
Jim
The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.
Anygunanywhere
I believe they both mean the same thing.b322da wrote: 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.
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;
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.
In this modern day people walking into Walmart slinging loaded chambered ar15s are going to cause alarm.anygunanywhere wrote: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.WildBill wrote:b322da wrote:The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.
Jim
The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.
Anygunanywhere
A-R wrote: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
Don't disagree. It should not be a criminal offense to get the sheeple's panties in a wad.texanjoker wrote:In this modern day people walking into Walmart slinging loaded chambered ar15s are going to cause alarm.anygunanywhere wrote: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.WildBill wrote:b322da wrote:The fact that someone was in fact alarmed is not an element of the criminal offense.
Jim
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.anygunanywhere wrote: The law as it is written is plain and simply there to infringe on our 2A RKBA.
Anygunanywhere
No, I think at least 2 of the 3 are necessary to constitute the offense:b322da wrote:
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
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;