TexasCHLforum.com

Browsing their website and ran across these numbers. Saw that out of 371 murders, 2 were CHL holders. Does anyone have information on those 2? Very curious if they claimed SD.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rt2007.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know about those two, but self defense is not murder. Maybe they really are murders. That's still only a hair more than .5% and that is probably the worst year for CHL holders.

Well, if they were convicted, then obviously it was.

The use of deadly force resulting in the death of the person who was shot where the use of deadly force is not justifed can result in murder conviction.

Beiruty wrote:The use of deadly force resulting in the death of the person who was shot where the use of deadly force is not justifed can result in murder conviction.

No way!!!!!

That's kind of where I was going with that. If it truly was self defense the it would have been justified and they would not have been convicted. However, since they were convicted it was probably not self defense. At least a legitimate one.

I think someone in this forum and/or the TSRA would know about a self-defense case that was prosecuted as murder.

Maybe one was this guy, though the incident occurred a bit too recently for a verdict:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the rocket scientist who allegedly shot at a car driven by an off-duty officer and killed a girl, because he thought they might steal his "rims."

- Jim

Interesting....

A few highlights that struck me...

UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER... 15 people convicted, six were CHL's. So who were the other nine? I can only figure out of state licensees.

UNL CARRYING WEAPON... Seems like it would be pretty hard to be convicted of this (46.02) if you have a CHL, since CHL is a non-applicability of 46.02. Maybe it was people who were not carrying their CHL at the time.

Note NO 30.06 convictions....NONE in all of 2007.

Thanks for the link. Committing a crime then shooting at the person you committed the crime against. Nice.

Seeing those stats just sparked some curiosity on whether or not if they were flat out murders of if they were more complicated cases where the CHL holders thought they were acting in SD, but found to be otherwise (like the story above).

ScottDLS wrote:UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER... 15 people convicted, six were CHL's. So who were the other nine? I can only figure out of state licensees.

UNL CARRYING WEAPON... Seems like it would be pretty hard to be convicted of this (46.02) if you have a CHL, since CHL is a non-applicability of 46.02. Maybe it was people who were not carrying their CHL at the time.

These come up every year. No one knows. Most likely they are coding errors or plea bargains.

The topic has been discussed before:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is very unlikely that someone would be convicted of a crime for not having a CHL in his possession if the person had a valid CHL. Any halfway decent attorney could get that charge dismissed if the DA was a big enough male donkey to pursue it.

ScottDLS wrote:Note NO 30.06 convictions....NONE in all of 2007.

As far as I know, no one has ever been convicted of a 30.06 violation in 13 years since the law passed.

About a quarter of the messages on this forum are agonizing over nothing.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It is very unlikely that someone would be convicted of a crime for not having a CHL in his possession if the person had a valid CHL. Any halfway decent attorney could get that charge dismissed if the DA was a big enough male donkey to pursue it.

The law says a licensee must be carrying the license for 46.02 to not apply. It seems like a slam dunk to me if the DA takes it to trial, but I understand defense attorneys have all manner of ways to make deals with the DA.

Believe it or not, prosecutors are not interesting in nailing everyone to the wall for every technical offense. They have limited resources and try to go after the real criminals, the junkies, and celebrities who will get their name in the news.

About half of state criminal charges are dismissed, and about 90% of the rest result in plea bargains. Only about 3% of state criminal charges go to trial.

(Federal charges are another story. If the feds indict you, you're toast.)

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Believe it or not, prosecutors are not interesting in nailing everyone to the wall for every technical offense. They have limited resources and try to go after the real criminals, the junkies, and celebrities who will get their name in the news.

About half of state criminal charges are dismissed, and about 90% of the rest result in plea bargains. Only about 3% of state criminal charges go to trial.

(Federal charges are another story. If the feds indict you, you're toast.)

- Jim

Interestingly, I've heard that US Attorneys are rarely interested in prosecuting federal misdemeanors...like Post Office carry to name one... They also don't like cases that have a strong probability of resulting in a law being struck down as unconstitutional...like GFSZA in the absence of some other crime.

A friend who is a DEA special agent once told me that they generally won't pursue cases dealing with less than 7 kilograms of cocaine or 15 kilograms of marijuana. That's not to say that they never will, but resources are limited (yeah...hard to believe with the feds...).

I understand prosecutorial discretion but that seems at odds with "the DA was a big enough male donkey to pursue it" premise. Anyhow, I agree plea bargains would be a more likely explanation.

In addition to the two murder cases mentioned at the top, I'm wondering (morbid curiousity) if anyone knows the details behind the following CHL convictions:

ScottDLS wrote:Interestingly, I've heard that US Attorneys are rarely interested in prosecuting federal misdemeanors...like Post Office carry to name one...

I've noticed that. You never hear of someone being convicted of a federal misdemeanor.

No one has ever been prosecuted for carrying a weapon in a post office unless the person committed a more serious crime like aggravated assault or robbery. The same goes for the "gun free school zone" law as renewed in 1995 or whenever that was.

However, law enforcement in post offices and other federal facilities that are open to the public frequently is turned over to local police and prosecuted in state courts. In many cases this would be some form of unlawful weapon possession. You would never hear of the incident as a federal offense.

Federal law would have to be enforced by postal inspectors or postal police, both of which are not all that numerous. Postal inspectors mostly go after mail fraud cases. I have seen postal police once in my life. I didn't know they existed until 2008.

- Jim