TexasCHLforum.com

This one may be a notch more likely than someone trying to grab your gun, but not by much

Scenario: You and BG are separated by 20 feet. You are on one side of a state boundary, he stands in another state. You shoot him and he dies.

Which state's laws would have jurisdiction governing this incident?

You produced a deadly weapon and used deadly force in the state you were standing. However it might be argued the death occurred in the state the BG was standing in.

Would it make a difference if you produced a weapon but did not shoot?

Would it make a difference if you shot the other guy, but not fatally?

Would neither state's laws apply since it was crossing state boundaries? If so then what happens?

Edit: Tangents are welcomed and encouraged

I think the feds would claim jurisdiction because at least one of you engaged in some kind of interstate commerce at some time in your life.

The real question is where do they bury the survivors?

I am sure it would be a combination of the two in the initial investigation and both would decide what they would do. Your right....it isn't much better than the other one. Makes my head hurt when I read those sorts of things.

There are parts of this state where this scenario might actually occur. Texarkana is just one place where it is at least theoretically possible.

And the answer is most likely both states laws would apply and you could face trial in both states. Here is how Texas views it legally (Section 1.04 of the Penal Code):

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. (a) This state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible if:
(1) either the conduct or a result that is an element of the offense occurs inside this state;

I am sure the other state has a similar law. Most states do. And just for the record, one shooting and two trials is not double jeopardy the way the law sees it if the two different jurisdictions file charges.

Did the round you discharge have the proper interstate permits to travel across state lines???

I'm thinking the IRS might step in and audit you for not paying a tax on that particular discharge of your firearm...

You said tangents were acceptable...So I am tangenting...

shootthesheet wrote: I am sure it would be a combination of the two in the initial investigation and both would decide what they would do. Your right....it isn't much better than the other one. Makes my head hurt when I read those sorts of things.

Well I love such unlikely scenarios. As a professional programmer and armchair philosopher I'm always thinking of unlikely edge cases. I'm sure I'll post more scenarios in the future you'll loathe as well

stevie_d_64 wrote:Did the round you discharge have the proper interstate permits to travel across state lines???

I'm thinking the IRS might step in and audit you for not paying a tax on that particular discharge of your firearm...

You said tangents were acceptable...So I am tangenting...

They did not, but in my defense the guy was a jerk and just needed a killing.

or scenario B:

He's standing along side two infants in a stroller waving a gun between them. He tell's me I have to choose who gets shot otherwise they both die.

There would likely be a confab between the DA's on both sides of the border. Whichever one has a burr under his/her saddle or sees opportunity will want the case. If both do, you're screwed.

The projectile will be put on trial because it actually crossed the state line and did the killing.