what law governs accidental shooting of a person in Texas?
111318
probably involuntary manslaughter, possibly criminal negligence. by the way, take them to the hospital.
1173040
I guess it would depend on the facts of the case. Involuntary manslaughter is usually the verdict if the death was some sort of an accident. I was at a Friends house one time, he was cleaning a gun that went off accidentally. It shot another friend of mine thru the leg, but it was an accident. Granted he wasn't practicing ideal firearm safety. If it was accidental the ten years would be enough. Hard to say not knowing the facts.
611023
Here are all of Texas' statutes. You can use the Search tab to find long-arm. I hope this helps and good luck!\n\nhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
93936
If you can avoid a police cruiser chasing your butt down the highway, in any state, let alone Texas, you get an award for stupidity.  And if the vehicle isn't moving, where you going to hide, in the trunk? I know - crawl inside the gas tank and light a cigarette.  Nuff said.
1049202
No it is not illegal. Actually I think you have the right to defend yourself and your property set out in the Constitution!\n\nThe Castle Rock v. Gonzales Case\nThe estranged husband of Mrs. Gonzales had taken their children in violation of a restraining order issued by the state of Colorado. Police failed to respond even after repeated calls from Mrs. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales murdered the children and committed suicide by attacking a police station with his hand gun. Mrs. Gonzales sued the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado for monetary damages. She lost. The U.S. Supreme Court held\n\n  "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a State shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' ... [but this] does not 'requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.' ...\n\nIt is inappropriate here to [infer] that Colorado law gave [Gonzales] a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. ...\n\nColorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statues." \n\nThe initial complaint by Gonzales named three police officers. The U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that they had a "qualified immunity." The case was decided June 27, 2005.\n\n   NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.\n\n      [1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)\n\n    NRS 200.160  Additional cases of justifiable homicide.  Homicide is also justifiable when committed:\n\n      1.  In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or\n\n      2.  In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.\n\n      [1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)
742294
I am not sure if you want the actual laws or how often the crimes occur.\n\nI am guessing you wanted the laws and misspelled the word statute, even though the previous poster thought you wanted statistics.\n\nThe site below will give you the Texas homicide laws. I do not have the Louisiana laws, but you probably already have those.
479063
Does not matter even if it is not a friend, the laws surrounding the act of 'SELF DEFENCE' govern this.\n\nIf you see somebody being attacked, threatened, robbed, you are allowed to use 'reasonable force' in order to stop that attack - this is classified as SELF DEFENCE - even if you do not know the person that you are defending.  \n\nThe big question is what can be construed as REASONABLE FORCE, for example, if you see somebody being beaten up by somebody else, pull out your gun and shoot them, that is nor reasonable.  However if you try to stop the person from beating up the other person, and in doing this the person that you have stopped is injured or dies, this can be accounted as REASONABLE FORCE - but helps to have a good lawyer to!
501925
In any state, reckless endangerment is any person in possession of a firearm who recklessly and sometimes knowingly handles a firearm in a manner in which the potential for another individual to be harmed or possibly harmed is present. If there was no mechanical defect such as a faulty firing pin,etc. then, if the accidental shooting results in death, you're looking at possible manslaughter charges. If a party is injured, then most likely it will go somewhere. The discretion lies entirely with the lead investigator and the D.A.'s office.
953834
There is one exception that I am aware of and that is in Texas, where a felon can have a gun in his own home if it's been 10 years since their the crime or when he got out of jail and you haven't broken any other laws.. (I forget the exact details).
988155
They can now and here in Florida it is legal for a person to shoot if they feel that they are in danger for their life. And you know what, if someone bashed my door down I'd shoot first and ask questions later. I think this may be very bad for all the police trying to do their jobs. What in Gods' name were they thinking? Some idiot right wingers may think this is OK but heaven help the cops.
166090
Just Alabama.  States don't recognize other states CCW laws.  Check at NRA.com to be sure.
707271
Texas Curfew Violations\nSec. 28-172. Offenses.\n\n(a) It shall be unlawful far any minor to knowingly remain, walk, run, stand. drive or ride about, in or upon any public place in the city between the hours of 12:00 at night (midnight) and 6:00 a.m. on any day of the week or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. \n\n(b) It shall be unlawful for the parent or guardian having legal custody of a minor to knowingly allow or permit the minor to be in violation of the curfew imposed in section 28-172(a) of this Code. \n\n(c) Violations of this section shall be punishable as provided in section 1-6 of this Code. \n\nSec. 28-173. Defenses.\n\nIt is a defense to prosecution under section 28-172 of this Code that: \n\n(a) The minor was accompanied by his or her parent or guardian; \n\n(b) The minor was accompanied by an adult designated by his or her parent or guardian; \n\n(c) The minor was on an errand made necessary by an emergency; \n\n(d) The minor was attending a school, religious, or government-sponsored activity or was traveling to or from a school, religious, or government-sponsored activity; \n\n(e) The minor was engaged in an (sic) lawful employment activity or was going directly to or coming directly from lawful employment; \n\n(f) The minor was on the sidewalk of the place where he or she resides; \n\n(g) The minor was on an errand directed by his or her parent or guardian; \n\n(h) The minor was in a motor vehicle involved in intrastate or interstate transportation; \n\n(i) The minor was engaged in, participating in, or traveling to or from any event, function or activity for which the application of section 28-172 of this Code would contravene his or her rights protected by the Texas or United States Constitutions; \n\n(j) The minor was married or had been married or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with chapter 31 or the Texas Family Code; or \n\n(k) With respect to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. only, that the offense occurred during the school summer vacation break period of the school in which the minor is enrolled or on a holiday observed by the closure of classes in the school in which the minor is enrolled or that the minor has graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency certificate.
533980
The definitions of the establishment's responsibility for a drunk patron are fuzzy.\n\nA bartender is obligated to cut-off a person that they perceive to be intoxicated. However, this is a vague definition. The bartender may not notice that you are slurring, for example, if he doesn't pay attention to your conversations. It often boils down to one person's word against another. \n\nThe result of this law is that if you were to get in a wreck and hurt someone, THAT person could sue the establishment for negligence. However, you will not be held blameless, either. If you kill someone, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide. You could be charged with attempted v. mansl. or attempted v. homicide if you only hurt someone. That's a criminal charge, whereas the charge of negligence would be a civil matter. The establishment would also likely be fined and be in danger of losing their liquor license.\n\nYou cannot sue the bartender or the establishment for damages because you got a DUI. Getting a DUI is YOUR fault and you are on your own. It's only when there's some kind of harm to an innocent that an establishment can be held responsible for personal damages. You can file a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and they will investigate and possibly impose fines or suspension of the liquor license. Not likely, though.\n\nIt happens often that people get visibly drunk in bars. And, it happens often that people hurt others in accidents as a result. The problem is proving that the bartender knew that the person was drunk. Another problem is proving where the person got drunk in the first place. If they can't remember leaving the bar, then it isn't likely that a jury or a judge would accept their claim that they remember where they got drunk in the first place. Many people bar-hop, for instance. What if you went somewhere else after you left that bar? You see the problem. Many people that get in trouble will also not "rat" and will say that they don't remember where they have been or that they were drinking at home.\n\nI could keep going, but this is getting long...
888242
No, I doubt there's a "special law" for it. It would be considered murder, homocide or voluntary manslaughter.\n\nBut if the pregnant woman kills her own child after birth, then there's a law for that.
725242
Depends on the situation. In self defense, any can use deadly force, as long as they do not become the aggressor. If you are being attacked, or, someone is threatening you, they take this so called " reasonable and prudent person" out of the closet. If the R and P person would, in the same situation, be in fear of their life or grave injury, then yes, self defense can be claimed. NOW, if you use a weapon, and stop the attack, then back off, all is well. but if you continue, by say, standing over the prone attacker and empty the gun, or beat them into a bloody pulp, no, you have crossed the line.\n\nMost of its common sense and as long as you stay on the defense in any situation, use the force necessary to stop an assault, you are OK.
36138
Go to Texas.  Kill someone.  Turn yourself in.  You'll learn all about it.
1186688
Everyone's ones circumstances differ too much to find an answer to that question on here. You need to go talk to a lawyer in TX.