Specific Crimes Against Persons

¶ … Crimes Against Persons in Texas

Specific Crimes against Persons: Determining the Presence of Crimes

Although Max shot his friend and hunting companion Rich in the shoulder, there is no real basis for criminal charges here. Essentially, the two men were following the laws and regulations for hunting in the state of Texas almost to the tee, but failed to vocally call out his shot before firing, which was Max's only misstep (Hurteau & Love, 2006). There are negligence laws in the state of Texas which would allow Max to be charged if he failed to act appropriately under the regulations for hunting. Thus, if Max did not look for anything orange, or if the two men had not had all the appropriate hunting licensing. Hunters are required to take mandatory safety classes in the state of Texas and then follow very clear guidelines while hunting, including wearing orange or bright safety gear and staying in different locations, away from their fellow hunters (Hurteau & Love, 2006). Max and Rich did follow these guidelines; all accept the need for Max to formally announce his shot. Still, this is one of the rules in Texas that is heavily debated, because vocally announcing one's shot could scare off the game in one's sights. Still, Rich may have the grounds to sue Max, but there is still no criminal crime here. Moreover, it is clear that Max was aiming for the deer, since the deer got the brunt of the shot. If Rich had not been right behind the deer, he would not have been shot. As such, it was neither of the men's faults, but more so that Rich was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The two knew the area they were hunting, and they should have collaborated more in terms of where they heading to hunt. Yet, this does not mean that there was a crime committed, but rather that they need to be more aware the next time they go shooting.

Part II

When both parties are intoxicated, this is a very delicate situation. Although the pair was consenting adults and was allowed to be drinking, the fact that Renee might have been too intoxicated to understand the nature of the situation does allow for the potential for rap charges against Mark. When the parties involved are too intoxicated to both verbally consent to sex, it is often enough grounds for an investigation and possible rape charges (Charron, 2007). As such, the fact that both parties were intoxicated makes a huge difference in whether or not this could be considered as rape, because state and federal law allow for rape charges to be valid if the woman was too intoxicated to make her own decision in regards to having relations with the person in question. Thus, Renee could have been too intoxicated to make that decision, which would make rape a possible charge here.