TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Given that such suits were rare in TX to begin with, and that they will be even rarer now, I think we will be waiting a long time to see what kind of case law develops.

But from the good guy's perspective, that's a good thing.

I concur.

Bodacious wrote:I was under the impression that with the law enacted on September 1st of this year that if a person justifiably defends themselves and as a result no criminal charges are filed that they are immune to civil prosecution. Is this not the case?

If no charges are filed against me if I drop a thief fleeing from me and given the recently passed law, how can I be civily prosecuted?

This is a new area of protection in Texas. You're correct, the so-called "stand your ground" legislation (evolved from the "castle doctrine") would seem to shield citizens from at least some civil liability for justified self-defense shootings. From my understanding of the bill, the new protections apply in circumstances where you "justifiably" use deadly force to counter a threat of force/actual force in either the home, your car, your place of employment, or anywhere else that you "have the right to be both armed and present."

The key point here is "justifiably" ladies/gentlemen...an encounter that begins with the requisite "justification," but concludes with you shooting a bad guy in the back (as he is running away from you) hardly casts you as a "sympathetic victim" to at least certain grand juries and a few overzealous District Attorneys (no names, of course). Listen, I'm always inclined to empathize with the law-abiding citizens, but you know as well as I do that some folks won't be so gracious...particularly if you weren't facing an obvious and immediate threat at the moment of the shooting.

Of course, the difficulty with examining these situations out-of-context is that many contemporaneous events can occur in milliseconds during a real-world encounter that can shift the "reasonableness" analysis one way or the other. That's the key, you've always got assess the "reasonableness" of your acts, both with regard to society and the specific encounter at issue.

Of course, there are also the potential issues of civil liability for missed shots/errant bullets/overpenetrating bullets that unexpectedly injure bystanders, damage public/private property, cause "apprehension" or "emotional distress" among witnesses/bystanders/little old ladies, etc., etc. Do you see where I'm going here? Reminds me of an old saying I've heard before, "every bullet that leaves the muzzle of your gun potentially has a little tiny lawyer just hitchin' a ride on-board!"

Believe me when I tell ya' this, any time you ever think you've ever found a "bright line" rule in the law (i.e., the holy grail of precedents or statutes), just take a deep breath and look a bit deeper and longer and you'll normally discover at least some potential exceptions to that seemingly impenetrable rule...that's just the nature of our very adversarial and uber-competitive common law system, folks. Let's also see how the first few cases are decided under this new statutory regime.

I'd like nothing better than to feel completely protected by the state against civil suits in self defense encounters, but somehow, I just don't trust this protection quite yet. I guess I'm just paranoid , or maybe I've just become jaded by my experiences. Anyhow, some cynicism is warranted until we get some case precedents concerning this issue.

RubenZ wrote:Exactly. Just to get a Lawyer to say Hello cost a few grand LOL.

Nonsense, Ruben, I only used to charge $700-$800 for a "hello"...a "how ya' doin'" would be just a bit extra!

seamusTX wrote:

boomerang wrote:How much are we talking about? What were the five largest civil judgements against a good guy who shot a bad guy in Texas in the past two years?

Civil lawsuits are rarely filed against defenders by criminals or their survivors in Texas. I don't know of any that the plaintiff won.

But, if it happens, it's expensive to defend against, even in the preliminary stages.
- Jim

Right-o, Jim. Legal counsel is necessary but very costly.

Boomerang, off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to your question about the five largest judgments against "good guys"...but I'd be happy to look into the matter...for a nominal fee that's not cost-prohibitive.

For an inquiry such as this, I only charge you $550.00 per hour, plus expenses!;-) I reckon that I'll need about 12-15 hours to resolve this issue definitively.


***
I'm only kidding by the way...

Molon_labe wrote:

badkarma56 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

nitrogen wrote:Does a man retreating from you put you in fear for your life? is a man running away an imminent threat to you or your family?

Will you be willing to severely injure someone, possibly killing them to stop them for what they stole?

That's what it comes down to, regardless of what the law says; there's a higher law here.

I can see both sides here. In some circumstances, I could see a shoot of a retreating robber being justified, but not in most cases.

Back in RI a guy once tried to rob a jewelry store. He pointed a Beretta 9mm at the owner and told him to fill up a bag with (expensive) jewelry from a case he pointed to. The owner moved to do this, but instead drew a 45ACP auto from a holster he had fastened to the underside of the top of the case (in a way that it was out of sight to patrons).

The owner was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I drew the gun."

At the sight of the gun, the would be robber turned and fled. The owner followed him out into the street, not to try to catch him, but in his words, "...to see where he went so I could point him out to the police."

As he is chasing the BG down the street the BG turns partly around, probably to see how close his pursuer was. Apparently, his gun hand swung around while he was doing this. The jeweler said, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I fired."

He ends up hitting the BG in the leg. (It was a heck of a shot.) The police caught him soon after.

As I am reading this account I'm thinking, this guy must have taken some kind of deadly force class. He said a lot of "magic words". He'd have to be one clever dude to come up with all that stuff himself.

It turned out that the 9mm was not loaded. Of course the jeweler would have no way of knowing that.

The cops didn't bring any charges and he was later no billed by the grand jury.

Frankie, I agree that the jeweler was well-briefed on buzzwords and "what not to say to po-po" by someone. He sounds like a graduate of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" school for clever vigilantes.

I'm not defending the robber's acts at all, but that jeweler was very fortunate not have been indicted for something.

Um..how, he believed the guy was going to turn and shoot him

Wouldn't key points like that matter in a case, he feared for his life, he wanted to make sure he could tell the LEO were the badguy took off with

Sounds like well though out and intelligent responses to a situation, and it answers the Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy, I wouldn't have charged him if I was on his grand jury

as "Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" school for clever vigilantes" as its sounds it is the ABSOLUTE best thing because it took the vigilante out of it and turned it around to be he feared the badguy was going to shoot him

Can't argue with that, dude! You just have to make sure that your reactions to a bad guy don't imply any sort of "planning, scheme, or pre-meditation." It's generally best to avoid pursuing "bad guys" unless you wear a badge and arrest them for a living, know what I mean!. I intend to use my weapons for personal defense of myself and my family, I'll leave the manhunts and investigations to "Johnny Law" and the bloodhounds...

Sometimes "playing cop" can get you charged with a felony, this jeweler was lucky.

***
"This is CHL holder and Texas gun owner, Bob B. Cue , and I'm in hot pursuit of a robbery suspect with my Colt .45...requesting assistance, over..."<----don't be this dude!
***
P.S., I meant to say that "I am NOT defending the robber's act's at all," I went back and corrected my original reply to Frankie and the quoted text.

RubenZ wrote:While you may not be put in Prison. You may get taken to Civil Court and that will probably COST you more money that TRIPLE of whats in your wallet or purse.

I'd love to shoot every robber out there. But when his mama and papa take you to Civil court and you have to pay 100k in Legal fees. Thats a scenario I wouldn't want to be in.

Bingo, dude! My H&K is the final option for sure.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

nitrogen wrote:Does a man retreating from you put you in fear for your life? is a man running away an imminent threat to you or your family?

Will you be willing to severely injure someone, possibly killing them to stop them for what they stole?

That's what it comes down to, regardless of what the law says; there's a higher law here.

I can see both sides here. In some circumstances, I could see a shoot of a retreating robber being justified, but not in most cases.

Back in RI a guy once tried to rob a jewelry store. He pointed a Beretta 9mm at the owner and told him to fill up a bag with (expensive) jewelry from a case he pointed to. The owner moved to do this, but instead drew a 45ACP auto from a holster he had fastened to the underside of the top of the case (in a way that it was out of sight to patrons).

The owner was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I drew the gun."

At the sight of the gun, the would be robber turned and fled. The owner followed him out into the street, not to try to catch him, but in his words, "...to see where he went so I could point him out to the police."

As he is chasing the BG down the street the BG turns partly around, probably to see how close his pursuer was. Apparently, his gun hand swung around while he was doing this. The jeweler said, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I fired."

He ends up hitting the BG in the leg. (It was a heck of a shot.) The police caught him soon after.

As I am reading this account I'm thinking, this guy must have taken some kind of deadly force class. He said a lot of "magic words". He'd have to be one clever dude to come up with all that stuff himself.

It turned out that the 9mm was not loaded. Of course the jeweler would have no way of knowing that.

The cops didn't bring any charges and he was later no billed by the grand jury.

Frankie, I agree that the jeweler was well-briefed on buzzwords and "what not to say to po-po" by someone. He sounds like a graduate of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" school for clever vigilantes.

I'm not defending the robber's acts at all, but that jeweler was very fortunate not have been indicted for something.

Molon_labe wrote:If you have liability insurance will they replace your vehicle...or shrug their shoulders and say..."too bad, so sad. Pay your next months premium or we will cancel your insurance"

LOL, well dude, I sure hope my state farm agent won't treat me that way. Your cynicism is appropriate...the insurance "bidness" is one of the biggest "legal" rackets in the country!

KD5NRH wrote:

badkarma56 wrote:In essence, to be justified, you need to "reasonably believe" at the time of the shooting that the assailant had 1. the intent, 2. the ability and 3. the opportunity to cause you greivous bodily harm and/or death. If these three elements are satisfied, you'll likely be justified in the use of deadly force (other subjective contextual factors may play a part in the final analysis on a case-by-case basis).

TPC 9.41-9.43 don't require any of the above for most of their justifications.

Of "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime," only robbery and aggravated robbery require that there be a threat to a person, and simple robbery does not require the threat to be more than simple bodily injury, defined in TPC 1.07(a)(8) as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition."

Note also that force or threat of force to maintain control of the property in the course of theft makes it robbery, so a thief can quickly become a robber if caught and challenged during or immediately after the theft.

Sure, those are certainly relevant points. The law recognizes certain exceptional situations where deadly force is authorized without a direct and substantial physical threat toward the victim.

However, could you personally live with the consequences of killing someone if you didn't absolutely have to? I'm simply not going to shoot a man for stealing a piece of my property or my car, my insurance will cover that loss. Now if some dude attempts to "carjack" me, and shoves a weapon in my face in the process...well, that's a different story altogether. I will only use deadly force in a situation where I detect a direct and imminent threat to my or my family's physical well-being. I won't use deadly force to protect an inanimate object.

I might add that a civil suit will likely arise following a circumstance in which you shoot someone solely over a piece of property or a trespass-related transgression. Being excused from criminal prosecution will not indemnify you against a civil suit. As such, I'm going to reserve the gunplay for only the most necessary circumstances.

On a podcast that I listen to from time to time called The Shooting Bench, I recently heard the host (Cope Reynolds out of Farmington, New Mexico) discuss an effective and easy to remember formula for justifiable lethal force encounters. In my estimation, his analysis also seems to square with Texas law on the subject.

In essence, to be justified, you need to "reasonably believe" at the time of the shooting that the assailant had 1. the intent, 2. the ability and 3. the opportunity to cause you greivous bodily harm and/or death. If these three elements are satisfied, you'll likely be justified in the use of deadly force (other subjective contextual factors may play a part in the final analysis on a case-by-case basis).

Conversely, if any of these three elements are missing from the particular encounter (i.e., you "reasonably" ascertain that the "bad guy" had the intent to cause you greivous harm but lacked the opportunity or the ability to do so, etc.), the shooting will likely not be justified.

As such, I probably would not use my firearm to shoot a fleeing robber in the back. He may still have some deadly intent, but if he's fleeing, he certainly won't have any "ability or opportunity" to cause you physical harm.