TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for explaining it in depth. I remember years back when I went through my first CHL class, the instructor brought in a lawyer that talked In depth about the possible consequences of shooting a intruder in the event or need to protect yourself. He used several examples of how the system could backfire against the CHL holder. His words in a nut shell were to polietly keep your mouth shut after the event and respectfully ask to contact your lawyer as you take your ride downtown for questioning. He cautioned the worst thing a person could do was to tell LEO the details at the scene. Even a by-the-book incident could be turned against you. I came to the conclusion he meant if you have no other option to protect yourself, lethal force was unfortunately preferred to possibly prevent a civil suit. I'm not condoning or suggesting that lethal force be used, but our class was told to be prepared to spend a boat load of money for legal defense. I hope I never have to test the system. If Texas was to lose the castle doctrine the halls of justice will definitely be painted a much different color.

I will be sending my disapproval letters to the appropriate officials.

I'm asking this as a question so please bare with me if my terminology is incorrect.

Would this open the legal system up for injured criminals or family members of injured/deceased criminals to take civil action against a homeowner that protected themselves inside of their dwelling? Are you expected to say hello to the bad guy, offer him a cup of coffee while he beats you, robs you, molests your dog and then steals your motorized Rascal? This sounds a new opportunity for lawyers to put up new billboards and air new commercials. Now you can get paid for getting shot during a home invasion if the jury see's it in your favor.....

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it? Seems like it's plausible.