TexasCHLforum.com

Roger Howard wrote:I don't know any lawyer that will file a suit they have no hope of winning. Am I wrong?

Sadly, you are. There are some lawyers who see to profit from publicity for their cause, rather than winning the case at hand. Sometimes they personally profit more from losing the case, than by winning, because then they can scream about discrimination and courts being stacked against them, all the while holding out a hand for donations.

Kevin

Thanks, Chas.

No offense, but I am not greatly comforted that the attorneys present agreed that "with force" means "opening an unlocked door", when that is not defined in either statute or common law.

Kevin

CWOOD wrote:The passed committee changes "affirmative defense" to "IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL ACTION" Folks this is HUGE.

That is a huge change in meaning! For those who don't catch the subtlety, this changes it from "you can use it as a defense when you're sued", to "you can't be sued".

Here is the revised text of the bill in HTML format:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00284H.htm

Oooh... I really don't like "provoked" as a choice of wording, unless "provoke" has a statutory definition that is more strict than the common definition. If someone is in a Longhorn venue singing "Boomer Sooner" after an Okiehomie victory, and someone sets out to re-arrange his body parts, the Okie has certainly "provoked" that unlawful response. If someone walks down the wrong street innocently wearing the wrong colors, or unknowingly having an "unacceptable" level of melanin in their skin, that is a "provocation" in some neighborhoods. Neither should lose the right to defend again unlawful force or unlawful deadly force, just because someone else decided they'd been "provoked".

I'm reminded of a Bill Mauldin cartoon from the 1970s, regarding a Thailand/Cambodia conflict. "Cambodia" was standing with a bloody machete over "Thailand", and saying, "I had no choice. He provoked me."

Kevin