TexasCHLforum.com

Diode wrote:Just curious, when does the next session start Chas?

January, 2007 but I don't know the exact date.

Chas.

cyphur wrote:I agree, and this should extend to include all situations - at home or not. No ability for any party to sue in an event of lawful action by a CHL - whether its in his driveway, Walmart, or the middle of a restaurant.

However, in the event of say injuring an "innocent" third party, I could see that left open - only if there was clearly evident negligence. In that case, it should be strictly defined with very little leeway for DA's and judges to interpret - with error on the CHL's side.

I don't anticipate any real trouble getting a good bill passed that deals with both the criminal and civil issues related to a lawful shooting by a CHL. I can almost guarantee it will not deal with reckless injury/killing of a third party from either a criminal or civil standpoint.

Injuring or killing someone unintentionally while engaging in lawful self-defense doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "recklessness." I've heard that some teach that any wounding or killing of an innocent party always equates to reckless injury of a third part, but that simply isn't true. A righteous self-defense shooting certainly can be carried out recklessly. For example, if a CHL doesn't ever practice and shoots only once every 5 years when they renew, their attempt to take a 25 yd. shot in a crowded restaurant would likely be considered by a jury as reckless conduct, even if the person he was shooting at needed to be shot. There are many other examples. Could the bar be set lower for reckless conduct in say Travis County v. Bell County? Yep, but there's nothing we can do about that.

Regards,
Chas.

RPBrown wrote:That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.