TexasCHLforum.com

Does anyone have any good links to look at that feature cases where lethal self-defense was utilized? Specifically, I'm trying to see for myself whether or not anyone has actually done it and not lost their livelihoods in the civil cases that follow.

I asked it in another thread, but it was off-topic: A pharmacist by the name of Jerome Ersland shot a kid during a robbery. Two kids came in with ski masks on, so he pulled his weapon and shot one in the head. He next gave chase after the second one and, when he didn't get him, returned to the pharmacy, pulled a Judge out of a drawer, and fired a few shots into the already-down offender.

The family on the news screamed that they had a good kid, and he never would have anything like this, etc. Discussions with others have led me to agree that he went way too far when he came back and fired more rounds into an already-disabled BG.

So: If he had just left him alone after the first shot and called the police, do you think he would be acquitted of criminal charges? And are there any circumstances that make it so that a civil case can't be brought against you?

I'm sure you'll hear more discussion of it to follow, but I believe there is a law precluding civil action against a justified user of deadly force in the Castle Doctrine section of the Texas law. I don't think I need to say IANAL but just in case...I'm not. Case law might be hard to find when cases involving a perp's family suing a justified defender of his family, property and life is not allowed to begin with.

I understand you're not a lawyer, but on sites like these it is always a valid point to repeat.

I primarily intend to carry while commuting to school, so the only time I can foresee there ever being a need for protection is in event of a breakdown or while at a gas station early in the morning or at night on the way home. Does the Castle Doctrine include times when you're "by" your car or house, such as when you're filling up the car or changing a tire on the side of the road?

The Armed Citizen used to have about five thousand examples of SD cases using a gun, but unfortunately it is off line due to copyright lawsuit, and I doubt it will ever return.

At one point I examined about 30 of those cases, by which I mean I googled the daylights out of them to see what happened after the initial news report. I was primarily interested to see if any of the defenders were criminally charged by the DA.

What I found was that in the vast majority of cases, the defenders were not charged by the DA with anything. Even rarer was reading about any civil lawsuits (like one of those 30).

That is not to say they don't happen. There was an off-duty bouncer/security guard (in nevada, I think) who shot someone at restaurant while he (the security guard) was visiting on his offtime. IOW, it seemed to be more of a citizen self-defense than him acting as security guard. Nevertheless, he and the restaurant got sued by family of the guy who was shot. Do not know outcome.

Right now there is a (unsuccessful) burglar in FL suing three guys who caught him and held him for police. He claims the guys roughed him up too much when the held him.

But. It is my perception that the vast majority of SD shootings do not result in civil lawsuits. My cynical side says that probably the biggest driver of this is that lawyers don't feel that the average citizen defender has enough assets to make it worth most tort lawyers time to fool with it. Also, from what I can see in the news reports, most of the time when the smoke clears the situation is pretty straightforward as to who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. In Texas at least this discourages lawsuits, since the law provides that one cannot be successfully sued for defending oneself. I suspect that jurisdiction also has a role -- civil suits are less likely to be successful in places where self-defense, particularly with a gun, is supported (e.g. Texas) versus hoplophobic jurisdictions like NY or MA.

You could also go to one of the websites that compiles courtcases and search on self-defense or similiar terms.

Good luck.

Oh, by chance I recently read an update on the OK pharmacist you mentioned.
http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha ... line_crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will also note that if I think I am in danger of immediate bodily harm or death, I am not going to worry about being sued afterward. I aim to be alive so I can worry about such things later...

BroTyler wrote:And are there any circumstances that make it so that a civil case can't be brought against you?

As long as there are lawyers (no offense, Charles!) there will be lawsuits. The Castle Doctrine disallows civil suits. Other than that, it's Vegas. Flip a coin.

I think LexisNexis is the "go to" site for case law.

To clarify an earlier point, civil immunity doesn't prohibit the criminal or their family from filing a lawsuit.

ELB wrote:At one point I examined about 30 of those cases, ... What I found was that in the vast majority of cases, the defenders were not charged by the DA with anything. Even rarer was reading about any civil lawsuits (like one of those 30). ...
But. It is my perception that the vast majority of SD shootings do not result in civil lawsuits. My cynical side says that probably the biggest driver of this is that lawyers don't feel that the average citizen defender has enough assets to make it worth most tort lawyers time to fool with it. Also, from what I can see in the news reports, most of the time when the smoke clears the situation is pretty straightforward as to who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. In Texas at least this discourages lawsuits, since the law provides that one cannot be successfully sued for defending oneself. I suspect that jurisdiction also has a role -- civil suits are less likely to be successful in places where self-defense, particularly with a gun, is supported (e.g. Texas) versus hoplophobic jurisdictions like NY or MA.

You could also go to one of the websites that compiles courtcases and search on self-defense or similiar terms.

ELB with much of what you wrote ... condensed above. Your research was likely much more fruitful and informative that searching for any "case law" on LexisNexis or Westlaw. Such "case law" is derived for the most part from cases that were appealed from the trial court and report decisions on those appeals. The trial court level is usually not reported. And not all cases are appealed. Thus your search was good info.

I think you are correct about the potential recovery from a citizen defender being too little to interest most attorneys who would consider taking such a civil case. And they would certainly have to weigh the public sentiment in that jurisdiction and the relative attractiveness of the injured bad guy and the self-defender.

BroTyler wrote:... Does the Castle Doctrine include times when you're "by" your car or house, such as when you're filling up the car or changing a tire on the side of the road?

I was hoping some of the others on the forum who are much more astute in their knowledge of the laws would jump in and answer this part of your question. It's certainly beyond my limited knowledge. I know just enough to hopefully keep my mouth shut until my lawyer gets on board and knows what to say and more importantly what not to say.

The answer would depend what he means by castle doctrine, because the castle doctrine I know has nothing to do with being in your car.

jester wrote:The answer would depend what he means by castle doctrine, because the castle doctrine I know has nothing to do with being in your car.

I thought the Castle Doctrine was related to Penal Code, Secion 9, as ammended by SB 378 and similar. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially, (regardless of CHL status) you are allowed to defend yourself in your home or vehicle, I thought, which is why I was asking about scenarios immediately outside the vehicle.

BroTyler wrote: Essentially, (regardless of CHL status) you are allowed to defend yourself in your home or vehicle, I thought, which is why I was asking about scenarios immediately outside the vehicle.

You're allowed to defend yourself anyplace, anytime. Texas doesn't have a 'Castle Doctrine' per-se, at least not in the way some other states have done it. Texas just allows carry without a license in your home and car, and it's overall self defense laws have no duty to retreat (as some other states do, some with conditions, some without). These self-defense laws apply anywhere, anytime, and not just in your home or your car. You are just as entitled to self defense in a stop-and-rob, as you are on your own couch.

If you are outside your vehicle, and involved in a valid self-defense shooting, then the worst they could charge you with would be unlicensed carry. They probably wouldn't even charge you with that, though, because of this:

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Technically, every CHL ever involved in a self defense shooting was guilty of Intentional Failure to conceal... but that gets tossed aside by the above as well

jester wrote:I think LexisNexis is the "go to" site for case law.

To clarify an earlier point, civil immunity doesn't prohibit the criminal or their family from filing a lawsuit.

Westlaw is Subscription; a lot of Lexis is Subscription, but anyone can use LexisOne caselaw search free
http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/lexisone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also one can try Findlaw.com (free),
or LoisLaw http://www.loislaw.com/product/informat ... aselaw.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and others;

etc etc But LexisOne is not bad for laypeoples as it is free.

I appreciate the links. I initially looked on FindLaw (remembered it from my days as a would be pre-law) and only found a few cases. I will try out LexisOne for sure.

VMaxer wrote:If you want to scare the heck out of yourself, and how even a good defense attorney can go bad - Google the Harold Fish case. Yikes.

The OJ Simpson and Fish cases are goods examples of the fact that you can be guilty and get acquitted and be innocent and get convicted. The reality is that any felony trial is an enormous and expensive high stakes gamble.

The only way to always be on the winning side is to live your life in a way that keeps you out of court.