TexasCHLforum.com

I'm new to Texas CHL and have questions about how TX CHL laws address civil lawsuits by the perp or perp's family. If I am found to have legally followed all guidelines and laws under TX CHL, how open am I to being sued. What is my recourse?

I bring this up because freinds with CW in other states are telling me they are basically reluctant to exercise their CW rights due to fear of civil lawsuit. Please enlighten me if Texas is different.

In 2007 when the "Castle Doctrine" became law the legislatures included a "Civil Immunity" clause for those deemed to have been involved in a Justifiable Shoot. Basically the perp and the family can sew you but it will be disposed of quickly plus you will get awarded attorney fees. WIth that said, I have yet to here of such a lawsuit since the new law passed so I can comment on any case law pertaining to the subject. Keep in mind IANAL nor do I play on TV

Bryan

Welcome to TexasCHLforum Angus, we're glad you joined us.

Since the 9/1/07 effective date of the "Castle Doctrine" Bill, people who are justified in using force under Texas Penal Code Chp. 9 are immune from civil liability. This does not mean you cannot be sued, but it means you will win. Your attorney would probably file something called a motion for summary judgment asking the court to throw the case out of court and asking the court to award you all attorney fees and other costs of defense. The court may or may not grant the award of attorney fees, but the more frivolous the suit, the better the chance of getting an award. Whether or not you can ultimately collect it is another question.

Some people would like to see the law changed to prevent the suit from even being filed, but that would be unconstitutional. You cannot deny a citizen access to Texas courts.

I too have heard it said that people in some states that are less "friendly" to the concept of self-defense have chosen not to carry, because of fears of a law suit. I've never understood that philosophy which in essence is saying, "it would be better to die than to get sued."

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I too have heard it said that people in some states that are less "friendly" to the concept of self-defense have chosen not to carry, because of fears of a law suit. I've never understood that philosophy which in essence is saying, "it would be better to die than to get sued."

Chas.

I think the reasoning behind these people's thinking is that a person that has worked hard and has assets stands to lose a lot more than a person that has nothing and would likely never be held accountable for any moneys owed.
I feel for the people in those states, and would like to see their state laws turned more in their favor.

If I am thinking correctly, I think you can put all of your assets in a trust so that the trust owns the stuff and not you.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've never understood that philosophy which in essence is saying, "it would be better to die than to get sued." Chas.

Venus Pax wrote:I think the reasoning behind these people's thinking is that a person that has worked hard and has assets stands to lose a lot more than a person that has nothing and would likely never be held accountable for any moneys owed. I feel for the people in those states, and would like to see their state laws turned more in their favor.

I don't have any data, but I bet that your odds of getting sued are much higher than your odds of getting killed by a BG. I have been sued twice, but never been killed.

WildBill wrote: I don't have any data, but I bet that your odds of getting sued are much higher than your odds of getting killed by a BG. I have been sued twice, but never been killed.

ZOMBIE ALERT!!!!!


jk



I would more concerned, not necessarily about dying, but being hospitalized, immobilized, paralyzed, or any of the other -ized's that put you out of more time, work, life than is reasonable.
just look at that unfortunate Dallas SWAT officer that was shot in the line of duty. That gent was out of work for a loooOOOoooong time, and lord knows that rehab and/or PT wasn't fun.

in the long run, I really think I'd rather be sued (although i'd rather not have either, if I had my druthers...)

In Texas, we can all comfortably say that we'd rather be sued. I don't think citizens of other states have it so good. They are often given labels with negative connotations for having the audacity to defend themselves, and their attackers are portrayed as victims.

It's not for me to say whether their choice is a wise one or not, but I certainly sympathize with them regarding their oppression.

Not to hijack the thread, but a couple at Cabela's told me that they "took the class and you should shoot to kill, and tell the LEO that, otherwise you will get sued".

Now I was under the impression that you shoot to stop, and if death results, then too bad.

Is this irrelevant with the new "Castle Doctrine" changes in effect? Thoughts?

Fangs wrote:Not to hijack the thread, but a couple at Cabela's told me that they "took the class and you should shoot to kill, and tell the LEO that, otherwise you will get sued".

Now I was under the impression that you shoot to stop, and if death results, then too bad.

Is this irrelevant with the new "Castle Doctrine" changes in effect? Thoughts?

The concept of shooting to stop the thread is about mental frame of mind. To shoot to kill is to indicate that is the intended motive as an executioner. Acting to stop the threat suggest you are being defensive. If one draws and the subject drops what he is holding shows his hands, behaves non-threatning and compliant. There is no need to shoot him.

The CHL holder generally will be better off if the BG cstops and complies without getting killed.

Fangs wrote:Not to hijack the thread, but a couple at Cabela's told me that they "took the class and you should shoot to kill, and tell the LEO that, otherwise you will get sued".

The couple was probably misquoting their instructor. You shoot to stop the BG. What is the quickest and most effective way to stop a BG coming towards you? You kill them. You wouldn't aim for their leg or their arm (a. because it's a tougher shot and b. because it would be less effective at stopping the BG), but you'll aim for central mass with the vital organs. Killing is just a side-effect of stopping the perp.

Also if you shoot them in a non-lethal manner (ie, just wounding them), then the argument can be made that you might not have felt as thought your life was in imminent danger. As stated in Texas law, deadly force can be used:

when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under

Therefore, the prosecutor might say that you were unjustified in using deadly force. Just how I think of it.

It won't stop me from defending myself or my family but it sucks for an innocent 3rd party.