TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCajun wrote: In order for chapter 83 to apply, the use of force/deadly force must be justified under chapter 9. Chapter 9 says that force/deadly force can be used to protect yourself, another person, or property. Although the title of chapter 83 only references defense of person, the actual statute does not place a limitation on the justification.

I suggest that the courts will interpret the statute in a way so as not to make the Legislature look more idiotic than they have to, if possible. Putting such a statute in a Chapter entitled "CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON" is indicative of an intent to limit the immunity to situations involving persons. If the Legislative intent were otherwise, it would be easy enough to have put the immunity in Chapter 9, or in a Chapter labelled in line with the intent.

Can the argument be made that the words of the statute itself prevail over the ambiguity created in the naming of the Chapter. Certainly. A study of the Legislative history, which we are not privy to here, might tip the balance one way or the other. I think the better reasoned view is to limit it, but YMMV, etc.

baldeagle wrote:
BTW, if I have to shoot someone in self defense, I'm not coughing up a dime to anyone. That law grants me immunity. I'll act pro se and file for summary judgment if they do. If the judge ruled against me, THEN I'd hire a lawyer. I am diametrically opposed to giving crooks one thin dime of my money.

Summary judgment is granted where there is no dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are likely to be in dispute, so summary judgment would not be proper. If it was that easy, no suits would be filed, and that may be why more are not. With a no-bill etc. and the police reports assuming they are consistent and complete, a plaintiff is in an uphill fight.

I agree with your sentiments completely, of course, but it isn't as easy or clear cut as you make out. Even making a proper motion for summary judgment is complicated. As one example, I am a defendant in a case right now in which the motion for summary judgment alone will cost about $25,000, with relatively uncomplicated facts.

What have the Texas courts had to say on this question? That is the real only answer.

It looks to me like the section(s) in Chapter 83, "CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON" ought to apply only in situations where deadly force is used in defense of persons, not property. Is there a Chapter that deals with property? Are there other sections than the one cited in Chapter 83 to negative this interpretation?

It ought to have been easy to say so directly that the section applied only in case of defense of persons, but maybe the drafter thought it would be sly, or stylish, to do it that way.

That's really subtle.

The wording of the provision states the rule but the meaning is narrowed by the title of the chapter!

lrpettit wrote:

howdy wrote:You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.