TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

KBCraig wrote: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

No offense taken and there are many times I reject contentions offered by other attorneys, just as I'm sure they reject mine. However, when a good number of attorneys who practice criminal law agree on what constitutes "force," I have to believe their opinions are based upon case law. I'll try to do some research, but I won't have time for a while.

Chas.

Charles, when you do the research, one case that might help is about resisting arrest. I don't remember the citation, unfortunately, but the argument was that the statute says force against the officer and the court ruled that just pulling away from the officer was force but not against the officer since it was in the opposite direction as the officer. It was a court of Criminal Appeals decision. I hope that helps you find it though.

kauboy wrote:

stroo wrote:This is a huge change but immunity doesn't mean you can't be sued. It means that if you prove up the elements, then as a matter of law, not fact, you can't be found liable. With an affirmative defence, even if you proved up the element, the issue goes to the jury and who knows what the jury does with it.

I don't think thats right. "Immunity from civil action" means you cannot be sued in civil court by the attacker, their family, etc. The "jury" only matters in criminal court. That is NOT what this bill deals with.

You miss the concept just a little. You can be sued. Immunity from civil action does not stop the person from filing suit. It is only after he files suit that you can claim the defense or immunity and then you get to ask for a summary judgment. The logic of this is that it takes a court review to determine if you really meet the requirements of the immunity instead of just your claim.

As an example of how this works, look at the case before the Supreme Court on car chases. The officer claimed immunity under several reasons. When the trial court ruled, someone disagreed and appealed, and the same has happened at several levels, so the Supreme Court will now make a decision on the immunity (well, technically on the reasoning behind the claim). If they find the officer was right about the immunity, the case goes away. If not, then there is still a trial to be held.

But this is still a great advance for us. It means that if you are involved in a shooting, and are justified under this law, the bad guy sues you. Your lawyer then files the reasons for the immunity with the court and asks for a summary judgment. You would get it unless there were some question about the justification or provocation. If there is a question, it is still a much quicker and cheaper hearing to clarify one or two points than a full trial. And most important, most plaintiff attorneys will not take a case if they will not stand a good chance of winning, so the odds of getting sued go way down.

CHL insurance costs should also drop enough to make it a much more reasonable bet.