TexasCHLforum.com

Disparity of force and reasonable belief are fuzzy legal concepts that mean different things to different people in different places and at different times.

5 years ago, my threshold for resorting to deadly force was much higher than it is today, because 5 years ago my ability to retreat or to protect myself with hand to hand techniques, or even to absorb a beating, was much greater than it is today.

Still, these are all fuzzy concepts and if it ever comes down to it, all we can hope for is that our peers will agree that our actions were reasonable.

Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat and so simplifies things a little bit. But all other laws relating to the use of deadly force are unchanged.

kdom wrote:First off, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a dumb engineer, so my opinion doesn't really mean much...

That said, the way our instructor explained it to the class was this - you can still be sued in civil court, but "self defense" is an "affirmative defense" to civil liabilities for your actions. (Not sure how this works - is being no-billed by a grand jury, or not being brought to a grand jury enough, or do you need to tried and found not guilty, etc. - I guess this is what hasn't been tested...) Also, the civil statue was changed to entitles you to be reimbursed all attorney's fees and "other reasonable expenses" from the plaintifs if they loose the case - he suggested this is the change that will limit the BG / BG's family from filing suit, since it will likely limit the number of attorneys willing to take these type of cases.

Not sure if this is an accurate representation of the facts or not, but it was how it was explaned to us in our class last October.

-KD

From another dumb engineer.........

The way you described it, with self defense being an affirmative defense to civil liability was the way the bill was originally worded.

During the legislative process, the affirmative defense statement got changed to the stronger (IMO, though IANAL) "civil immunity". Your instructor may not have been aware of how the final wording turned out.

It doesn't mean that you can't be sued, but it means that the perp or his estate can't win if your actions are justified under the laws regarding the use of force.

As has been said, the law has not been tested yet. So what does "justified" mean? Does it mean if you are no-billed by the GJ? Does it mean when the police don't even bother to refer the case to the DA because it is so clear cut in their view? Does it mean being found "not guilty" after criminal trial? Who knows?

But the practical (and intended) effect is to set the legal bar for winning such a suit very high. Since most such cases are brought on a contingint fee basis, and considering that lawyers (like the rest of us) do not like to work for nothing, it means that the chances of a lawful defender being sued in TX, which was already very low, just got a lot lower.

At least that's my read on it.