TexasCHLforum.com

AEA my apologies, I thought some of these were recent posts, then after I posted above I saw the dates were about a year old. Sorry for calling you out!

AEA, you are the one that is wrong here. I have very close friend that was one of the first cases of the castle law. He was no billed by a grand jury and was still sued. There was a settlement,(sorry not my place to disclose amounts). Granted it was not much, but he was sued.

Before any knocks either service research it for yourselves. There is a lot of misinformation contained in this post regarding Pre Paid Legal.

AEA, with all due respect sir, you are mistaken. You can be sued. I am friends with a man who is one of the first to shoot an intruder in his home following the passage of the Castle Doctrine. He was no billed by the Grand Jury. He is being sued for wrongful death anyway. The Texas Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case stating that a person cannot be denied their constitutional right to a trial. Now the law says there is no liability, it does not and cannot prevent a suit from being filed. The case goes to trial in November.

Graybeard, the suit has been filed, slated for trial later this year. They have been through all the depositions, tried to get it thrown out, Texas Supreme Court would not allow that. So barring any more delays should be going to trial.

AEA, Sorry to do this to you, but you can be sued in civil court. The Castle Law says you should not be be held liable, the law does not prevent suing that would be unconstitutional. A friend of mine is going through this exact thing as we speak. He shot a person who had entered his residence without authority. The intruder was backed out of the house, fell to the ground made what the homeowner felt was a threatening move and the homeowner shot and killed the intruder. The homeowner was no billed by the grand jury. We all think that should be the end, it is not, the family of the deceased can sue. Now if the judges or jury follow the law, the homeowner should not be held liable. But that is yet to be seen.
The homeowners insurance company has asked the homeowner about settling, the homeowner has refused because of the precedent it would set.
The plaintiff's attorney has supposedly admitted if there was no insurance he would not have sued. Goes to show you the attorney's dont give a rip about what the law says, it is all about getting the might dollar.