Good News!! on HB 284

[KBCraig]

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

[KD5NRH]

one of the Senator's stated

Bad lawyer. Write "I will not use apostrophes to pluralize" on the dry erase board (somehow, it's just not so much of a punishment without chalk, darn it) two hundred times.

He testified that, for purposes of unlawful entry, burglary, etc., pushing a door open constitutes the use of force.

So, how would this differ from the above mentioned panhandler opening the car door?

(Personally, I'd be going for the gun as soon as he reached for a door handle, but unless something was wrong with the power locks, he wouldn't get in that easy.)

[stevie_d_64]

one of the Senator's stated

Bad lawyer. Write "I will not use apostrophes to pluralize" on the dry erase board (somehow, it's just not so much of a punishment without chalk, darn it) two hundred times.

Ohhhh, you are soooooo going to get a big noogie for this one!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

He testified that, for purposes of unlawful entry, burglary, etc., pushing a door open constitutes the use of force.

So, how would this differ from the above mentioned panhandler opening the car door?

More after the bill passes.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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 L. Cotton]

When SB378 passes the House next Monday, . . .
Chas.

This was wrong. The 3/19/07 (Monday) floor debate will be the second reading/vote, not the third and final reading/vote. Monday will see all of the speeches from the opposition, so that's when all of the fireworks will occur, but final passage will be a formality on Tuesday.

Sorry for the misinformation.

Chas.

[seamusTX]

Is there any question at all about the Governor signing this bill?

I would certainly expect him to, but he's been doing some strange stuff recently.

- Jim

[srothstein]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is there any question at all about the Governor signing this bill?

I would certainly expect him to, but he's been doing some strange stuff recently.

- Jim

No chance at all. The Castle Doctrine Bills have enjoyed huge support, as evidenced by the number of co-authors that signed-on. SB378 would be veto-proof, so why alienate NRA and TSRA members. Plus, Gov. Perry has been the most gun-friendly Governor we've had in decades. His speech at the NRA Annual Meeting in Houston sounded like I had written it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Thanks, I'll look for that as well. The resisting arrest cases may be very fertile ground to farm. What better area of the law to find the courts setting a very low standard for what constitutes "force" than cases dealing with conduct against a LEO?

Great idea.
Chas.

[kauboy]

Chas,
After the final reading on Tuesday, and after the following signing, how long before this is "on the books"? I vaugley remember laws having a September "active" date. Am I right, or will this be immediate? Believe me, its not that I want to "try it on for size", I'm just curious.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas,
After the final reading on Tuesday, and after the following signing, how long before this is "on the books"? I vaugley remember laws having a September "active" date. Am I right, or will this be immediate? Believe me, its not that I want to "try it on for size", I'm just curious.

Sept. 1, 2007.

[immadmacs]

It passed!
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ll=SB00378

[kauboy]

Thanks for the update MadMacs. And welcome to the forums. Hope you enjoy it here.

[Roger Howard]

When SB378 passes the House next Monday, I’ll post some comments on the change in the Civil Practices & Remedies Code dealing with civil suits. I don’t want anyone to think there is skunk buried in the bill, so let me say SB378 is an excellent bill that dramatically protects innocent persons justifiably using deadly force. It's provisions are felt in both the criminal and the civil arenas.

“Civil Immunity� does not mean a person cannot be sued. It means the plaintiff cannot win, if the elements of the immunity are present. It also means the defendant will get a summary judgment in their favor, early in the case.

Chas.

I don't know any lawyer that will file a suit they have no hope of winning. Am I wrong?