Castle Doctrine in Texas

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#16

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Ameer wrote:
Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?
Here's how I understand it. I can sue you for wrongful termination even if I never worked for you. The suit should be tossed out but I have the right to sue.
Correct, and the judge would likely award the defendant his/her defense costs since the suit would be so frivolous.

Chas.
User avatar

Grammy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:08 am
Location: Magnolia

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#17

Post by Grammy »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Ameer wrote:
Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?
Here's how I understand it. I can sue you for wrongful termination even if I never worked for you. The suit should be tossed out but I have the right to sue.
Correct, and the judge would likely award the defendant his/her defense costs since the suit would be so frivolous.

Chas.
Thank-you,
Jim
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul.

cbr600

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#18

Post by cbr600 »

deleted
Last edited by cbr600 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

e-bil
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#19

Post by e-bil »

The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#20

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

e-bil wrote:The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.
Correct, and the manager had wired around a faulty thermostat so the burner was always fully on. There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed.

Chas.

b322da
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:34 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

#21

Post by b322da »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
e-bil wrote:The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.
Correct, and the manager had wired around a faulty thermostat so the burner was always fully on. There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed.

Chas.
:iagree: as usual.

Although, with undying respect for our mentor, I might suggest that "There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed" be changed to read: "There's a lot more to the story than the media chose to disclose."

Elmo
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”