Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:03 pm
What does lawsuits have to do with this? These cases have not even been to the Grand Jury yet. It is WAY to soon to know if the civil cases will even be filed.Paladin wrote:So you say that it doesn't affect lawsuits? Doesn't affect Force/DF inside and outside the home?txinvestigator wrote:It clearly does not. These cases are too recent to even get to the "lawsuit" issue yet, and neither has been presented to the Grand Jury.Paladin wrote:Actually it does. It affords lawsuit protection and does make some notable changes to the use of deadly force (inside and outside the home).PAR wrote:The "castle doctrine" doesn't have anything to do with the recent events, we had the right to protect our family and home before 9/1/07.Paladin wrote:I haven't been tracking the exact numbers, but "castle doctrine" does seem to be working so far. Home and business owners have been able to defend themselves and their properties without adverse legal consequences.
Even so, the changes to the deadly force statutes were Protection of Persons. No changes wre made to protection of property, which is what these uses were.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.htm
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
Or do you think these people thought, "wow, Texas Castle Doctrine law says I have immunity from civil prosecution if I shoot this guy".
