TexasCHLforum.com

Unfortunately, I've read too many opinions that don't believe it does.

I would like to retract the above statement. I've gone back and read everything I can find and now I'm just more confused. Now I truly am unsure whether the heading title would limit the civil immunity or not.

lrpettit wrote:

Unfortunately, I've read too many opinions that don't believe it does.

I would like to retract the above statement. I've gone back and read everything I can find and now I'm just more confused. Now I truly am unsure whether the heading title would limit the civil immunity or not.

I think this is one of those things that we will remain confused unless or until the Texas appellate courts have a case come before them.

race4beer wrote:When I took my CHL class, the instructor was very specific that we should expect a Civil Lawsuit if Force/Deadly Force ever has to be used. Can you fight it - absolutely, do 99% of them settle out of court for far less than it would cost to fully defend such a lawsuit - yup. I am paraphrasing, but the message was that on average, it's a $50k bill (settlement). Now, that does not apply to Home/Car where the Castle Doctrine, I believe, protects us from Civil Lawsuits.

So basically, could you fight it and win - sure thing, for $150k-$200K, or you can cough up $50k-$100k and make it go away.

No disrespect, but I think your instructor is wrong. I think, if you'll check, you'll find that very few deadly force incidents in Texas have resulted in a civil case being filed. Did you instructor, by any chance, tell you about insurance? If so, he or she may be subtly promoting its sale to benefit him/herself (by making a commission). In fact, I'm not aware of a single case in Texas of a civil suit being filed after a justified shooting of any kind. Not that I have encyclopedic knowledge of it, but it's certainly something that would catch my attention.

BTW, if I have to shoot someone in self defense, I'm not coughing up a dime to anyone. That law grants me immunity. I'll act pro se and file for summary judgment if they do. If the judge ruled against me, THEN I'd hire a lawyer. I am diametrically opposed to giving crooks one thin dime of my money.

baldeagle wrote:
BTW, if I have to shoot someone in self defense, I'm not coughing up a dime to anyone. That law grants me immunity. I'll act pro se and file for summary judgment if they do. If the judge ruled against me, THEN I'd hire a lawyer. I am diametrically opposed to giving crooks one thin dime of my money.

Summary judgment is granted where there is no dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are likely to be in dispute, so summary judgment would not be proper. If it was that easy, no suits would be filed, and that may be why more are not. With a no-bill etc. and the police reports assuming they are consistent and complete, a plaintiff is in an uphill fight.

I agree with your sentiments completely, of course, but it isn't as easy or clear cut as you make out. Even making a proper motion for summary judgment is complicated. As one example, I am a defendant in a case right now in which the motion for summary judgment alone will cost about $25,000, with relatively uncomplicated facts.

I agree that the law 83.001 does NOT agree w/the chapter heading (USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON).
IANAL. I do NOT know if the law would take precedence over the heading or the heading would limit your defense of civil liability to strictly 'self-defense' cases.

I do know that DPS teaches instructors that it is limited to self-defense (and robbery is considered self-defense). The was I read it, shooting someone fleeing from robbery would NOT be considered self-defense.

YMMV.

As a general rule, I recommend not shooting over a property crime. If I did, I sure try to get 83.001 to apply to my case. :)

lrpettit wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

lrpettit wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

lrpettit wrote:

howdy wrote:You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

Not a lawyer but:
The immunity in 83.001 only applies to Defense of Person:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 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.

Chapter 9 of the penal code outlines the justification of the use of force & deadly force in defense of both people and property. The heading is either incorrect or incomplete. But as the letter of the law is stated, the heading is irrelevant.

Although I wish you were correct, I would not assume that Chapter 83 provides you any immunity from civil actions for defense of property unless you get a legal opinion confirming that stance. Unfortunately, I've read too many opinions that don't believe it does. I also don't understand why you would automatically think that Chapter 83 covers all situations covered in Chapter 9? Chapter 9 talks about Criminal action and Chapter 83 talks about civil.

In order for chapter 83 to apply, the use of force/deadly force must be justified under chapter 9. Chapter 9 says that force/deadly force can be used to protect yourself, another person, or property. Although the title of chapter 83 only references defense of person, the actual statute does not place a limitation on the justification.

TexasCajun wrote: In order for chapter 83 to apply, the use of force/deadly force must be justified under chapter 9. Chapter 9 says that force/deadly force can be used to protect yourself, another person, or property. Although the title of chapter 83 only references defense of person, the actual statute does not place a limitation on the justification.

I suggest that the courts will interpret the statute in a way so as not to make the Legislature look more idiotic than they have to, if possible. Putting such a statute in a Chapter entitled "CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON" is indicative of an intent to limit the immunity to situations involving persons. If the Legislative intent were otherwise, it would be easy enough to have put the immunity in Chapter 9, or in a Chapter labelled in line with the intent.

Can the argument be made that the words of the statute itself prevail over the ambiguity created in the naming of the Chapter. Certainly. A study of the Legislative history, which we are not privy to here, might tip the balance one way or the other. I think the better reasoned view is to limit it, but YMMV, etc.

Allow me to throw another twist into the discussion. Most of us (me included) rely heavily on the chl-16 published & made available by the dps. The chl-16 is only a compilation of the Texas statutes that apply to concealed handgun license. As such, portions of the applicable statutes could have been accidentally been left out. I don't have ready access to the complete copy of all of the relevant laws, so I don't have a way to compare the chl-16 to the actual.

TexasCajun wrote:Allow me to throw another twist into the discussion. Most of us (me included) rely heavily on the chl-16 published & made available by the dps. The chl-16 is only a compilation of the Texas statutes that apply to concealed handgun license. As such, portions of the applicable statutes could have been accidentally been left out. I don't have ready access to the complete copy of all of the relevant laws, so I don't have a way to compare the chl-16 to the actual.

All the Texas laws are here. Just select the code (such as Penal Code) then the Chapter and Section, and you have it all.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=pr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The title says USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

The chapter says '...uses force or deadly force that is justified...'

Chap 9 includes a lot - property, persons, devices, arrest and search, preventing escape, security in a correction facility, parent-child, educator-student and guardian-incompetent.

I think it is obvious that the defense against civil liability does not apply in all these cases.

I will discuss this w/a lawyer, see what he says. :)

All the penal code does is provide for defense to prosecution...civil court has nothing to do with prosecution...civil court cannot levy criminal penalties.

RogueUSMC wrote:All the penal code does is provide for defense to prosecution

I thought we were talking about the immunity in the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

Interesting, but I'm still confused. Sure hope I never have to find out.....

JALLEN wrote: I suggest that the courts will interpret the statute in a way so as not to make the Legislature look more idiotic than they have to, if possible. Putting such a statute in a Chapter entitled "CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON" is indicative of an intent to limit the immunity to situations involving persons. If the Legislative intent were otherwise, it would be easy enough to have put the immunity in Chapter 9, or in a Chapter labelled in line with the intent.

Of course the opposite is just as true. If the intent were to limit the immunity to only defense of persons, it would have been easy to state, "A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, Subchapter C, Protection of Persons, is immune..."

Or it could have said: "...Under Chapter 9.32(a)(2)..." pg 60 of the CHL 2009 - 2010 handbook.

Not withstanding that, DPS and EVERY lawyer I have discussed this with says the civil immunity is limited to self-defense cases. Could a judge rule otherwise? Absolutely. If I'm ever in that situation, I hope my lawyer raises that defense. However, I will plan my life/actions around that. :)

Remind me again how many good guys get sued by the bad guy or his accomplices in Texas?