TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Given that such suits were rare in TX to begin with, and that they will be even rarer now, I think we will be waiting a long time to see what kind of case law develops.

But from the good guy's perspective, that's a good thing.

I concur.

boomerang wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Civil lawsuits are rarely filed against defenders by criminals or their survivors in Texas.

How rare? Is it more or less common than being struck by lightning? Winning the lottery? Blizzards in Houston?

Somewhere between blizzards in Houston and being struck by lightning.

FWIW, I've never lost a minute of sleep worrying about being sued for any reason; but if we're talking about hypothetical possibilities, it's out there.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Your points are well taken.

badkarma56 wrote: I'd like nothing better than to feel completely protected by the state against civil suits in self defense encounters, but somehow, I just don't trust this protection quite yet. I guess I'm just paranoid , or maybe I've just become jaded by my experiences. Anyhow, some cynicism is warranted until we get some case precedents concerning this issue.

The problem is that I think it is gong to be a while before we get some precedents. This is because the bar for winning this type of lawsuit has been raised to a point where such suits have become very difficult to win. For that reason, when a plaintiff approaches an attorney seeking to file a suit on a contingent fee basis, (the way most such suits are "funded") in many cases the attorney will judge that his chances of winning are too small to make it worthwhile to go forward.

So the suit won't get filed to begin with in many cases.

Given that such suits were rare in TX to begin with, and that they will be even rarer now, I think we will be waiting a long time to see what kind of case law develops.

But from the good guy's perspective, that's a good thing.

Thats comforting to hear actually.


So basically if a punk tries to rob me at gunpoint for my fiance's purse. I shoot him. His mommy and daddy will pretty much have a hard time finding a lawyer who will even go through with the case?

Talking Civil court here of course.

RubenZ wrote: So basically if a punk tries to rob me at gunpoint for my fiance's purse. I shoot him. His mommy and daddy will pretty much have a hard time finding a lawyer who will even go through with the case?

Talking Civil court here of course.

IMO, that is correct.

But I would still not advocate shooting except as a last resort.

i didnt read the entire thread but if someone robbed me and is running away and im alive, i'll let him go. time will come when he gets his.

if he doesnt run away and tries to take me with him where ever he is going. then i'd fear being kidnapped, then its double tap.

Here is the perfect example in this video. Check it out!

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11920 ... r_for_Life

Humor on... Well based upon how much my accuracy drops off as distance to target increases, if I don't shoot him before he takes about 10 steps, I probably can't...
Humor off...

i think the actual laws involved have been stated clearly, and although it is gradually shifting, I concur that in Texas, shooting some one running away with your property is unlikely to result in major jail time but does result in spiritual and economic costs.

seamusTX wrote:FWIW, I've never lost a minute of sleep worrying about being sued for any reason; but if we're talking about hypothetical possibilities, it's out there.

I agree it's a potential risk but I thought RubenZ overstated the threat in Texas.

I'm more worried how my coworkers, family and friends will react if I use deadly force. For me the social repercussions are a greater concern than a lawsuit by the criminal or his unindicted co-conspirators.

Moral decisions (When am I justified in using deadly force? When am I obligated to use deadly force?) are something each of us has to make for ourself.

boomerang wrote:I'm more worried how my coworkers, family and friends will react if I use deadly force.

I think most people are sympathetic to their family and friends -- give them the benefit of the doubt. If not, you find out who your real friends are.

- Jim

Have to agree with NOT shooting fleeing robber in most cases. It may be stuff I cannot easily afford to lose. I will recover eventually, but the life is permanent.

Outside of my home, I don't see too many circumstances where I feel comfortable shooting a moving object - especially moving away. Any public place would most likely have too great a possibility of misses being catastrophic.

I do not want to give up my things, and if it were my wife's purse with house keys and address inside, and possibly her CCW...it would be a tough call due to future threat. I have to say that I cannot make that call on a what if....

I had a friend who dropped his keys at the end of his driveway. He thought he had lost them until the home alarm went off with the garbage man who found the key using it to enter his house. Police came and caught him.

How can you justify shooting someone who is running away from you? I guess if he is still shooting at you (remember the old Westerns with the good guy being chased on horseback and shooting at the bad guys chasing him?), but I think that's pretty unlikely. Even if it did happen, you'd be better off to get behind cover. Self-defense is not going to be a legal defense if you're not threatened.

I know what the law says about shooting someone to prevent them from taking your property, but there's nothing on our property--except our lives--that I would shoot somebody to prevent them from taking it.

Crash