TexasCHLforum.com

switch wrote:EVERY lawyer I have discussed this with says the civil immunity is limited to self-defense cases.

How many have them tried a civil case since the law passed where it was a factor?
i.e. do they have some experience with this law or are they just guessing?

Their are not many civil suits after shootings in TX.

The Castle law was passed in 2007 (I think). So 6 years? Not much time.

Not much to worry about then, is there? Seems like being killed by bees is more likely, so worry about that instead.

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

Since the immunity was added to the civil code, not many. And that was the point. Prior to this provision, a BG or their survivors would sue the homeowner/intended victim because it was cheaper to settle a civil suit than it was to fight it out. So the scum &/or their next of kin were able to profit from attempted criminal activity. The statute that we're discussing now makes it more of an uphill & less lucrative endeavor for these ilk.

And no matter how many "every lawyer I've ever talked to said...." The relevant statute says force/deadly force justified under Chapter 9, not justified under Chapter 9 section x subsection y. And no court case I've ever read references the statute title vs the actual statute. So as written, civil immunity would apply in defense of property.

I don't know if the law is interpreted this way or not, but I have seen contracts that state that the headings and titles are for information purposes only, and are not considered part of tha actual agreement.