TexasCHLforum.com

Can someone show me the penal code that says if you are no-billed in a justified shoot you can not be held civilly liable.
Thanks!

That's not in the penal code. It's civil law. See section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

apostate wrote:That's not in the penal code. It's civil law. See section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Very good, thank you

...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote:...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 83.001 at that link is a little bit confusing, because it's not actually written as passed. The text in brackets [] was not included in the law as passed. Here's a direct link to CPRC 83.001 from the Texas statutes website:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#83.001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian

speedsix wrote:...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This link states that is in reference to the Castle Doctrine. Will Civil Immunity not apply if a justified shoot takes place in a public place?

MedicMan218 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This link states that is in reference to the Castle Doctrine. Will Civil Immunity not apply if a justified shoot takes place in a public place?

The modifications to 83.001 that were part of the Castle Bill apply to any justified shooting. It does not specify that it only applies in specific locations.

Brian

BrianSW99 wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This link states that is in reference to the Castle Doctrine. Will Civil Immunity not apply if a justified shoot takes place in a public place?

The modifications to 83.001 that were part of the Castle Bill apply to any justified shooting. It does not specify that it only applies in specific locations.

Brian

Thats what I was thinking. I just wanted some clarification.
Also, a guy on another forum seems to think differently and I'm not sure he is right. If he is thats fine, I just want to make sure I understand things correctly.

After I quoted the code his reply was...

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Isn't that exactly what Civil Immunity means?

MedicMan218 wrote: Thats what I was thinking. I just wanted some clarification.
Also, a guy on another forum seems to think differently and I'm not sure he is right. If he is thats fine, I just want to make sure I understand things correctly.

After I quoted the code his reply was...

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Isn't that exactly what Civil Immunity means?

It's the CPRC that governs civil suits, not the penal code. I think it's very unlikely you would be found liable after being no-billed, but my understanding is that the civil court would have to make it's own determination on whether it was a justified shooting. I would think the fact that you were no-billed by a grand jury would be pretty strong evidence that it was justified, but maybe it's possible that some judge or jury somewhere might decide it's not.

You'll still be sued, but you should be able to get the suit dismissed fairly quickly based on CPRC 83.001.

Brian

Civil liability will always exist. Don't let these laws make you too warm and fuzzy.

BrianSW99 wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote: Thats what I was thinking. I just wanted some clarification.
Also, a guy on another forum seems to think differently and I'm not sure he is right. If he is thats fine, I just want to make sure I understand things correctly.

After I quoted the code his reply was...

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Isn't that exactly what Civil Immunity means?

It's the CPRC that governs civil suits, not the penal code. I think it's very unlikely you would be found liable after being no-billed, but my understanding is that the civil court would have to make it's own determination on whether it was a justified shooting. I would think the fact that you were no-billed by a grand jury would be pretty strong evidence that it was justified, but maybe it's possible that some judge or jury somewhere might decide it's not.

You'll still be sued, but you should be able to get the suit dismissed fairly quickly based on CPRC 83.001.

Brian

Two almost completely different things. Just ask O.J.. He was acquitted, even though he probably shouldn't have been, but was found liable in a wrongful death civil suit.

However, it is very cool that our laws here in Texas give us that immunity for a justified use of lethal force.

MedicMan218 wrote: After I quoted the code his reply was...

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Isn't that exactly what Civil Immunity means?

This other guy is probably one of those folks that would say something like, if it doesn't say you can do something you could be arrested for it. Of course, it is not in the penal code. To be held civilly liable is not to be charged with a crime. That's what the penal code is for, crimes.

BrianSW99 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...here's the whole bill as passed:

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 83.001 at that link is a little bit confusing, because it's not actually written as passed. The text in brackets [] was not included in the law as passed. Here's a direct link to CPRC 83.001 from the Texas statutes website:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#83.001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian

...thank you, Sir!!! the heading when I googled said "as passed"...but it wasn't...good catch....here's the Tx Leg. version AS PASSED...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote: Thats what I was thinking. I just wanted some clarification.
Also, a guy on another forum seems to think differently and I'm not sure he is right. If he is thats fine, I just want to make sure I understand things correctly.

After I quoted the code his reply was...

As you see, that is not in the penal code, and it does not mean if you are no billed you cannot be held liable in a civil suit.

Isn't that exactly what Civil Immunity means?

It's the CPRC that governs civil suits, not the penal code. I think it's very unlikely you would be found liable after being no-billed, but my understanding is that the civil court would have to make it's own determination on whether it was a justified shooting. I would think the fact that you were no-billed by a grand jury would be pretty strong evidence that it was justified, but maybe it's possible that some judge or jury somewhere might decide it's not.

You'll still be sued, but you should be able to get the suit dismissed fairly quickly based on CPRC 83.001.

Brian

Two almost completely different things. Just ask O.J.. He was acquitted, even though he probably shouldn't have been, but was found liable in a wrongful death civil suit.

However, it is very cool that our laws here in Texas give us that immunity for a justified use of lethal force.

Having witnessed the aftermath of a few clean shoots now, expect to be tied up in civil court for a while. The amount of time is generally directly proportional to your net worth.

Fantastic.....not that I wanted to be involved in a shoot to begin with but even less now.