TexasCHLforum.com

Probably been asked and answered many times but here goes again. In Texas, if the district attorney says it was a justified shoot, can the dead bad guys family go after you in court??

Answer to question as posed. Yes.
IMHO

I cut and pasted this text directly from the CHL-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES

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.

Hopefully some of those on the forum with legal training will give a proper interpretation to this text.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I cut and pasted this text directly from the CHL-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES

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.

Hopefully some of those on the forum with legal training will give a proper interpretation to this text.

It says that if it is found to be justified then you are protected against civil liability... lol

hoss4570 wrote: . . .. can the dead bad guys family go after you in court??

wally775 wrote:Answer to question as posed. Yes.

Well, I didn't find that answer particularly helpful, almost like trying to give a trick answer to the question.

Yes, they can "go after you in court", in that anyone can file suit against anyone else for virtually any reason. So the above answer is technically accurate but not very useful or revealing.

A lawsuit stemming from justified shoot should get quickly tossed as a summary judgment, as the statute explicitly states you are immune from civil liability (quoted above).

Furthermore, since the families of feral youths and other miscreants are typically from the same kind of scumbag circumstances, they aren't paying a lawyer by the hour to file a lawsuit. Fat chance finding a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit and invest their time and money for a one third contingency fee when the statute explicitly states there is no pot of gold at the end of that particular rainbow.

More worrisome is the scenario where you accidentally shoot an innocent bystander while in the act of defending yourself. Criminally, one should be alright as long as you can demonstrate you did not act recklessly. But you are certainly going to face civil liability.

PC §9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Actually, PC §9.05 is one good reason to have training records, or competition records, that you can point to. If you can state that you were confident you could make a certain shot because of . . .. blah, blah, blah circumstances, that helps show you were not acting recklessly.

cmwoodruff wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I cut and pasted this text directly from the CHL-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES

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.

Hopefully some of those on the forum with legal training will give a proper interpretation to this text.

It says that if it is found to be justified then you are protected against civil liability... lol

Many things seem to be very cut and dried to me, but no sooner do I think that then the slicing and dicing of the wording begins. Thus, what I posted.

If you are involved in a shooting, nothing stops the possible lawsuit afterwards from being filed. If we assume it is a good shooting and the DA agrees that it was justified, there is no legally binding decision stopping the lawsuit. The DA's announcement, and the no bill if a grand jury said so, would weight heavily on the judge of the civil trial, but he is not truly bound by them.

I would think that a decent lawyer would be able to get the civil suit dismissed relatively quickly in a clean case by filing a motion for summary judgment. But if the case is that clear, it is highly unlikely the suit would be filed. Lawyers do not liek to file suits they know they will lose because they don't get paid that way.

If it is not as clear a case, or the civil trial judge is not in favor of self-defense, then a trial is a good possibility. The immunity would only come after a jury decided the shooting was justified. Note that the law says you are immune from liability, not from being sued. Liability is the finding of the suit.

The effect of the law is to greatly lower the chance of these law suits happening in any case where the odds lean towards a justified shooting, but it does not truly stop the lawsuits. The defense should win most of them, but the shooter might still have lawyers and court fees to pay.

Seems Zimmerman has a whole pack of laws on his side in Florida.

Police decided not to arrest him, no evidence of a crime. Chief of Police either resigned or was fired for not arresting him or refusing to arrest him. I am assuming the local DA no billed him.

But the Governor appointed a special state DA who had him arrested.

He is in currently in a lot of trouble after shooting a thug who was beating him senseless.

His neighborhood civic association has already settled out of court for a million dollars.

I suspect he has already been sued or will be regardless of the outcome of the trial. (remember OJ Simpson)

If you fire your gun at a stranger, who broke into your house at night and is armed and discharged their gun first, you would have a good case in a civil trial, but you still could be sued just to get your homeowner's policy to pay, especially if the stranger has a permanent injury as a result of your bullet, or is a minor.

This case is in California,
http://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird/ ... -back.html
I'm sure the use of an expletive and the plaintiff begging for his life and the pow, pow, pow, pow, etc. won't sit well with a CA jury.

Interesting. Thanks guys. I'd say the best idea is not to shoot. Don't know if I could do that or not BUT the only time in my whole CHL life that I had to pull my gun I DID not fire and the creep beat the crap out of me with a 2X4 about a week later so I swore this would NEVER happen again and thanks to the Good Lord I have never had to pull it again but this Zimmerman nonsense had me wondering because of the Castle Doctrine. I thought I remembered that is mostly what that was for, to stop frivolous suits against the honest, legal to own a gun person. SO, now I am still confused.....

There have been several lawsuits attempted here in texas after a legal shoot, none of them have gotten beyond the filing stage as the judge dismissed on filing. yes you can be sued over anything but there are some defenses against the frivolous filings, do not let the threat of a lawsuit make you decide to die rather than use the weapon and don't let anyone tell or convince you otherwise like a couple of the posters here

Good advise, Thank you.

There have been guns in Texas for 150 years or so now. How many felons shot in the act successfully sued their victim in Texas in all those years?

hoss4570 wrote:Interesting. Thanks guys. I'd say the best idea is not to shoot.

Unless you have to. It's got to be a tough choice, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty it's his life or mine. If it ever happens to me I hope I make it through and am able to live with it afterwards.

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