TexasCHLforum.com

That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.

RPBrown wrote:That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.

Me too. The BGs have owned the streets for too long & they know it.
It is time for a return to the good people of the land.
Flyem at the same heigth.

I agree, and this should extend to include all situations - at home or not. No ability for any party to sue in an event of lawful action by a CHL - whether its in his driveway, Walmart, or the middle of a restaurant.

However, in the event of say injuring an "innocent" third party, I could see that left open - only if there was clearly evident negligence. In that case, it should be strictly defined with very little leeway for DA's and judges to interpret - with error on the CHL's side.

cyphur wrote:I agree, and this should extend to include all situations - at home or not. No ability for any party to sue in an event of lawful action by a CHL - whether its in his driveway, Walmart, or the middle of a restaurant.

However, in the event of say injuring an "innocent" third party, I could see that left open - only if there was clearly evident negligence. In that case, it should be strictly defined with very little leeway for DA's and judges to interpret - with error on the CHL's side.

I don't anticipate any real trouble getting a good bill passed that deals with both the criminal and civil issues related to a lawful shooting by a CHL. I can almost guarantee it will not deal with reckless injury/killing of a third party from either a criminal or civil standpoint.

Injuring or killing someone unintentionally while engaging in lawful self-defense doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "recklessness." I've heard that some teach that any wounding or killing of an innocent party always equates to reckless injury of a third part, but that simply isn't true. A righteous self-defense shooting certainly can be carried out recklessly. For example, if a CHL doesn't ever practice and shoots only once every 5 years when they renew, their attempt to take a 25 yd. shot in a crowded restaurant would likely be considered by a jury as reckless conduct, even if the person he was shooting at needed to be shot. There are many other examples. Could the bar be set lower for reckless conduct in say Travis County v. Bell County? Yep, but there's nothing we can do about that.

Regards,
Chas.

this along with employer parking lots should be priority one CHL legislation this session.

I would like to add that the family of the BG have to pay restitution to the victim to cover psychological counseling (if desired) and replacement ammunition (mandatory).

RPBrown wrote:That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.

+1,000,000 here.

I have to disagree with High Velocity. There are lots of families out there who have no control over other family members. An example would be battered wives with abused kids, who are crimminilized every day by the sorry person they married. Should the parents be responsible for their adult son who becomes a drug addict who steals to support the habit? The crimminal is guilty, not the parents, not the brothers not the sisters. I wouldn't want to be held responsible for the actions of a 25 year old son.

I say make the offender pay, if he lives.

The offender's family should NOT have the right to sue, either.

I have to disagree with High Velocity

It looks like I'm losing my touch. Normally my sarcasm is quite apparent.

How about this 40fiver... The family members of the BG should not be allowed to proclaim to the media how their son/daughter/nephew/niece/grandson/ etc etc was such a nice kid and would never hurt anyone.

HighVelocity wrote:

I have to disagree with High Velocity

It looks like I'm losing my touch. Normally my sarcasm is quite apparent. .

I liked the replacement bullet part best.

Just curious, when does the next session start Chas?

You bet HighVelocity. The BG's family should have to own up to the fact their "precious little baby" was/is nothing but a common crimminal who deserves nothing but justice.

And I will admit, most of the time, the BG became a crimminal because the parent(s) refused to raise them properly. They do have some accountability.

40FIVER

Diode wrote:Just curious, when does the next session start Chas?

January, 2007 but I don't know the exact date.

Chas.