TexasCHLforum.com

OneGun wrote:

philip964 wrote:"I saw a girl run out of the house and a guy chasing after her walking speed," said witness Brian Valera. "He was very, very angry. He yelled very threateningly at them."

Here was my concern for our shooter.

Brian's not a great witness for his neighbor.

My other concern for our shooter is probably both these woman have boy friends and fathers, who might be very upset.

A KHOU video story from yesterday interviews a South Texas College of Law professor that states under Texas Law, the homeowner was within his rights. The story also draws a parallel with the Joe Horn shooting in Pasadena 7 years ago where Mr. Horn shot two burglars that broke into his neighbor's house and shot both of them on the street as they were leaving his neighbor's house. The grand jury did not indict Mr. Horn. However, Quanell X did hold demonstrations outside of Mr. Horn's house arguing that burglary should not be a capital crime, even for illegal immigrants with prior convictions as was the situation in Mr. Horn's shooting.

In the shooting from the other day, I doubt that the homeowner will be indicted. I am confident that some plaintiffs attorney will encourage the ladies to file civil suits for millions of dollars in damages that they will never be able to spend when they are in prison.

If the homeowner acted lawfully, he has immunity from civil suits arising from his actions under the castle doctrine.

The suspects are learning some hard lessons here.

philip964 wrote:"I saw a girl run out of the house and a guy chasing after her walking speed," said witness Brian Valera. "He was very, very angry. He yelled very threateningly at them."

Here was my concern for our shooter.

Brian's not a great witness for his neighbor.

My other concern for our shooter is probably both these woman have boy friends and fathers, who might be very upset.

Not meaning to sound flip but I think being angry about someone breaking into our home is a natural reaction. I imagine it scared everyone in the house including the hero . Based on the news report, I dont think the homeowner needs much from a witness as the facts speak loudly.

There is also a good chance the girls fathers are probably ashamed of their daughters & the boy friends? LOL the homeowner has a gun and is a proven shooter! Probably the worse we could expect from them is a lot of mouthing off.

Jim Beaux wrote:

philip964 wrote:"I saw a girl run out of the house and a guy chasing after her walking speed," said witness Brian Valera. "He was very, very angry. He yelled very threateningly at them."

Here was my concern for our shooter.

Brian's not a great witness for his neighbor.

My other concern for our shooter is probably both these woman have boy friends and fathers, who might be very upset.

Not meaning to sound flip but I think being angry about someone breaking into our home is a natural reaction. I imagine it scared everyone in the house including the hero . Based on the news report, I dont think the homeowner needs much from a witness as the facts speak loudly.

There is also a good chance the girls fathers are probably ashamed of their daughters & the boy friends? LOL the homeowner has a gun and is a proven shooter! Probably the worse we could expect from them is a lot of mouthing off.

Odds are their fathers haven't got a clue what is going on and have never cared.

Prayers for the victim. I hope those criminals and their accomplices trouble him no more.

OneGun wrote:... I am confident that some plaintiffs attorney will encourage the ladies to file civil suits for millions of dollars in damages that they will never be able to spend when they are in prison.

Nope. Plaintiff Attorneys aren't going to waste time trying to collect 1/3 of ZERO.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

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.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

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.

Jumping Frog wrote:

OneGun wrote:... I am confident that some plaintiffs attorney will encourage the ladies to file civil suits for millions of dollars in damages that they will never be able to spend when they are in prison.

Nope. Plaintiff Attorneys aren't going to waste time trying to collect 1/3 of ZERO.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

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.

Mr. Frog:

I am afraid that you and I had a slight misunderstanding. I never meant the Plaintiffs would prevail in the lawsuit as you have clearly shown, they cannot. Unfortunately, Plaintiff attorneys are notorious for filing frivilous lawsuits. I believe the cliche goes something to the effect of "you can beat the rap, but not the ride".

I am personally familiar with that cliche. Without going off-topic too much, I was previously sued by a former employer for "breaching" a contract that I never saw, never signed and never agreed with in principal. While I prevailed in the suit, I spent many thousands of dollars on legal bills before the judge ruled in my favor on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs made many "settlement" offers that all involved me paying them to drop the the lawsuit. I refused. Not only did it cost me a lot in legal bills, I had a hard time securing employment for an extended period of time until the matter was resolved.

My point is that even though the homeowner is in the right, his troubles may not be over.

OneGun wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

OneGun wrote:... I am confident that some plaintiffs attorney will encourage the ladies to file civil suits for millions of dollars in damages that they will never be able to spend when they are in prison.

Nope. Plaintiff Attorneys aren't going to waste time trying to collect 1/3 of ZERO.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

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.

Mr. Frog:

I am afraid that you and I had a slight misunderstanding. I never meant the Plaintiffs would prevail in the lawsuit as you have clearly shown, they cannot. Unfortunately, Plaintiff attorneys are notorious for filing frivilous lawsuits. I believe the cliche goes something to the effect of "you can beat the rap, but not the ride".

I am personally familiar with that cliche. Without going off-topic too much, I was previously sued by a former employer for "breaching" a contract that I never saw, never signed and never agreed with in principal. While I prevailed in the suit, I spent many thousands of dollars on legal bills before the judge ruled in my favor on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs made many "settlement" offers that all involved me paying them to drop the the lawsuit. I refused. Not only did it cost me a lot in legal bills, I had a hard time securing employment for an extended period of time until the matter was resolved.

My point is that even though the homeowner is in the right, his troubles may not be over.

No attorney will take on a case where there is no payout. The Texas Castle Doctrine law is specific. It states immunity.

OneGun wrote:
I am afraid that you and I had a slight misunderstanding. I never meant the Plaintiffs would prevail in the lawsuit as you have clearly shown, they cannot. Unfortunately, Plaintiff attorneys are notorious for filing frivilous lawsuit ....
, I was previously sued by a former employer for "breaching" a contract ....

I believe part of your confusion is not understanding the distinction between the Plaintiff's Bar and corporate counsel.

I interact with both sides, virtually on a daily basis. Plaintiff Attorney's almost always are working for a percentage of the funds acquired. Almost always, they do not charge the plaintiff an hourly billing rate. When John and Mary's car gets backed into they are not paying an attorney by the hour to sue the big bad company $250,000.

When a corporation either sues someone for breach of contract or needs to defend against a lawsuit, they are paying the attorney through a billing arrangement, not as a percent of the award.

Plaintiff attorneys looking to recover a percent of the award view every one of their cases like a steely-eyed investor constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the future value of their investment. Literally, every round of discovery, every deposition, every pre-trial meeting, everything that affects the value of their case causes their assessment if value to fluctuate up and down as the facts indicate.

I've sat on the other side of the table too many times with too many of these people to have any doubt in my mind: if there is zero money to be collected, they are not going to waste any effort filing a case.