TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

KD5NRH wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Technically, breaking into a car is burglary of a vehicle:

Uh, no, it's not:

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

One could break into a car with intent to commit a non-theft misdemeanor, or even no other crime at all. Presumably, that would be charged as criminal mischief.

In my post I cited the full statute, which included the intent requirements, so I don't see much room for confusion. However, if some clarification is needed perhaps this will help.

While it's true that simply damaging a vehicle without intending to commit a theft or other felony would be criminal mischief, the street reality is that people don't break into a vehicle in the common sense of that term to just have a comfortable place to sit. Break ins are almost always done for the purpose of committing another crime which usually revolves around theft of contents, theft of the vehicle, trashing the interior, or robbery, kidnapping, or some type of assault against someone inside. Those are all either thefts, felonies, or both.

I've seen thousands of burglary, theft, and criminal mischief cases. The criminal mischief incidents generally involved damage to the exterior of the vehicle only without entry. Where a break in occurred and criminal mischief was charged, it was usually because the BG was interrupted during the crime and didn't go far enough with the theft part to hold up in court.

I can't think of any unlawful vehicle entry where someone broke in for a purpose other than to get something that was in out, to commit a crime against someone inside, to torch it or otherwise cause major damage, or to steal the vehicle itself.

There may have been such a case somewhere, but, if so, it was clearly the exception rather than the rule.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

YEP, IANAL but that is what I thought I said previously.

Folk, shootin' people is, at the very least, gonna' bring on a lot of conversation and forms to fill out.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

I thought I had pointed that out. It would be helpful for the legislature to remove that clause, since, at first glance, it conflicts with CPRC83:001. However, the phrase "does not abolish or impair any remedy of the conduct that is available in a civil suit" is rendered a nullity by the change in 83.001. "any remedy" is defined in 83.001 as "none". IOW, there is no remedy available. So, while the clause appears to conflict, and should probably be removed to clarify the law, in effect it says that you can be sued for whatever remedies are available, which are none.

Oldgringo wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

YEP, IANAL but that is what I thought I said previously.

Folk, shootin' people is, at the very least, gonna' bring on a lot of conversation and forms to fill out.

My response to this would be to represent myself pro se and ask the court to immediately dismiss the suit with prejudice. If I was in a foul frame of mind at the time, I would also ask the court to consider sanctions against the plaintiff's lawyer for falsely filing a suit he should have known he could not file and to further order that the plaintiff reimburse me for my court costs.

baldeagle wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

YEP, IANAL but that is what I thought I said previously.

Folk, shootin' people is, at the very least, gonna' bring on a lot of conversation and forms to fill out.

My response to this would be to represent myself pro se and ask the court to immediately dismiss the suit with prejudice. If I was in a foul frame of mind at the time, I would also ask the court to consider sanctions against the plaintiff's lawyer for falsely filing a suit he should have known he could not file and to further order that the plaintiff reimburse me for my court costs.

IANAL nor do I have deep pockets to pay lawyers. Good luck and please let us know how this works out for you.

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

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.

Interestingly, (and contradiction-ally) Penal Code 9.06 states:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

I thought I had pointed that out. It would be helpful for the legislature to remove that clause, since, at first glance, it conflicts with CPRC83:001. However, the phrase "does not abolish or impair any remedy of the conduct that is available in a civil suit" is rendered a nullity by the change in 83.001. "any remedy" is defined in 83.001 as "none". IOW, there is no remedy available. So, while the clause appears to conflict, and should probably be removed to clarify the law, in effect it says that you can be sued for whatever remedies are available, which are none.

Absolutely clear as mud! (The law, that is. Your explanation is clearer than that )

AndyC wrote:I'd still want to balance legality and morality; I don't want to blast someone just because the law says "Send it" - obviously.

I still shake my head thinking about my hippie, very anti-gun housemate in Cape Town who was shrieking at me to shoot the guy who was getting away with her car-stereo

I have to ask.... How on earth did she reconcile the cognitive dissonance that must have flowed from that one? Or, did she come around to a more sensible point of view?

hirundo82 wrote:I tend to agree with most people here--just because the law says I can shoot someone for keying my car doesn't mean I'm morally justified for doing so.

That's how I feel about eating pork. It's legal but that doesn't make it moral.

Oldgringo wrote:

baldeagle wrote:My response to this would be to represent myself pro se and ask the court to immediately dismiss the suit with prejudice. If I was in a foul frame of mind at the time, I would also ask the court to consider sanctions against the plaintiff's lawyer for falsely filing a suit he should have known he could not file and to further order that the plaintiff reimburse me for my court costs.

IANAL nor do I have deep pockets to pay lawyers. Good luck and please let us know how this works out for you.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1654

The Annoyed Man wrote: I have to ask.... How on earth did she reconcile the cognitive dissonance that must have flowed from that one? Or, did she come around to a more sensible point of view?

reconcile...cognitive....dissonance....these are not words or concepts hippies understand.

If I remember these incidents from many years ago, here in Houston correctly, they were both at night.

One a teenager stole a package of gum at a convenience store and ran out, the other a car alarm went off in an apartment parking lot. In both cases the owners took out guns and killed the thief. In the apartment complex the owner fired a deer rifle with a scope from the second floor of his apartment bedroom. In the other, the teenager was shot in the back with a handgun.

Both cases the DA sent it to the grand jury without charges and none were filed.

Ameer wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:I tend to agree with most people here--just because the law says I can shoot someone for keying my car doesn't mean I'm morally justified for doing so.

That's how I feel about eating pork. It's legal but that doesn't make it moral.

Maybe not for you, but I love me some smoked pork ribs, and so does my pastor! And I'm a very religious man. Just not a religion that objects to pork.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Ameer wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:I tend to agree with most people here--just because the law says I can shoot someone for keying my car doesn't mean I'm morally justified for doing so.

That's how I feel about eating pork. It's legal but that doesn't make it moral.

Maybe not for you, but I love me some smoked pork ribs, and so does my pastor! And I'm a very religious man. Just not a religion that objects to pork.

Good catch, TAM! Pork is good and so is catfish...eaten with either hand.

Ameer wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

baldeagle wrote:My response to this would be to represent myself pro se and ask the court to immediately dismiss the suit with prejudice. If I was in a foul frame of mind at the time, I would also ask the court to consider sanctions against the plaintiff's lawyer for falsely filing a suit he should have known he could not file and to further order that the plaintiff reimburse me for my court costs.

IANAL nor do I have deep pockets to pay lawyers. Good luck and please let us know how this works out for you.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1654

Thank you for the Latin lesson, Ameer. I see that you're a new member, how long have you had your CHL and what do you carry?