TexasCHLforum.com

snorri wrote:I know it's not admissible at trial, but is the grand jury allowed to know the criminal history of the parties involved?

It’s entirely up to the DA who’s presenting the case. The grand Jury is his ball game.

PRO wrote:I have little fact to go on here except the shot placement, however, that tells volumes.

I’m leaning towards this being a CHL’er who’s ego was bruised by the robbery, got it into his head that, “The law says I can shoot him,” so he shot him in the back. I do not believe his life was in much jeopardy until he started firing at someone whose back was turned.

I wouldn't care if the guy threw ET in the bike's front basket and flew straight up toward the moon. If he shoots at me, he's gonna get shot.

74novaman wrote:In the end, we all have to make our own judgments as to when its justified. Others may have opinions, but they don't have to live with the results of that decision. You will.

In the end, we also have to make our own judgments as to when it is worth it.

TxCommish wrote:I wouldn't care if the guy threw ET in the bike's front basket and flew straight up toward the moon. If he shoots at me, he's gonna get shot.

G26ster wrote:

PRO wrote:. Regardless of the DA, the civil case will soon come.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 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.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.[/color]

I was shocked when I read this. My CHL instructor stated that you were immune from liability only when lawfully using deadly force under the castle doctrine (home, car and place of business). Other than that exception, you could be sued for the lawful use of deadly force.

Knowing that this is not true removes a huge burden from the decision to use deadly force. Now the decision can be made on the nature and seriousness of the threat and not the possible legal liability attached to the use of deadly force.

Mr. Cotton put it quite well:

"Since the 9/1/07 effective date of the "Castle Doctrine" Bill, people who are justified in using force under Texas Penal Code Chp. 9 are immune from civil liability. This does not mean you cannot be sued, but it means you will win. Your attorney would probably file something called a motion for summary judgment asking the court to throw the case out of court and asking the court to award you all attorney fees and other costs of defense. The court may or may not grant the award of attorney fees, but the more frivolous the suit, the better the chance of getting an award. Whether or not you can ultimately collect it is another question."