TexasCHLforum.com

In TX, if you used deadly force (mortal or otherwise) and you were found to be justifed in the use of the deadly force, you are protected from civil liabilities (civil law suits). This is my understanding, however, my b-in-law was arguing otherwise.

I want to double check.

Beiruty wrote:In TX, if you used deadly force (mortal or otherwise) and you were found to be justifed in the use of the deadly force, you are protected from civil liabilities (civil law suits). This is my understanding, however, my b-in-law was arguing otherwise.

I want to double check.

Your b-in-law doesn't know squat.

CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL 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.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a lot of misunderstanding about the civil liability protection afforded by the "Castle Doctrine" bill when it passed. Many people thought it prevents someone from being sued, but it does not. No law can be written denying people access to the courts; it would be unconstitutional. The "Castle Doctrine" grants immunity from civil liability, not immunity from suit. You can still be sued, but you will win and probably win early in the case.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There was a lot of misunderstanding about the civil liability protection afforded by the "Castle Doctrine" bill when it passed. Many people thought it prevents someone from being sued, but it does not. No law can be written denying people access to the courts; it would be unconstitutional. The "Castle Doctrine" grants immunity from civil liability, not immunity from suit. You can still be sued, but you will win and probably win early in the case.

Chas.

Chas. knows whereof he speaks; however, be advised that winning is not free.

How often does the person actually get sued? You would think that if a criminal or family member of a criminal went to a lawyer seeking to file suit, the lawyer would not take the case due to the language in the Castle Doctrine, they have basically lost before they even get started. I would think that a 1st yr law student would be able to get the suit tossed out. Or am I just just being too rational about this?

hheremtp wrote:How often does the person actually get sued? You would think that if a criminal or family member of a criminal went to a lawyer seeking to file suit, the lawyer would not take the case due to the language in the Castle Doctrine, they have basically lost before they even get started. I would think that a 1st yr law student would be able to get the suit tossed out. Or am I just just being too rational about this?

It's called M-O-N-E-Y.

Win or lose,the piper must be paid. Do you think all of those lawyers who advertise on TV, the phone book, billboards and everywhere else that you look are in the Pro Bono business?

Oldgringo wrote:

hheremtp wrote:How often does the person actually get sued? You would think that if a criminal or family member of a criminal went to a lawyer seeking to file suit, the lawyer would not take the case due to the language in the Castle Doctrine, they have basically lost before they even get started. I would think that a 1st yr law student would be able to get the suit tossed out. Or am I just just being too rational about this?

It's called M-O-N-E-Y.

Win or lose,the piper must be paid. Do you think all of those lawyers who advertise on TV, the phone book, billboards and everywhere else that you look are in the Pro Bono business?

Not pro bono, but most of the personal injury lawyers collect their fees off of the judgment, if no judgment then no fee. That is why I question weather a personal injury lawyer would take the case. If they know the case will get tossed and they won't get paid, I don't think that they will bother taking the case. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

hheremtp wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

hheremtp wrote:How often does the person actually get sued? You would think that if a criminal or family member of a criminal went to a lawyer seeking to file suit, the lawyer would not take the case due to the language in the Castle Doctrine, they have basically lost before they even get started. I would think that a 1st yr law student would be able to get the suit tossed out. Or am I just just being too rational about this?

It's called M-O-N-E-Y.

Win or lose,the piper must be paid. Do you think all of those lawyers who advertise on TV, the phone book, billboards and everywhere else that you look are in the Pro Bono business?

Not pro bono, but most of the personal injury lawyers collect their fees off of the judgment, if no judgment then no fee. That is why I question weather a personal injury lawyer would take the case. If they know the case will get tossed and they won't get paid, I don't think that they will bother taking the case. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

You are correct, no attorney is going to take a case on a contingent fee basis knowing there have little or no chance to win. In spite of all of the lawyer-bashing that goes on (until the bashers or their family get hurt or killed, that is), attorneys representing people on a contingent fee basis have to weigh the cost of prosecuting the case against both the likelihood of winning and the likely award that would be made by the jury. Suing for "righteous" shootings were as rare as hen's teeth before passage of the Castle Doctrine and they will be even more rare now. The only time we see attorneys taking cases they know they won't win is if they are politically motivated like the frivolous suits against gun manufacturers. Those too are rare in Texas, and since the "Castle Doctrine" bill increases the likelihood the Court will award attorney fees and costs, we are not likely to see those suits either.

Chas.

Chas. is correct again.

Say what one will about lawyers: when one needs a lawyer, no one else will do. A piece of certified mail will actually give me the willies...yes, and that other thing too. I work very hard, in thought, word and deed, at not needing a lawyer.

Criminals often have some experience with pro se proceedings. Some keep on with their jailhouse lawyering even after they're back on the streets. So, it's possible one might file on his own. It would also be shut down pretty quickly in the process. (Ironically, it might actually cost more in hourly attorney fees, since a pro se litigant is entitled to extra guidance and lattitude from the judge, which takes up more time.)

And here lies the problem with our legal system. Anyone can sue for any reason. I can pick a member of this forum at random, find something I don't like, fill out a short form and file a suit to sue them, my cost very little.

Now that member can decide to take their chances and not get a lawyer and maybe win, or spend lots of cash and be safe.

If I win....Jackpot, if I lose I'm out my filing fees.. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this picture?

And there are many lawyers who would think nothing of paying off a judge and many judges that would gladly accept the payoff.

Is this going to stop me from defending what's mine, NO. but be aware...

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

casingpoint wrote:

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

Can we assume that the defendant's lawyer will expect to be paid for establishing that plaintiff was in violation?

Oldgringo wrote:

casingpoint wrote:

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

Can we assume that the defendant's lawyer will expect to be paid for establishing that plaintiff was in violation?

Yes he will, and in that summary judgment you ask for the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

hheremtp wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

casingpoint wrote:

Chas. Cotton wrote: you will win and probably win early in the case

I would think that virtually 100 % of these cases would be dismissed on summary judgment once the defendant establishes the plaintiff was in violation.

Can we assume that the defendant's lawyer will expect to be paid for establishing that plaintiff was in violation?

Yes he will, and in that summary judgment you ask for the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.

The person who broke into your "castle" that had to be protected with deadly force in all liklihood is not a model citizen with a comfortable bank account or an estate that can be attached by the court. Similarly, his relatives who are bringing the wrongful death suit have been told there is money to be had here. You win and the judge orders the broke plaintiffs to cough up what they never had in the first place - money. Your lawyer who beat the charge probably still wants to be paid.

I'm not being argumentative or contentious, I'm just sayin'...it's gonna' cost you, win, lose or draw.