Question about the new force statutes

nitrogen · Post by **nitrogen** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:28 pm

I take it to mean someone that's not trespassing or otherwise committing a crime by being in an area. (Or committing a crime while being in an area) I'm interested to see what the legal eagles say though.

Afff_667 · Post by **Afff_667** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:51 pm

It's pretty vague and will probably require a guinea pig...er, test case.

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:02 pm

I take it as anywhere you legally can be. I base that on the rules the SCOTUS has used for police plain view exceptions. There they said that if the police officer was where he could legally be, the items in plain sight are legal to seize and use in court without a warrant.

Unless someone else comes up with a better definition that makes sense to me (or a court ruling, whether it makes sense to me or not), I will go with this for instructing officers.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:42 pm

srothstein wrote:I take it as anywhere you legally can be. I base that on the rules the SCOTUS has used for police plain view exceptions. There they said that if the police officer was where he could legally be, the items in plain sight are legal to seize and use in court without a warrant.

I am with you. Its pretty plain to me.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:12 pm

Me too. Anywhere you can legally be seems pretty plain to me.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:33 pm

Russell wrote:So basically Texas took the Castle Doctrine law a step further to include anywhere you are legally allowed to be. Do I understand that correctly?

Yes.

Afff_667 · Post by **Afff_667** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:36 pm

Wow...Thanks for the info.

casingpoint · Post by **casingpoint** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:18 am

"Texas took the Castle Doctrine law a step further to include anywhere you are legally allowed to be"

That is what Florida did some time ago. There was a problem case right off the bat. There is legal gray matter in the phrasing, "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used." Lots of wiggle room there for prosecutors and survivors. The preceding statutes were probably sufficient for life on the street. This amounts to a license to kill, his word against mine, and he ain't saying much of late.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:33 am

casingpoint wrote:"Texas took the Castle Doctrine law a step further to include anywhere you are legally allowed to be"

That is what Florida did some time ago. There was a problem case right off the bat. There is legal gray matter in the phrasing, "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used." Lots of wiggle room there for prosecutors and survivors. The preceding statutes were probably sufficient for life on the street. This amounts to a license to kill, his word against mine, and he ain't saying much of late.

This is an interesting point...

But even though I am a big supporter of what Texas did to enhance the law of the land, I believe the Texas CHL community will and should still implement a de-escalation policy...

And it should not be based upon "why" you should, or should not leave or de-escalate a potentially volitile situation, its "how" you leave it...

You certainly will not be thought of less if you are able to de-escalate...

It (Texas Castle Doctrine) certainly gives new meaning to "Don't mess with Texas"...

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:32 am

stevie_d_64 wrote: But even though I am a big supporter of what Texas did to enhance the law of the land, I believe the Texas CHL community will and should still implement a de-escalation policy...

De-escalation and "withdraw if possible" has been an ingrained habit for so long that I do not think I could change if I wanted to.

And I don't.

IMO, it's just the right ("reasonable") thing to do. Why get involved in a shooting if there is an easier way out?

I view the new law as just making it more difficult for renegade DA's to run bad prosecutions against people acting in lawful self defense, and more difficult for unscrupulous plaintiffs' lawyers to launch spurious civil suits on behalf of scumbag criminals.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:27 am

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote: But even though I am a big supporter of what Texas did to enhance the law of the land, I believe the Texas CHL community will and should still implement a de-escalation policy...
De-escalation and "withdraw if possible" has been an ingrained habit for so long that I do not think I could change if I wanted to.

And I don't.

IMO, it's just the right ("reasonable") thing to do. Why get involved in a shooting if there is an easier way out?

I view the new law as just making it more difficult for renegade DA's to run bad prosecutions against people acting in lawful self defense, and more difficult for unscrupulous plaintiffs' lawyers to launch spurious civil suits on behalf of scumbag criminals.

You betcha!!!

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:40 pm

Russell wrote:I've been looking through the law and can't seem to locate where civil lawsuits were blocked if the shooting was justified.

Where is this? It DID get passed didn't it?

SB 378 included changes to chapter 9 of the penal code AND changes to Chapter 83, of the Civil Practices and remedies code, where the civil issues were addressed.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. 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
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

The bill here; http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.doc