TexasCHLforum.com

This is in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code;






CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE
OF PERSON

(Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)

§83.001. Affirmative defense.

It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for
personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of
action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32,
Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was
committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
defendant. (Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)


discuss???

txinvestigator wrote:This is in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code;






CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE
OF PERSON

(Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)

§83.001. Affirmative defense.

It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for
personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of
action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32,
Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was
committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
defendant. (Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)


discuss???

One possible issue is that the defendant will still be out a substantial amount of money for lawyer fees. Or, assuming the affirmative defense is successful, does the losing party have to cover the expenses in these types of cases?

Freedom4All wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:This is in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code;






CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE
OF PERSON

(Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)

§83.001. Affirmative defense.

It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for
personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of
action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32,
Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was
committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the
defendant. (Added by L.1995, chap. 235(2), eff. 9/1/95.)


discuss???

One possible issue is that the defendant will still be out a substantial amount of money for lawyer fees. Or, assuming the affirmative defense is successful, does the losing party have to cover the expenses in these types of cases?

To be honest, I just became aware of this. It is interesting.

That was one of my Best Friend's friends. I told her he should have not have been there and that would not have happened. Then she tried to compare that to my ex Brother in law being murdered. Those are night and day.

My ex brother in law was murdered in his momma front yard. If he would not have turned around when the guy said his name. He would have been shot in the back of the head.

Freedom4All wrote:One possible issue is that the defendant will still be out a substantial amount of money for lawyer fees. Or, assuming the affirmative defense is successful, does the losing party have to cover the expenses in these types of cases?

You are correct about the usefulness of a defense.

In Texas, the defendant generally cannot recover legal fees from a losing plaintiff. (Ironically, a plaintiff who prevails can often recover legal fees from a defendant.)

However, if the incident occurs on your insured property, the insurance company will foot the bill for the defense (or possibly pay off the claim).

As usual, IANAL, etc.

- Jim

as to the personal property, no not worth a life but are you telling me that at 2 am you are complete awake. Plus we do not know if he had a weapon or what was said. If someone says they are going to kill me. At that point it is a dog eat dog world. Or Kill or be killed. At 2 am you are not suppose to be in my house. I have children. If they go down that hallway they will not walk out of that room. My babies are my life and no one will threaten them while I am able to protect them.

seamusTX wrote:

Freedom4All wrote:One possible issue is that the defendant will still be out a substantial amount of money for lawyer fees. Or, assuming the affirmative defense is successful, does the losing party have to cover the expenses in these types of cases?

You are correct about the usefulness of a defense.

In Texas, the defendant generally cannot recover legal fees from a losing plaintiff. (Ironically, a plaintiff who prevails can often recover legal fees from a defendant.)

That's why you should countersue.

Kevin

The late, little lamented is probably indigent, and his family likewise. Not much to go after there.

The exception would be suburban kids who can do no wrong in their parents' eyes, but that's rare.

- Jim

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

Freedom4All wrote:One possible issue is that the defendant will still be out a substantial amount of money for lawyer fees. Or, assuming the affirmative defense is successful, does the losing party have to cover the expenses in these types of cases?

You are correct about the usefulness of a defense.

In Texas, the defendant generally cannot recover legal fees from a losing plaintiff. (Ironically, a plaintiff who prevails can often recover legal fees from a defendant.)

That's why you should countersue.

Kevin

+1 I like that idea

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In Texas, the defendant generally cannot recover legal fees from a losing plaintiff. (Ironically, a plaintiff who prevails can often recover legal fees from a defendant.)

That's why you should countersue.

Kevin

+1 I like that idea

Oh, I long ago decided that if I have to use deadly force against someone, I'm going to be talking to my lawyer about suing him (or his estate) for anything and everything, from the cost of the ammunition on up. Stress and mental anguish. Counseling for me and my family. Lawyer fees. New flooring, and the cost of biohazard cleanup.

Now, I don't think for one moment that I could get blood from a turnip, but "judgements are forever", as they say. If he survives and hits the lottery, I would get paid before he does. Meanwhile, his car, his clothes, his house, his gun, his cash, his grillz... I'd get first dibs on everything.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:Oh, I long ago decided that if I have to use deadly force against someone, I'm going to be talking to my lawyer about suing him (or his estate) for anything and everything, from the cost of the ammunition on up. Stress and mental anguish. Counseling for me and my family. Lawyer fees. New flooring, and the cost of biohazard cleanup.

You might want to talk to him about it before it happens, so that if it does, he can be ready to file the paperwork ASAP. I suspect (and I'm sure the several attorneys on here can correct me if I'm wrong) that in civil actions, like crime investigation, being the first person to claim victim status will help in the long run.

Buy him some good running shoes, too; the ambulance chasers that seem to be attracted to the "poor misunderstood" felons are going to be hard to beat to the courthouse.

Odin wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Is personal property worth a life???

That's not a question that we can answer because we aren't criminals.

That is a question that only a criminal can ask himself..."is this person's personal property worth my life?"

That depends...See the next post...

txinvestigator wrote:

Odin wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Is personal property worth a life???

That's not a question that we can answer because we aren't criminals.

That is a question that only a criminal can ask himself..."is this person's personal property worth my life?"

I think the question is, "are you willing to take the life of someone who is ONLY taking your stuff?" I, for one, am not.

I agree...I know that you stand firm on that premise...

And in response to Odin's comment...

I think as "reasonable" people, who happen to take self-defense seriously, we should not be expected to assume what a "criminal(s)" calculate the risks of actions, as we do...They live for the moment, and are not concerned with the ramifications of their actions, or for any intent they may have in the commission of a crime...

My intent in a situation like this is to dictate policy...

If I catch you, you will comply to whatever I deem necessary at that moment to secure the situation...

If I can secure them till lawful authority arrives...Everyone wins...

If they take off out the door with a VCR in hand..."Gosh, darn it! You got me!"

If anything develops as a threat to me or others in my home...Thats a bridge easily crossed...

But that's just me...And I hope I am considered a reasonable person for that philosophy...

txinvestigator wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Odin wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Is personal property worth a life???

That's not a question that we can answer because we aren't criminals.

That is a question that only a criminal can ask himself..."is this person's personal property worth my life?"

I think the question is, "are you willing to take the life of someone who is ONLY taking your stuff?" I, for one, am not.

Please assemble all of your firearms into one pile, I will be over tomorrow.

Sorry, all of my firearms were lost in a tragic boating accident......

I think its fabulous you have such a great relationship with them to take them out boating...You're a great Dad!

Tragic that they all drowned...

Sealed PVC containers???

stevie_d_64 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Odin wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Is personal property worth a life???

My intent in a situation like this is to dictate policy...

If I catch you, you will comply to whatever I deem necessary at that moment to secure the situation...

If I can secure them till lawful authority arrives...Everyone wins...

If they take off out the door with a VCR in hand..."Gosh, darn it! You got me!"

If anything develops as a threat to me or others in my home...Thats a bridge easily crossed...

But that's just me...And I hope I am considered a reasonable person for that philosophy...

Tote 9