TexasCHLforum.com

I boorowed this from another site. This is good TV reporting.



http://wmctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=124314




Ron Krelstein, a Germantown self-defense attorney who wrote the Memphis Police Department's "shoot, don't shoot" policy in 1971, says the law also provides civil immunity to any Tennessee citizen who kills someone in self-defense. That means they cannot be sued by the attacker's family for losses or damages.


I wish we had this in Texas.

bps3040 wrote:I boorowed this from another site. This is good TV reporting.



http://wmctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=124314




Ron Krelstein, a Germantown self-defense attorney who wrote the Memphis Police Department's "shoot, don't shoot" policy in 1971, says the law also provides civil immunity to any Tennessee citizen who kills someone in self-defense. That means they cannot be sued by the attacker's family for losses or damages.


I wish we had this in Texas.

We do, it's called the Castle Doctrine and it was put into law Sept. 1 last year.

I thought we could still be sued by family members. In Tenn. They cannot be sued. But the best part is they put concealed carry in a positive light

bps3040 wrote:I thought we could still be sued by family members. In Tenn. They cannot be sued.

Actually, they CAN be sued in either state if someone will take the case, but it will likely be dismissed before going anywhere. Here is the text from S.B. 378 passed last year (full bill here )

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 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 force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Don't you think it would make a lawyer stop a second and think about it...versus here, they automaticlly file. If they , BG's family, know upfront that they will have to pay court costs, lawyer fees, and such......you don't think they will hesitate just a little?

I wonder if they could expand "The Good Samaritan" law to include those "1st responders" in an active shooter scenario

as it stands it only covers 1st aid, well when someone is shooting people in a crowd..the best 1st aid is to stop the shooter..then deal with the wounded right? And anyone unconscious from a would would give you implied consent in saving their bacon right?

I wonder how well this would hold up in court

bps3040 wrote:Don't you think it would make a lawyer stop a second and think about it...versus here, they automaticlly file. If they , BG's family, know upfront that they will have to pay court costs, lawyer fees, and such......you don't think they will hesitate just a little?

I'm not sure what you mean by '....versus here, they automatically file.' Texas and Tennesee are both Castle Doctrine states, so the civil liability is limited.

The main difference between Texas (stated above from SB 378) and Tennessee (PC 210) is Texas states 'affirmative defense to civil action' whereas Tennessee says 'immune from civil action'. IANAL, so not sure how the variance would be construed by an attorney potentially taking a wrongful death suit filed by the family against a justified shooter.

Here is the civil action portion from Tennessee PC 210:

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, is amended by adding the following new § 39-11-622:
(a)
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611-- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:
(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106(21) who:
(i) Was acting in the performance of his or her official duties; and
(ii) Identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law; or
(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or
(B) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against such person based upon the person’s use of force if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611--- 39-11-614, or § 29-34-201.

Actually, I think the final version of Castle Doctrine that was adopted here in TX also provides for civil immunity. The "affirmative defense" provision was in an earlier version that was later amended. IIRC, there was a thread on this a while back (6 or 8 months ago) where Stephan Rothstein and I had a good discussion on this.

Our Castle Doctrine law here in TX is about as good as it gets.