TexasCHLforum.com

Can anyone, especially an attorney, please explain what part of Texas law is in effect according to these two statutes. They seem to be in conflict. Thank you.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

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.

Probably best to ask your lawyer. I don't know about others here, but would not want to give you an interpretation that could be construed as legal advice. I doubt any one else here will either.

Please read this thread. It discusses this topic

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... Y#p1180313

Edited to add: I interpret the sign to me mean "No Shooting" firearms or BB Guns.
I guess they forgot about pellet guns.

MunchmaQuchi wrote:Can anyone, especially an attorney, please explain what part of Texas law is in effect according to these two statutes. They seem to be in conflict. Thank you.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

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.

My take on it is that 9.06 says your civil remedies are not abolished or impaired. However 83.001 says civil liability for personal injury or death is NOT one of the remedies available, so it doesn't need to be abolished or impaired by 9.06, because it is already precluded.

Now I'm standing by for the Texas Bar to accuse me of practicing law without a license for posting my opinion on a Web Forum. They're probably too busy chasing down LegalZoom, Nolo.com, and LTC instructors who teach for compensation.

ScottDLS wrote:...

Now I'm standing by for the Texas Bar to accuse me of practicing law without a license for posting my opinion on a Web Forum. They're probably too busy chasing down LegalZoom, Nolo.com, and LTC instructors who teach for compensation.

Hmm. Clearly a rule #22 is needed to cover blatant, global, or, rampant lawyer bashing.

I would further propose that a rule #23 should prohibit use of the Oxford comma too. But that's me.

This is probably a better link to an answer by someone who knows:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30408

My take on it: if you shoot someone in justified self-defense, he or his survivors can sue you, but if you show in the civil suit Your use of force was legally justified, you cannot be held liable for the perpetrators losses.

warnmar10 wrote: I would further propose that a rule #23 should prohibit use of the Oxford comma too. But that's me.

Might want to rethink that. The confusion you avert may be your own.

an example from GRAMMARLY.COM;

Unless you’re writing for a particular publication or drafting an essay for school, whether or not you use the Oxford comma is generally up to you. However, omitting it can sometimes cause some strange misunderstandings.

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.
Without the Oxford comma, the sentence above could be interpreted as stating that you love your parents, and your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. Here’s the same sentence with the Oxford comma:

I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

As you can see, sometimes it DOES make a difference.

You can be sued by anyone, anywhere, anytime. What happens after that has infinite alternatives.

ScottDLS wrote:

MunchmaQuchi wrote:Can anyone, especially an attorney, please explain what part of Texas law is in effect according to these two statutes. They seem to be in conflict. Thank you.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

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.

My take on it is that 9.06 says your civil remedies are not abolished or impaired. However 83.001 says civil liability for personal injury or death is NOT one of the remedies available, so it doesn't need to be abolished or impaired by 9.06, because it is already precluded.

Now I'm standing by for the Texas Bar to accuse me of practicing law without a license for posting my opinion on a Web Forum. They're probably too busy chasing down LegalZoom, Nolo.com, and LTC instructors who teach for compensation.

So if I understand the apparent conflict it says you can be sued but if your actions are found to be justified and lawful during the criminal investigation and your lawyer presents that to the court the case should be then immediately dismissed?

How much leeway does this leave a judge to allow the case to proceed anyway?

TheFriscoKid wrote:Can anyone, especially an attorney, please explain what part of Texas law is in effect according to these two statutes. They seem to be in conflict. Thank you.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

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.

Not an attorney, but this is how I understand & differentiate between the two:

Section 9.06 is from the PENAL code (Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code); it is basically saying that it only provides justification or defenses regarding CRIMINAL prosecution, & for civil matters you should look at the civil code.

Section 83.001 is from the CIVIL code (Civil Practices & Remedies Code). It references Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, and establishes that you are immune from civil liability if your use of force/deadly force was justified under Chapter 9.

Others have already commented on the ability to sue, or attempt to sue, for anything. So yes, someone could attempt to sue you even if your use of force was justified, but 83.001 should render it a moot point.

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:As you can see, sometimes it DOES make a difference.

It ALWAYS makes a difference for CDO guys like me. (CDO? It's just like OCD, but in alphabetical order, as it should be.)

Can we sue people who don't use the Oxford comma? Maybe, too, those that misuse apostrophes in possessive pronouns.

E10 wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:As you can see, sometimes it DOES make a difference.

It ALWAYS makes a difference for CDO guys like me. (CDO? It's just like OCD, but in alphabetical order, as it should be.)

Can we sue people who don't use the Oxford comma? Maybe, too, those that misuse apostrophes in possessive pronouns.

I am a major proponent of the Oxford comma. While I understand that it is optional, it really makes the meaning of lists much clearer.

ScottDLS wrote:I am a major proponent of the Oxford comma. While I understand that it is optional, it really makes the meaning of lists much clearer.

I had to go look up "Oxford comma". I've been using it since I was in elementary school. I just didn't know it had a fancy name.