TexasCHLforum.com

I'm hoping Professor Cotton will answer this one.

In Anchia's HB 930 (which repeals the Castle Doctrine), section 83.001, it says that it is "an affirmative defense to a civil action" if a defendant was justified (under 9.32) in using deadly force against someone who "was committing an offense involving the unlawful entry into the habitation of the defendant..."

He removes the language saying the defendant is "immune from civil liability" for doing so.

What's the difference between "affirmative defense to a civil action" and "immune from civil liability"? Why does he change the language from the latter to the former?

Uh........ anybody?

Basically, what he is trying to achieve, is a way for scum, to sue the person who shot them , while they were simply going about their business of terrorizing/ attacking/ killing/ raping, the "hopefully" disarmed general public. The left hates the idea, of defending one's self, with no repercussions. ( See UK, Australia, etc)

JMHO

Having an affirmative defense to liability is good, but immunity from liability is much better.

If you can establish immunity, you should be able to get a suit against you dismissed without trial.

If you have an affirmative defense, you go to trial and try to convince the jury of your defense.

The difference between the two may be months or years and many thousands of dollars in defense costs.