14 year old defends home, shoots 17 year old in the face

ok so i may be wrong... NC is a little different...

 

That would be incorrect. The section does read:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

However, a judge, in interpreting the law, particularly in the case I spoke about, felt that the shooter did not fall under this protection because the shooting occurred under "unusual circumstances". The circumstances were the shooter was shooting at felons who had broken into a neighbor's home and were making off with the neighbor's goods. The shooter did indeed make it through the Grand Jury without a criminal charge. The Civil court decided that since it was not strictly in defense of the individual's home, property, person, or place of business, the shooter fell fully under civil liability to the family of the deceased.

Again, the Judicial System can take a perfectly good law and shove it up your tail pipe without lubrication. It is call interpretation. The Texas Castle Doctrine is quite clear on personal defense of one's home, life, possessions, car, place of work...just doesn't cover you defending your neighbor or his stuff. Which, when you think about it, is rather asinine.

 

Castle Doctrine does not address the fact that a gun was left where a 14 year old had access.

The liberals will be calling for the parent's heads because they endangered the 14 yr old...never mind the fact the kid used it in self-defense.

 

I shot a burglar when I was 12 or 13 but I shot him in the ass and abdoman and back of the head rather than in his face. He was exiting the door after entering through a window and I had my .22 and mother screaming to shoot him. I probably would have shot him a lot more but he kept pleading for me to stop shooting him. The bullet in the back of his head took a big chunck of hair and skull away and you could see his brains through his fingers, what little he had, but apparently the shot in his ass did the most damage. They said he nearly died from that but he got better and did 11-29 in the county jail for breaking and entering. It got very little attention, except from an Uncle that still teases me 45 years later for it.

 

"Shoot any burglars in the butt lately?" Kind of stuff? I have an uncle JUST like that. My cousins claim he is that way ALL the time. Thank goodness I was born to the normal sibling!

 

I figure all the kid has to say is that the guys saw him and threatened to kill him. Then it becomes protection of himself and not property. What civil jury is going to go against a kid who was trying to keep from getting killed.

 

Not the kid. The parents. The parents are legally responsible for the child and the child's actions until said offspring is 18 years of age.

 

I thought the castle doctrine was supposed to put an end to the law suits after a legal shooting. That is the primary reason for them, and I heard it repeated endlessly while it was going thru the process.

Does anyone know for sure?
jim

 

Annnnnnnd again....

That would be incorrect. The section does read:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

However, a judge, in interpreting the law, particularly in the case I spoke about, felt that the shooter did not fall under this protection because the shooting occurred under "unusual circumstances". The circumstances were the shooter was shooting at felons who had broken into a neighbor's home and were making off with the neighbor's goods. The shooter did indeed make it through the Grand Jury without a criminal charge. The Civil court decided that since it was not strictly in defense of the individual's home, property, person, or place of business, the shooter fell fully under civil liability to the family of the deceased.

Again, the Judicial System can take a perfectly good law and shove it up your tail pipe without lubrication. It is call interpretation. The Texas Castle Doctrine is quite clear on personal defense of one's home, life, possessions, car, place of work...just doesn't cover you defending your neighbor or his stuff. Which, when you think about it, is rather asinine.

​

 

Falcon, are you referring to the Joe Horn shooting? If so, I cannot find any reference to him being sued in civil court. If it's a different case can you provide more information about it?
Thanks

 

Yes. Ever since Quanell-X got involved, the civil actions are proceeding. In appeals TMK.