Originally posted by newmathewsfan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Texas Law Shield/ US Law Shield
Collapse
X
-
There is a pretty good cross-section on TBH of people who would purchase and need these services. Is there any actual recorded cases of their services being rendered? Anybody know somebody else that actually used them?
It sounds like a trap, if the grand jury decides it was self defense I am off the hook and I don't need an attorney. If the grand jury decides it wasn't self defense, the attorney won't be available to me. Or help me with my appeal.
But this does get back to the issue of having the right to defend my family and property. I have the right, but there will be consequences to exercising that right. The price is pretty high to use deadly force to protect my loved ones and property. A price I am willing to bear to tuck them into bed instead of putting flowers on a gravestone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BowDude View PostActually, yes I have. I am also a CHL instructor and meet with them 4-5 times a year. They are very knowledgeable on handgun law. I had left them for a short term to try the USCCA group. I didn't like the fact that I had to get my own attorney here in Houston to represent me. They have a blanket insurance that will pay for all, but after the fact. I like that with Texas Lawshield I call an actual lawyer on phone - 24/7.
As a side note I have had them for the last couple years
Comment
-
Originally posted by txpitdog View PostThe point I took from it is that there is an opportunity for TLS to determine if the specific case is covered. Not that it has happened, but there is a possibility for it to happen where TLS could use any ambiguity in the contract language to deny a claim for service. What a horrible mess to find yourself in not only defending against a use of deadly force charge but also a dispute over contract language over whether TLS should foot the bill.
The other point I wasn't aware of is the fine line that exists now that self defense is protected from civil court. So if you legally used your firearm in self defense, you get a no-Bill and cannot be sued and don't need TLS. If in examining your case TLS determines that you did not legally use deadly force(or if you are found guilty?) then that isn't covered.
I didn't post that to jam up TLS, but there are apparently some contract language intricacies that folks need to be very clear about before signing up and assuming they are covered for what they think they are. That's all
Here is better description
A question came up in a recent CHL class on how to reconcile the statement in Texas Penal Code 9.06 that indicates that even in a justified self defensive shooting can be sued in a civil suit with Texas Penal Code 83.001 indicating that in a justified case of self defense, there is immunity from civil liability.
In Texas, anyone can sue for anything. There is nothing in the law that prevents that. All PC §9.06 is saying is that, yep, nothing in the Penal Code abolishes or impairs “any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.” So someone can sue over another’s use of force or deadly force. This language pre-dates, by a long way, the CHL laws. It was first added by the 63rd Legislature in 1973, and slightly amended by the 73rd Legislature in 1993.
Section 83.001 was added to the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by the 74th Legislature, the same year, 1995, that the CHL laws first were passed. But the wording was substantially changed by the 80th Legislature in 2007, when the so-called “Castle Doctrine” was passed as SB 378. Here’s a link to view the final text of the enrolled bill where you also can see the significant changes made to CPRC §83.001. Below is how that section read from 1995 through 2007, and the current version is below it:
CPRC §83.001 Prior to 2007 wrote:
CPRC §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.
CPRC §83.001 After 2007 wrote:
CPRC §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.
The new version is much cleaner and, logically, encompasses the justified use of force as described in the Penal Code, period, not limited to an occurrence of unlawful entry into a habitation.
So, in essence–again, only my opinion–nothing in the law prevents someone from filing a civil lawsuit as a result of your use of force. However, if your use of force is justified under PC Chapter 9, you are immune from civil liability for personal injury or death.
Last edited by hoythitman; 12-09-2015, 02:27 PM.
Comment
-
Another one is Firearms Legal Protection. That's the actual company name. I have a policy with them. Have not had to use them yet. Also have another legal protection through department.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hooligan View PostSo is the article correct? Do you get paid for each person who signs up through you?
As a side note I have had them for the last couple years
Comment
Comment