Leagality of shooting intruders with novelty rounds such as Zombiemax?

[Craizie]

Well you'd have to be crazy to spend the money on those zombie rounds, so therefore you're not fit to being handling a gun.


On a serious note, who give a damn if they are "Murdering people f'ing rounds and rape you all night shells" - Analyze the situation for guilty/innocent, not ammo that is legal in every aspect.

They are the same price compared to their Amax counter parts...

[helosailor]

As long as the intruder is a zombie with cropped ears, you can use anything you want.

[BlackGT]

Sorry to be so late in replying. Yes, my own wrongful death lawsuit over a police incident with a resulting fatality (how's THAT for vague?). I won't air the details here. But I will say the plaintiff's crack team of ambulance-chasing scumbags left no stone unturned in trying to make me look like I invented the Nazi death camp. Didn't matter if it was complete fabrication, they'd throw it out there and while we were busy proving them wrong on the last accusation, they'd throw out six more. The important thing was, the judge/jury heard it. Your defense team can object and have the testimony thrown out and stricken from the record, but the judge and jury still heard it - the damage is done.

Wrongful death lawsuits frequently have little to do with truth or justice.

Again, civilians are immune to civil suits if the use of deadly force was ruled justified and no criminal charges are filed against the shooter...

[ceyko]

Again, civilians are immune to civil suits if the use of deadly force was ruled justified and no criminal charges are filed against the shooter...

I'll admit I'm not expert - just to get that out of the way.

The way I had it explain to me is different, but you're technically correct. The way I understood it was you still could be taken to court after the fact by family/whoever. However, a lot of those cases the lawyer gets a percentage and they tend to make it known up front that it is going to be tough/impossible to win. If they do lose the family/whoever still will owe X amount of dollars.

If that angle is true, it still sucks for the shooter (justified) due to lawyer/other fees.

Am I totally incorrect?

[Downs]

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

But you are right they can sue you for anything they want the judge SHOULD turn around and throw the case out as soon as he sees it though.

[BlackGT]

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


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.

[BlackGT]

But you are right they can sue you for anything they want the judge SHOULD turn around and throw the case out as soon as he sees it though.

Used to be that way...

The original bill contained the following:

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 Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code. The following is removed: (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.)

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.

The committee substitute changed 83.001 to read:
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.

and deletes 83.002.

[Downs]

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.

only catch there is the people who are going to take you to court to sue you probably won't have the money to pay you back lol.

[BlackGT]

only catch there is the people who are going to take you to court to sue you probably won't have the money to pay you back lol.

Very True, but even if you get $0, they are liable for paying your attorney. Debt collection for them, not you...

[JP135]

Texas law is great in Texas courts, but Texas isn't top dog on the food chain. Nothing prevents them from going after you on civil rights violations in federal court. It happens all the time.

[GAP]

If I want to defend myself with a blunderbuss stuffed with Legos, that's my business.

[CJ]

I'll fire lug nuts with my air cannon if I have to.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I'll fire lug nuts with my air cannon if I have to.

*like

[jyro]

shoot them with

dimes, it works in the movies

[Trip McNeely]

If its going to be unconventional, I would use one of these...