The homeowner told police the two men said they were police and claimed they were at the home to serve a warrant.
[The homeowner] became suspicious, because, you know, they have a ring camera too, and the suspects were saying they had a warrant, but it was just two people and they’re masked up and no police cars, no lights or anything like that," said Lt. Khan with HPD.
At some point, police said the men shot at the homeowner through the door, prompting the homeowner to return fire.
The homeowner was not hurt in the gunfire, but the two men were both hit and pronounced dead at the scene.
It appears that it wouldn’t speak to cases that were never brought it would only immunize them if the grand jury is sought and declines to indict OR the case is dismissed rather than requiring a conviction to bring the suit.
This means they can’t opt out of liability by ignoring the case. This doesn’t appear on its face to be bad law. If Texan’s decline to indict when they ought to then that not the law is the issue.
Likewise if its even possible to stack the jury that again is the problem not the law.
No. It applies to all civil suits regarding gun crime.
It effectively raises the standards of civil suits when guns are involved, which are not supposed to be the same as criminal.
Good. If you aren’t guilty, you shouldn’t have any liability what-so-ever. if anything, once declared not-guilty (or the case never make it to court) any further pursuit of the victim should result in criminal harassment charges. Leave the victims alone, even if they are white.