Quote:
|
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The language of the statute says "immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force". It's not limited with respect to whom is injured or killed.
|
It is however limited to circumstances of "deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code." Looking through Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, we have 9.05 which says:
"Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another,
if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person."
So not only is he not going to get civil immunity, he isn't going to be able to claim self-defense for that shooting either. So in that regard, you are correct that I reached the wrong conclusion regarding possibly evading criminal charges.
Also note that the"mens rea" for such an action is "reckless". This means that even if you sincerely believe that what you did was the best course of action in that given circumstance, you can still be convicted if the jury believes the mythical "reasonable person" would have acted differently.
Frankly, the whole argument strikes me as pretty much a moot point. Any scenario where you could conceivably use Castle Doctrine to avoid civil liability to a third party is going to result in legal fees that will bankrupt 99.9% of the people reading this long before you get to have that particular legal fight.