Saw a Facebook post questioning the fact that the gentleman who stopped the Texas church killer, the other day, had given several interviews to the media. The poster wondered, if by so doing, this gentleman had compromised himself legally.
He’s the head of church security, the entire incident is on camera. The Texas AG praised him. The video even showed half a dozen others ready to shoot the killer. He will not be charged with anything, there’s no reason to believe he compromised himself.
What about civil liability? What if some distraught cousin feels they were wronged?
Texas has a statute protecting from civil liability in self defense cases. The video obviously shows the shotgun wielding shooter was the aggressor. Jack Wilson has nothing to worry about on that front.
The fact this question is even being raised shows how messed up our society has become. How in Gods name did we get to the point where someone saves countless lives and we have to worry if he’ll be sued for discussing it…
If someone is offended by his actions or thinks he was somehow wrong, they are living in an unrealistic bubble.
I want to start by saying that I agree that it’s absurd we even have to have this discussion. Mr. Wilson and the rest of his team are all courageous individuals and he’s a hero imo.
I also don’t personally believe he’ll encounter any problems from his interviews and I am glad that he’s conducted himself the way he has.
That being said, you can be sued for anything anytime. @45IPAC is correct in that Tx protects against civil liability, but I believe that only extends to someone who has been charged and subsequently exonerated criminally for the actions taken. In that case he may technically still be on the hook for civil liability since he hasn’t been charged criminally. I am not a lawyer and can’t say one way or another though. I’d be curious to get a legal opinion on that. Maybe someone like @MikeBKY could give some input (I know it’s not your state of practice) on the concepts?
Here is the relevant law in TX.
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.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 83.001
Understanding that I cannot give a legal opinion on Texas law, my understanding of the law is that this would be an affirmative defense. That means that you can be sued, you would have to answer the suit and present proof that you were justified in using the force used.
Absolutely understand. Thanks for the input.
The fact that she doesn’t know anything about the other 6 is immaterial. What if one was a police officer, another a retired LEO, another army infantryman, another a USAF MP and another a medical doctor who puts the others marksmanship to shame.
I trust guys like this with the lives of my church family every Sunday and then some.
I think the usual folks are trying to make a point that only trained, seasoned professional should be trusted with firearms, while everyone else are a danger to themselves and society. Of course, then they will go further and say that former soldiers suffer from PTSD and should be denied their 2A rights, and former border guards are guilty of brutality and racism, and LEO has no jurisdiction, etc. etc.
The argument that a layman or laywoman should not have a right for armed defense of their own life and limb is always bogus.
BTW, a journalist’s job is to deliver the news, not opinions. “Some journalists” are not journalists at at all, there is a term for it.