I to don't really understand the jist of this question, please reword it.

It should also state that once convicted, they serve the time during appeals.

More than one eye witness to a violent crime, or caught red handed, on video or recorded: guilty until proven innocent

Will you vote to declare that the rights of a person who commits a crime and is subsequently found guilty to have forfeited all his rights except for those held by convicted criminals from the moment his crime was committed until the moment he is released?

Dunno, but for me it would have made the intent clearer.

The wording may not be quite right just yet. The intent is obviously to prevent those convicted of a crime from abusing the legal system, but we do need to be careful not to go to far the other way. Can you think of a better way to word the question?

Hi. Totally new here, but I have to admit that this is one of the questions which gave me pause.

It appears that the idea is to prevent the frivolous claims. Or so I think.

My concern is possible abuse. For instance, if the criminal was found guilty, then there would be no method for him to sue the police who beat him whil he was in jail awaiting trial and left him crippled for life.

I can't say yes to the question as written, though I really want to. Also, I am not quite sure how this question divides tougher laws for criminals from stopping potential abuse by judges/prosecutors. Would someone mind explaining this? Thanks!

Good thread - The Questionnaire Committee has changed the word "likely" to "possibly" in question 59, but agree further modifications are probably warranted. Feedback?

On the issue above, the gun law was just an example. The key point is that if you are in the act of committing any crime, and immediately thereafter, you would not have waived certain rights, such as the right to sue, if something happense while you are being pursued.

The broader issue is do you favor tougher legislation against criminals, or do you favor more stringent requirements to keep potentially corrupt police and adjudicators in check.

I suppose it would help to inform that the above is a Texas Statute, not a Federal Statute.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution is the guding principle here.

State laws should establish the use of force, to include deadly force.  If they don't, then they should to protect citizens from any such liability.

SB 378 (Castle Law) was passed earlier this year and provides for the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;

Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or

Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

Protected places are defined as the home, the vehicle and the workplace.  There is no duty to retreat.

One nice thing about the Castle Law is it trumps Section 9.06 of the 1995 law which says:

CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED.  The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any
remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

The Castle Law provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.

State, not federal issue.

The poster case is a criminal who breaks into your house, is shot as you defend yourself, and then sues you for using unneccesary force. I tell the story in the book of Kurt Procaska suing Doctor Michael Rainiero for this very thing. This law would dictate that once someone broke into the home (committing a crime), their right to sue would be gone. Think of how many times you have heard of someone suing a police officer who was trying to apprehend them after they had committed a crime. Whether or not you believe someone in the act of committing a crime should still have equal rights, as they do today, is the core issue.

This is a website from OK in 2002 that the state House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed regarding this issue. I believe that it is pretty close to what this question is implying.