TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:You only partially quoted 9.43.

You did not quote para (1) which is on point:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

No third party permission is required.

I am not saying shooting tires is a good idea. My original point was you were using the wrong legal standard in terms of fear for your life or serious injury. Defense of property does not use that legal standard, it has its own criteria.

Ok, but 9.43. Refers back to 9.41. and 9.42. where the following requirements must be met:

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Could be some hang up with deadly force to protect t-shirts. Regardless, while discussing the relevant laws is interesting, the reason I hope that the shooter was acting in protection of self or others, is it would seem to me that shooting in a crowded parking lot in defense of someone elses's clothes is a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't want to risk all the potential consequences over Academy's merchandise. Don't get me wrong, I like Academy as much as the next guy, just not enough to,spend my money or time in defense of shooting on their behalf, but that's just me.

Jumping Frog wrote:

RockinU wrote:I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.

RE: "a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety". That is not the legal standard for defense of property.

The person was clearly was justified in using force, per TPC Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. However, simple shoplifting during daylight hours would not, in my opinion justify deadly force.

But if the perpetrators pushed or touched anyone during the incident, or targeted any person in the parking lot while fleeing in the car, or even said "Get out of my way" (with the implicit "or else"), then a theft can become robbery pretty darn quickly. Deadly force is authorized if the actor believes the person is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property and it cannot be protected or recovered by any other means in TPC Sec. 9.42.

9.43. does not justify the shooter in the use of force unless one of three criteria are met:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

I also see problems with the qualifiers in 9.42., seeing as how it was a bunch of t shirts, and around noon.


I understand acting if a threat to self or others is obvious, but shooting at tires in a crowded parking lot creates dangers of its own, dangers that would have to be weighed against the potential consequences of not acting.

Obviously there is a lot of info we don't have, which is why I said I hope the final analysis shows this to be a justified use of DF, because otherwise it looks pretty irresponsible.

I really hope that it comes out that the LTC holder had a legit reason to fear for his, or other's safety. Irresponsible decisions are something the other side would love to be able to lob at us...and absent an obvious and legitimate threat, this can be nothing but a bad choice.