TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:38 pm

imkopaka wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:44 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:04 am

LDP wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:34 pm Also, I rememeber that when I originally took my CHL class, the instructor mentioned some law that allows one to use deadly force to stop a thief from stealing property but only unrecoverable/untraceable property. If the stolen item could be traced back to you if found by the police, you may not use deadly force to stop the theft. He literally said "I can't shoot a thief for stealing my truck but I can shoot him for taking my hubcaps". I cannot quote the exact law, sorry. Hopefully someone has a handy link.

The law is Penal Code Section 9.42 and it does not say quite that, though I can see the interpretation of that. Here is exactly what it says:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(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.

I am guessing that your instructor was referring to subparagraph (3)(A). I have also heard this clause taken to mean that if you have insurance that will replace the item, then deadly force is not justified. I disagree with both of these interpretations but I am not a lawyer to provide advise. Your instructor may be aware of some case law I am not familiar with. I do strongly agree that you need to know when you can shoot. A big part of this is to also know when YOU will should. That is, think in advance what is justifiable to you for defense. What would it take for you to shoot? Is your car that important to you that you are willing to kill for it? Are your hubcaps? Then you need to get with a good attorney and find out if your feelings are within the law in Texas.

I agree with the other posters that going to one of Charles' seminars would be very helpful in getting factual information about the law. You can also read the Penal Code (and all state laws) on the official state web site at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/.

Always remember that if you are out of state traveling, their laws may be very different.

I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I seem to remember Charles saying that replacing the item with insurance does not mean the same thing as recovering the actual physical item that was stolen and therefore does not constitute a requirement of this law (i.e. the ability to replace it with insurance does not mean the item can be "recovered by [another] means" as the law states). Can anyone verify this as correct?

ETA: I searched and searched and can't find Charles saying this, only other members. If anyone finds a more credible source saying this, please share.

Even if having insurance nullified this defense, that would only apply if one had insurance with a zero deductible, would it not?

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

KLB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:38 am Texas law is different from Tennessee law