In Texas you can use deadly force while someone is fleeing after stealing property, as long as it's at night, and you reasonably believe it's the only way to recover the property. However, this was a robbery, so the nighttime prohibition would not apply, IMO. However, I am not a lawyer, etc., etc.buffalo_speedway_tx wrote:I think this situation has several considerations:
1) You need to be aware of the situation around you. What we don't know is how the guys that were following your friend were acting prior to the attack. In my opinion you can usually pick up on someone acting in a way they are a potential threat.
2) Shooting someone for just taking property is a real judgment call. If I understand the Texas law correctly that is one of the things you can draw your gun for. However, shooting someone as they flee seems like it can have legal ramifications.
3) I bet the odds are against you for drawing on someone who already had the "drop on you".
In my opinion, if you didn't pick up on my first point, using your weapon in this situation is kinda remote. That said if the BG with the gun came after you shooting and missed...............then it becomes a different situation completly.
Just my opinion.
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Just for reference, since it's mentioned in the above statute, here is 9.41:
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.