TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.