Shooting at Car Thieves

[TreyHouston]

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

Does anybody on the forum work for HPD? What percentage of stolen cars and trucks do y'all recover?

*crickets*.

[srothstein]

I don't work for HPD and never have, but here is a link to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Congress from 1991. It says overall, the rate is about 80%, with cars reaching higher (around 88%), light trucks a little lower, and motorcycles worst of all (around 60%).

When I worked for SAPD, I think this would be about our reported rates also, but it is a little bit of a lie. A recovered vehicle is counted whenever any vehicle or part with the VIN is recovered, no matter what the overall condition of the vehicle. So, if a burned out hulk was found, that counted as a recovery. Just a motor counted, just a frame counted, even the windshield counted as a vehicle IF it had been etched with the VIN.

I think, but have no evidence to prove this, that the recovery rate I would call recovered (that is a repairable car that the insurance company would not consider totaled) would probably be back down around 30%. I could be way off on this, so take it with a grain of salt. A lot of cars I would not count as recovered were found but damaged in such a way as to be not repairable at a reasonable cost.

The other part I remember finding interesting was the time between theft reported and recovery drastically affects the odds. We would always find a few before the owner knew they had been stolen, then most within 24 hours and after 72 hours it dropped way down. We found a few much later (longest one I found was a two year old theft where he had done a smart job of stealing one that matched the car he owned - I found it because I was impounding it for something else and happened to check the VIN on the registration against the window sticker by chance).

On a humorous (well to me, I hope she will laugh later too) note, my daughter called me crying on Sunday that her car had been stolen. She was out with her daughter looking for a few Christmas presents at a mall in Houston (don't know which one). She came out and was standing where she had parked the car and all she found was broken glass. I packed up and told her I was on the way but to call her boyfriend to get her home (I live three hours from her). Before I got ten minutes on the road, she called back that the police had found her car. It was parked four rows over from where she had been standing. She swore she went in the one door and came out the same way. I calmed her down and told her that happens all the time and not to worry about it. Then I did tell her that HPD would count it as a recovered stolen car for their monthly stats though. Easiest recovery that officer ever did.

[Jose_in_Dallas]

The way I see it, shooting at car thieves would have to be worth all the possible legal implications and costs associated with it. Material things can be replaced (that's what insurance is for). My freedom is not worth what it would possible cost me if I shot (and possible killed) car thieves and/or possible innocent bystanders. Only thing that would make me risk that is if a family member was in danger.

[E.Marquez]

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

Does anybody on the forum work for HPD? What percentage of stolen cars and trucks do y'all recover?

My F350 was stolen about 2 years ago while I was in Austin to teach a class. It was recovered a few weeks later....Though in the passing time and when I spoke to detectives on site..I learned most trucks taken in this part of Texas are never recovered, or if they are, its pieces of them....
Mine was actually under police special detail observation the very next day until I was called.... Seems the guy that stole it was a drug dealer, and had also made the mistake of threatening to shoot up a court house.....so he had eyes on him already ...... they let him deliver drugs in my truck for a week before arresting him

[Paladin]

Recovery rate of stolen property in the United States in 2017, by type

It is probable that not all recovered stolen property is returned in original condition.

[baseballguy2001]

First off, the victim is a moron for leaving his car running and unattended. I'm not positive, but here, in Texas, I think that is against the law. Second, what happened to the "he was gonna run me down, and I feared for my life defense?" The cops that shoot at cars use that all the time, but not always successfully I admit. Also, when LEO's do shoot at a fleeing car, there isn't one thought of 'oh no, what if he missed' second guessing. Why? Because they generally have very tight groups and don't miss. The lesson is, practice Ladies and Gentleman. We all need it, and we don't get enough. Honestly, I think the car owner made a mistake. Would I put him in jail for it? Maybe not, but I would give him a very stiff fine.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

I suspect that down here on the border, vehicle recovery in any condition is less than 50% as they're usually driven across the river into Mexico between 10 and 40 minutes after being stolen.

[WTR]

My friend watched his Bronco being driven off (third one). He followed it as they drove across the bridge into Mexico. No help from the Police even though he chased the Bronco for 20 min.

[baseballguy2001]

First off, the victim is a moron for leaving his car running and unattended. I'm not positive, but here, in Texas, I think that is against the law.

I often see police cars with the engine running and nobody inside.

And how many red lights did you run today because LEO's often run them? Leave your car running and unattended in a public parking lot next to an occupied police car and see if you get some "friendly advice", even if it's NOT against the law. Some things are perfectly legal, but they are still dumb things to do.

[BSHII]

How many understand the difference between theft at night (most don't know what legal night is) and "recoverable" property? Even LTC holders don't fully understand these laws.

I think you are right. I sincerely doubt most people know what is meant by night, legally. And those who do, probably don't understand what is the legal time for sunset (though they may know where to look up the time for their area).

My understanding of legal night, for those who are curious, is 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. Sunset is defined as when the bottom edge of the sun touches the horizon and sun rise is defined as when the bottom edge clears the horizon. Now if I can find the citations for that, I will edit this to be sure.

EDIT: A quick search found that the definition of daytime and nighttime are in Transportation Code section 541.401. I can't find the definition of sunrise or sunset in the quick search.

Careful. The definitions in section 541.401 only apply “in this subtitle,” meaning the “Rules of the Road” part of the Transportation Code. They do not apply at all to the Penal Code or to the issue of defense of property in Texas.

Your understanding of the definition of night in the context of the Penal Code sections on defense of property is probably right, though. The Court of Criminal Appeals long ago adopted that definition (30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise) with regard to burglary, and the defense of property statute is really referring to the same concept,

For what it’s worth, at English common law, the crime of burglary could only occur at night, and night was when it was so dark one could not “discern the countenance” of a man.

[BSHII]

Lots of mistakes in this story.
But it ultimately comes down to the jury of our so called "peers" and how well the prosecutor can spin the race card, poor man card or plain "stealing isn't that bad" card.

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.

I don’t know what law he is referring to, either, and I am a lawyer. I would strongly advise not taking legal advice from a CHL instructor unless that instructor is otherwise qualified to render legal advice on that particular issue. And, no, being a cop or ex cop does not qualify one to render legal advice. I can’t believe some of the phoney street law I’ve heard that starts with “my CHL instructor said...”

A CHL/LTC class is just a box the Legislature says you have to check to get an LTC in Texas. An LTC holder should never actually rely exclusively on what he learned at his CHL class.

There is an element of defense of property requiring you to prove that you reasonably believed that there was no other way to protect or recover the property. But many of these issues are not well defined. There are not many bright line rules in self defense law.

[Soccerdad1995]

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?

[baseballguy2001]

First off, the victim is a moron for leaving his car running and unattended. I'm not positive, but here, in Texas, I think that is against the law.

I often see police cars with the engine running and nobody inside.

And how many red lights did you run today because LEO's often run them?

Have you stopped abusing the neighborhood children?

Texas Transportation Code - TRANSP § 545.404. Unattended Motor Vehicle

Sec. 545.404. UNATTENDED MOTOR VEHICLE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an operator may not leave a vehicle unattended without:
(1) stopping the engine;
(2) locking the ignition;
(3) removing the key from the ignition;
(4) setting the parking brake effectively; and
(5) if standing on a grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

(b) The requirements of Subsections (a)(1), (2), and (3) do not apply to an operator who starts the engine of a vehicle by using a remote starter or other similar device that:
(1) remotely starts the vehicle's engine without placing the key in the ignition; and
(2) requires the key to be placed in the ignition or physically present in the vehicle before the vehicle can be operated.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1066 (H.B. 2194), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2015.
_____________________________________________________________________

Would you like to retract your purposeful and negligent statement?

[Liberty]

Triple post.
Don't know how that happened

[Liberty]

Texas Transportation Code - TRANSP § 545.404. Unattended Motor Vehicle

Sec. 545.404. UNATTENDED MOTOR VEHICLE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an operator may not leave a vehicle unattended without:
(1) stopping the engine;
(2) locking the ignition;
(3) removing the key from the ignition;
(4) setting the parking brake effectively; and
(5) if standing on a grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway.

(b) The requirements of Subsections (a)(1), (2), and (3) do not apply to an operator who starts the engine of a vehicle by using a remote starter or other similar device that:
(1) remotely starts the vehicle's engine without placing the key in the ignition; and
(2) requires the key to be placed in the ignition or physically present in the vehicle before the vehicle can be operated.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1066 (H.B. 2194), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2015.

Dang, I wonder how many of us break the law every day. Some don't even care and feel no guilt.