Cannot Be Recovered By Any Other Means

[locke_n_load]

Per Texas Penal Code, Deadly Force can be used to recover property under a few conditions. One of the conditions is that "you reasonably believe" that the property "cannot be recovered by any other means". Is there some definition somewhere for this? I mean that is super vague, and I don't know if that is a good thing.

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.

[redacted]

IANAL, but from what I was told during the LTC course, this basically means that if your car is being stolen, it has a serial number which can be tracked and recovered. If they're stealing your geranium off your front-porch, there's no guarantee that the recovered item is the same as the one that was stolen. Obviously shooting someone over stealing a flower might be a bit of a tricky situation in court, but it demonstrates the concept.

This would be a great question for an actual lawyer however.

[Pariah3j]

One of the videos I watched about this also expressed a concept I wouldn't have thought about - it suggested 'cannot be recovered by any other means' could apply to the fact that you couldn't physically stop them stealing it without using force - ie you were wearing flip flops or high hills and wouldn't be able to give chase to stop the theft.

[BBYC]

How many stolen cars are recovered intact?

[crazy2medic]

What if the car is your sole means of transportation? Say without you car you would have no way to get to work, no way to earn a living, i.e. the thief is literally stealing your life away?

[ELB]

At either my first or second CHL course (back when you had to attend a renewal class), probably about year 2001 or so, a lawyer who was the first chair felony prosecutor for Bexar County did the portion of the course devoted to use of force and deadly force. He was the guy who each morning reviewed all the felony arrests from the day before and decided how or whether to prosecute them.

When covering that section of law, about deadly force to protect property, someone asked him for an example. He would not commit to a specific set of circumstances and say "I would not prosecute you for this." He did give an example where he said there would be strong consideration for protecting property with deadly force to be justified by law.

Bear in mind, this is my memory and interpretation of what he said 15+ years ago in another county. Take it for what it's worth and I will not provide you with bail money.

Anyway, he said something along the following lines: Suppose you have a carpenter who lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and one night he discovers someone stealing his tools out of his pickup truck in front of his house. If he loses the tools, he will lose his job, he doesn't have enough money to replace them right away, he won't be able to buy food for his kids or pay his rent if he loses his job because his tools were stolen.

Those factors would cut in his favor when considering the defense of property justification.

I think I would not test this particular defense if at all possible.

[CZp10]

I think I would not test this particular defense if at all possible.

That is wise advice.

The wording of law is vague and that is not really a good thing, it means it is up to the opinion of other people (the DA, judge, 12 random people who couldn’t get out of jury duty) to determine whether your actions would be found justified or not. In my opinion, the safe choice is to avoid using deadly force with regard to protecting material things, now protecting people is completely different.

[locke_n_load]

IANAL, but from what I was told during the LTC course, this basically means that if your car is being stolen, it has a serial number which can be tracked and recovered. If they're stealing your geranium off your front-porch, there's no guarantee that the recovered item is the same as the one that was stolen. Obviously shooting someone over stealing a flower might be a bit of a tricky situation in court, but it demonstrates the concept.

This would be a great question for an actual lawyer however.

I am also an LTC instructor, and I must say that just about everything of value these days has a serial number. And as someone else in this thread said, how often to police recover things like vehicles in the same shape they left?

[locke_n_load]

One of the videos I watched about this also expressed a concept I wouldn't have thought about - it suggested 'cannot be recovered by any other means' could apply to the fact that you couldn't physically stop them stealing it without using force - ie you were wearing flip flops or high hills and wouldn't be able to give chase to stop the theft.

This is plausible.

[ShaddyVanDaddy]

Not a clarifying point regarding the law but seems relevant...

My LTC instructor made the point that even with the law on your side you could easily be looking at $10-15K (or more) in legal fees if you shoot someone (maybe not, but not an unlikely possibility). And so if you assume that cost, it’s hard to imagine many material things that couldn’t be replaced with that money (harder still to imagine anything of that value not covered by insurance).

So, as others have said, save a life? Easy yes. Save tools, cars or stuff? Probably not.

I think?

[locke_n_load]

Not a clarifying point regarding the law but seems relevant...

My LTC instructor made the point that even with the law on your side you could easily be looking at $10-15K (or more) in legal fees if you shoot someone (maybe not, but not an unlikely possibility). And so if you assume that cost, it’s hard to imagine many material things that couldn’t be replaced with that money (harder still to imagine anything of that value not covered by insurance).

So, as others have said, save a life? Easy yes. Save tools, cars or stuff? Probably not.

I think?

I agree and I make it a strong point that I would never advise shooting over property. I still like to strengthen my understanding of the law and what specific clauses mean in it.

[Soccerdad1995]

Not a clarifying point regarding the law but seems relevant...

My LTC instructor made the point that even with the law on your side you could easily be looking at $10-15K (or more) in legal fees if you shoot someone (maybe not, but not an unlikely possibility). And so if you assume that cost, it’s hard to imagine many material things that couldn’t be replaced with that money (harder still to imagine anything of that value not covered by insurance).

So, as others have said, save a life? Easy yes. Save tools, cars or stuff? Probably not.

I think?

Getting away from the OP's topic a bit, and venturing to the question of what should you do, instead of what can you legally do, we all need to make personal decisions based on a number of factors, many of which are unique to us. My decision on where I draw a line will likely be different than someone else's, and that's OK.

Personally, I would definitely use deadly force, if needed, to save the life of me and my family. Probably also to protect someone else's life, depending on the situation. Protecting my stuff, maybe, but probably not in most cases. Protecting someone else's stuff, definite no.

[ralewis]

One of the videos I watched about this also expressed a concept I wouldn't have thought about - it suggested 'cannot be recovered by any other means' could apply to the fact that you couldn't physically stop them stealing it without using force - ie you were wearing flip flops or high hills and wouldn't be able to give chase to stop the theft.

This is an interesting interpretation. If you decompose the sentence, I actually think that's exactly what it means.

[mloamiller]

Personally, I would definitely use deadly force, if needed, to save the life of me and my family. Probably also to protect someone else's life, depending on the situation. Protecting my stuff, maybe, but probably not in most cases. Protecting someone else's stuff, definite no.

I heard someone put it this way - "If I wouldn't die for something, then I wouldn't kill for it, either."

[Captain Matt]

Another good one is, "If you're not willing to die for something, then don't steal it."