Shooting at Car Thieves

[mrvmax]

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.

I may be one of the few that don’t break the law but I’d suspect everyone who regularly drove a manual transmission does the same.

[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.

I may be one of the few that don’t break the law but I’d suspect everyone who regularly drove a manual transmission does the same.

I wouldn't even do it on a manual, unless I were on a hill. I learned to drive up in the snowy icey North, where setting the brake could have poor results. A frozen brake cable will lock a car up. Not setting the brake become a habit even on a manual transmission. It isn't much of an issue here on the Gulf Coast though and old habits die hard.

[baseballguy2001]

"They" say the average citizen is a felon three times a day.

[ninjabread]

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.

Maybe Lil' Phoenix isn't a moron like them.

[baseballguy2001]

I'm not going to guess one way or the other, especially on a public forum. I do know, he hasn't retracted a purposeful and negligent statement, (on a public forum) and that tells me all I need to know.

[Grumpy1993]

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?

The law says recovered, not replaced. If anybody think's they're equivalent, imagine your child is kidnapped. If you can have another child, or adopt a child, is that the same as recovering your child unharmed?

[KLB]

"They" say the average citizen is a felon three times a day.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." Lavrentiy Beria

[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?

The law says recovered, not replaced. If anybody think's they're equivalent, imagine your child is kidnapped. If you can have another child, or adopt a child, is that the same as recovering your child unharmed?

If you have a deductible, it's a moot point. Insurance won't replace vehicles for most folks unless they pay some amount of cash. But that said, I do agree with you that replacement is not the same thing as recovery.

[Deltaboy]

The Key at Night!

[Caliber]

I think it's important that we should know the Texas definitions of burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, and theft. Some definitions might surprise you. For example, if you are 65 years or older or a disabled person, robbery is elevated to aggravated robbery if you are physically threatened. The presence of a weapon is not required.

[montgomery]

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.

Bad interpretation of the law by your instructor if using deadly force to defend hubcaps is the justifiable takeaway.

[pushpullpete]

I may be one of the few that don’t break the law but I’d suspect everyone who regularly drove a manual transmission does the same.

I wouldn't even do it on a manual, unless I were on a hill. I learned to drive up in the snowy icey North, where setting the brake could have poor results. A frozen brake cable will lock a car up. Not setting the brake become a habit even on a manual transmission. It isn't much of an issue here on the Gulf Coast though and old habits die hard.

I was raised & learned to drive in the No. East & always use the E brake (parking brake). Always. My father was VERY big on
vehicle maint & drilled it into us kids so it was never a problem. It has been muscle memory for over 50 yrs. On a lighter
note I have moved other peoples vehicles and had them accuse me of breaking said vehicle because they couldn't get it to
move after putting it in gear. Muscle memory, gotta love it.
Steal my car, meh, been there. Shoot as they drive away, no. I also don't have anything of value in them when I'm not.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm not shooting anyone for stealing my property. I don't own anything worth a lifetime of having to live with that on my conscience. That decision is already made.

[WTR]

I'm not shooting anyone for stealing my property. I don't own anything worth a lifetime of having to live with that on my conscience. That decision is already made.

Protecting family, friends and innocents.

[EpicMale]

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.

In Texas, if you leave your keys in your car, running or not, and a kid steals that car, you are liable, to a degree, for the damage he may cause, plus a fine and jail:

The law they are citing is under Section 545.404 of the Texas Transportation Code, which is titled Unattended Motor Vehicle. Here it states that an driver may not leave the 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.

The Austin Police Department notes that unattended vehicles found with keys in the ignition can be cited with a fine typically under $200. Officially an offense under this section is punishable by:
1.a fine not to exceed $200.00;
2.confinement in a county jail for not more than 30 days; or
3.both fine and confinement.

While Texas Transportation Code Section 545.404 prohibits drivers from leaving their car unattended without stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key from the ignition, at least one Texas court has held that this section of law only applies to vehicles parked on public highways and streets. The Cities of Dallas, Austin and Arlington have also interpreted Texas Transportation Code Section 545.404 in a similar manner.

To close what may be seen as a loophole, many cities have amended their city code with an ordinance making it unlawful to park and leave unattended, upon any private street, or upon any off-street public or private property used for parking and accessible to the public, a motor vehicle with the engine running or that has a key in the ignition.