Return to “Clerk Shoots Beer Thief”
I completely agree... I was just caught off guard with this whole scenario. I've been operating under an incorrect logic this whole time. I'm glad that I now understand what the law actually says. Not that I would automatically shoot someone for stealing my vehicle but its nice to know that I can indeed defend my property if needed.WildBill wrote:I would bet that most of the forum members would think differently about their stock F-150.
I definitely learned something here. I always thought this meant that it would be bad news for the CHL if the property could be replaced with a substitute, even though it may not be the exact item that was taken. I specifically remember my instructor saying that if someone is stealing your car and it just a common vehicle (not a classic collector's car, etc) then you wouldn't be justified since my stock F-150 could be replaced with another stock F-150... maybe I just misunderstood what he was trying to convey.Keith B wrote:It means THAT specific piece of proeprty cannot be recovered. Doesn't say replaced. Now, protected may mena insurance, as it is covered, but not sure there is case law on that.
My statement to people on this is, is the property they are taking worth the amount you will need to spend with a lawyer while waiting for the Grand Jury to decide if it was justifiable or not? Televisions, stereos, some vehicles, etc, and especially beer are not worth it IMO.
Beer can be replaced by other beer, right? While the clerk couldn't recover this specific beer, there is no difference between this 12 pack of bud light and that 12 pack of bud light... they are interchangeable.WildBill wrote:From the law that Crossfire posted justification for shooting could be that the clerk reasonably believed:
1) if he didn't shoot the beer thief he could not recover the property because the thief would drink the beer.
2) if he tried to go after the thief to retreive the beer, the thief could have assaulted him.
but subpart (3)(A) says that the person must reasonably believe that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means. A 12 pack of beer can easily be recovered/replaced (you can get a 12-pack at any grocery store). During my CHL class, the instructor suggested that if it is a common item, then deadly force would not be justified. If it was something such as a family heirloom then you could use deadly force because that cannot be easily replaced. Am I missing something here or was I mis-informed during my CHL class?Crossfire wrote:PC §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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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
