TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

Keith B wrote:It means THAT specific piece of property cannot be recovered. Doesn't say replaced. Now, protected may mean 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.

Sorry bro. I have been before the grand jury 3 different times and never hired a lawyer. They can make their own decisions with or without you, He didn’t get arrested. In this case the law is clear he is a thief at night and there was no chance to recover the property, if so the last 3 times it would have be recovered. He is a repeat offender and he got what he deserved; no one goes into business to take losses from people that want to help themselfs

We'll see. Zimmerman wasn't initially arrested. Neither are a lot of folks who are not flight risks. Doesn't mean the DA won't decide to go ahead and have them arrested and charged once the evidence is reviewed.

And, if you have been before a GJ 3 times, maybe you need to reevaluate your actions?

Yes sir, changed my ways, jail is not even fun to visit. You mention Zimmerman and how he was charged but you fail to mention that his case is so politically motivated from Obama calling trayvon his son to the police chief getting fired. From what we read the clerk is within his rights to use self-defense. He didn't shoot him in the back but when the man was confronted he turned as if he might have had a weapon.
So what do you do... wait to see if he does. the thief is already in the commission of one crime what’s to say he doesn't have a weapon knowing that he was/ might have some resistance for someone while escaping after all it was a planned robbery. He didn't just walk in to the place and say "look; they have beer I think I will steal some". No, this is a premeditated act and he could have been armed expecting trouble

To the person that say’s it only a 12 pack, how many times does someone have to steal from you before you can do something about it?
I had my lawnmower stolen the other day, even though it was JUST a lawnmower it was mine and now I have to replace it. so if it's just a 12 or a lawnmower it's someone else's loss and after a while they take there toll

Keith B wrote:

thenick_ttu wrote:

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

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?

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.

Sorry bro. I have been before the grand jury 3 different times and never hired a lawyer. They can make their own decisions with or without you, He didn’t get arrested. In this case the law is clear he is a thief at night and there was no chance to recover the property, if so the last 3 times it would have be recovered. He is a repeat offender and he got what he deserved; no one goes into business to take losses from people that want to help themselfs