TexasCHLforum.com

jason812 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:
There is a firearm in my vehicle at all times. I don't know how I would feel if they stole it and killed someone with it, if at the time of the theft, I was there to stop it.

Plus, you don't know if they have it or not when you confront them. It would suck to get shot, it would suck more to get shot by your own gun.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Ft. Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board says in opinion piece: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ed ... 22579.html

The neighbor in this case apparently had every “right” under the law to kill. But killing in the defense of property can never be right.
Shooting someone can only be right when it is to protect a person.

Liberals hardly ever can be on the side of law abiding citizens.

Here's how I think about it.

Is a car (or it's contents) worth a human life? Well I know it's not worth my life, or the lives of my loved ones, because I know the value of those lives. I would think that it's also not worth the life of a random person who I find in my driveway in the middle of the night.

But here's the thing. That random person believes their life is not worth more than my car, since they decided that is a potential trade off they are willing to make the moment they decided to steal my car. And who am I to think that I know the value of their life better then they do? If they really value their life that low, then I'm not going to waste time arguing with them about it.

dlh wrote:I have been wrong before but, even if the case is presented to a grand jury, nonetheless I would be shocked if it was anything other than a no-bill. Come on guys, this is Texas!

Keith B wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So if the vehicle is being broken into, I would think that a reasonable person would believe that theft (at night time) is going on here.
If not, isn't the vehicle getting damaged via break-in, in which criminal mischief at night time would apply? How would it not apply? I see nothing about the classification of the crime (misdemeanor, felony, etc.) anywhere in the justification for deadly force in those instances. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a better understanding of the law.

As I said, we will have to wait to see how the prosecutor and/or grand jury handle it. I agree that it could be assumed they were trying to steal it. It could also meet the damage to tangible property for criminal mischief. HOWEVER, many don't look at the bottom of 9.42 where it says:

(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.

It will hinge on statements of the homeowner, and possibly of the guy that ran off (if they find him) as to determination of justification. There are a lot of cards at play during a homicide investigation, and all the cards have to stack up to make a hand to try and determine if you play your hand, bluff or fold.

Keith B wrote:

tbrown wrote:

It happened Sunday around 3:00 a.m.

Police said no one will be charged in the shooting.

Police said no one will be charged in the shooting. But the case is being referred to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office.

Burglary of an unoccupied motor vehicle is usually treated differently than actual theft or burglary of a habitation. For theft, there has to be intent shown that the reason they were breaking into the vehicle was to steal it or something in it. And burglary in the penal code is defined only for a habitation or building, not a vehicle (separate section). So, while nighttime does play into it, the guy was not necessarily committing one of the offense listed in penal code 9 for justification of use of deadly force.

So, will be interesting to see how the prosecutor handles this one.

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 Check
(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.

Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;