TexasCHLforum.com

vjallen75 wrote:

casp625 wrote:In regards to what I bolded above, the law does, however, allow for deadly force if the vehicle is occupied. Unoccupied vehicles, I believe, are then treated as, more or less, regular property.

I do believe you are correct on the occupied vehicle part. IF someone tries to remove you from the vehicle or breaks in with you in it, by law you are justified using deadly force.

I believe burglary of a vehicle is only a misdemeanor because nobody is in the vehicle at the time of burglary, if they are in it things change.

IF I'm wrong please correct me.

V

WildBill wrote:

newlife12176 wrote:I have always thought that a criminal breaking into a vehicle to commit theft was a felony. It's obviously burglary, but listed as burglary of a vehicle in chapter 30 of Texas Penal Code. The charge is only a class A misdemeanor. Burglary of a habitation is a felony and deadly force can be used to prevent the imminent commission of that.

I am not advocating using deadly force to stop burglary of a vehicle, but does anyone know why burglary of a habitation is a felony and burglary of a vehicle is only a misdemeanor?

Furthermore, why can you use deadly force for one and not the other? I really think they need to specify the differences in Sec 9.42 when they list burglary as something deadly force can be used to stop. I have always thought that was an option if someone was breaking into my car. That might confuse some folks. And I am fairly well versed in handgun laws and deadly force. However, I have never looked up burglary of a vehicle vs habitation. Glad I did!

I believe it has its roots in common law.
I can think of two explanations
1 - The home is their castle. A vehicle doesn't have the same standing.
2 - A habitation is more likely to have people in it and the potential for harm is much greater.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Solsand wrote:

Middle Age Russ wrote:Whether you are acting within the law or not is just one of the issues. The bigger question in this scenario is should you introduce deadly force from a risk versus reward perspective. Reward = recovery of personal property (car and its contents). Risks include shooting a by-stander inadvertently, damaging someone else's property, possible arrest and trial before a jury of your peers who will assess the "reasonableness" of your actions based only on the facts presented and allowed at trial. To me, personal property isn't worth the potential risks involved, and I'll do what I can to be a good witness.

Also... So castle doctrine does not cover in the home driveway version?

Solsand wrote:Scenario is this- LTC holder walks out of a local business (where carry is allowed) to find a man breaking into their vehicle. Holder legally allowed to pull their weapon to stop this crime in progress? Or to shoot if they refuse to comply?

What about same exact scenario in your home driveway?

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


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.