Your CHL instructor should stick to the DPS curriculum.locke_n_load wrote:[
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.
It may be open to interpretation, but I believe some would believe that protected/recovered might also mean protected or replaceable via insurance. Or, if something is invaluable (family heirloom), that is not recoverable/replaceable. That's how my CHL instructor years ago explained it. I don't know if it's ever been clarified via case law.
Insurance does NOT protect property, nor does it recover it.
i have fire insurance. I had a fire. My insurance did not protect the property that burned. It did not recover it either. Insurance did give me the financial means to find a suitable replacements, but not in all cases.