I'm not a lawyer and firmly believe laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, punctuation of a sentence can make all the difference in the world. But the way I read it, burglary is a shoot onsite offense, day or night. Do I want to pay to defend this position, no. Do I want to pay to hire a disaster restoration company and re-carpet, no. Do I want the hassle, no. That said, walking into your house being burglarized, you are in rather confined spaces, their actions would highly dictate the outcome.Pariah3j wrote:casp625 quoted this earlier but I'll requote it:rc-mike wrote:Where is this written? I hear it now and then, but I've never seen a law that says you can only shoot at night.Pariah3j wrote:What time of day is this hypothetical happening ? It does make the difference for the use of deadly force as I understand it.
Mike
Its not only night time, but using deadly force just because they are burglarizing you isn't always allowed.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.
The part that I put in green kinda raises my eyebrows, but still situation dependent and reasonable if that's the road one needs to go down.