TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...I have a pressure nozzle on my hose that'd wash them and their TP out to sea...no need for deadly force...

If they drown after being washed out to sea, that could be considered negligent homicide.

gwashorn wrote:The question I see as the guiding point is if they are stealing my $500 TV set I will try to stop them. I will yell, threaten, call the sheriff and do all I can to stop them. Question is are they willing to do me harm to prevent me from stopping them? If they are willing to use deadly force against me to take it, then I am willing to protect myself from them. At what point do you say "well then just take it!" Do you just stand there and wave at them? Do you throw rocks at them? At what point do you stand up for what is yours? I won't just shoot them as they take it. But I will try to stop them. It is up to them to do as I wish or stop me. At that point I have to assume they are willing to use deadly force to stop me. You have to know where the line is.

I won't stop them from taking my 36" set. it is old and that will give me an excuse with the wife to buy a 55" LED 3D flat screen!!

Stephen,

Did you actually work as a uniformed corrections officer or were you just a driver that 'heard' the stories from prisoners or guards? I have a several relatives that are currently or have been corrections officers in both state and federal medium and maximum security prisons for many years. Prisoners and even some guards like to exaggerate a little (lot) and make it sound worse than it is. If the prison is ran right, they are totally controlled by the corrections system and its staff, NOT the prisoners.

Now, there is a code of how you handle yourself as a prisoner with the other prisoners, and squealing is not accepted. But that is the same as school and ratting out your classmate. It may result in a worse beating for you in prison, but it is not liked.

On to protecting property. I don't disagree that there is some property not worth shooting someone over. An example is if I see them coming out of my house with my 36" television and loading it on a truck. If no family or others are in harms way, then I will let them go on and take it. A $500 television is not worth spending thousands of dollars in legal fees and the hassle that goes with it. I will get a good description, license number, etc, and make sure they don't look to harm me, and let them go. The police can take it from there. However, if they are stealing my vehicle, then I may hold them at gunpoint or shoot them to prevent it. A $40K car is worth protecting.

Bottom line, you have to make your own decisions at what point you are willing to defend your property and or life and health. When you choose to carry under a firearm for protection you must draw your line in the sand and determine where the line is crossed. And, if someone crosses that line, then you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary, including shooting them to stop the aggression. If you are not willing to draw that line and follow through, then carrying a gun may be worse than not having one at all and doing what you can to retreat or face the consequences of not being able to protect yourself.

OK folks, there are some personal attacks in here. Keep the dicussion civil or the thread will be locked.

MasterOfNone wrote:
40khammer wrote:Also:

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer carried on a rail car is a part of the
rail car.
Breaking into a car is burglary and deadly force is authorized.
I believe this is incorrect. 30.02 BURGLARY and 30.04 BURGLARY OF VEHICLES are two separate offenses. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES is not a subclass of BURGLARY, as they are peer sections (same level, not one nested within the other) of code. Otherwise, we would have to include 30.03 BURGLARY OF COIN-OPERATED OR COIN COLLECTION MACHINES as a justification for deadly force.
Also consider that in 9.42(2)(A), ROBBERY and AGGRAVATED ROBBERY are both listed. If BURGLARY OF VEHICLES was to be a justification for deadly force, it would have surely been specifically included in addition to BURGLARY.

Correct. 40khammer didn't post all of the statute. Here it is:

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks
into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer
carried on a rail car is a part of the rail car.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
unless the vehicle or part of the vehicle broken into or entered is
a rail car, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor entered a rail car or any part of a rail car and was at
that time an employee or a representative of employees exercising a
right under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).

So, this is separate from Burglary (30.02) which specifically states building or habitation. So, burglary of a motor vehicle is just a misdemeanor and does NOT justify use of deadly force unless it is occupied and then it falls under the Castle Doctrine.

TX0303 wrote:Legally I think you can but you have a better chance of defending your actions if the shooting occured at night, as the statute specifically mentions "theft" and "mischief" at night. During the day I think you would have to rely on "burglary".

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks
into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.

Trick is there you would have to prove intent. Not worth the fight and not worth my freedom.
That said, I would resort to non-deadly force, i.e. pump some lead into their get-away car.

Burgulary alone of an unoccupied motor vehicle is only a misdemanor and would not justify use of deadly force. The only thing that changes it to protection of property is if the person is in the act of theft, of either contents or the vehicle itself.

Here are the statutes on protecting property:

§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 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.

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

9.42 lays out the definitions pretty clearly. The thing we try to emphasize is, is the property you are trying to protect worth spending a minimum of $15 - $20K in legal fees and your time to be cleared in the shooting. A good example is if someone is breaking into your car, and you are not in imminent danger of serious injury or loss of life, is the GPS unit and damage to your car worth killing someone over?
And, welcome to the forum.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 matches

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

Re: Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS