TexasCHLforum.com

barstoolguru wrote:

Keith B wrote:It means THAT specific piece of property cannot be recovered. Doesn't say replaced. Now, protected may mean insurance, as it is covered, but not sure there is case law on that.

My statement to people on this is, is the property they are taking worth the amount you will need to spend with a lawyer while waiting for the Grand Jury to decide if it was justifiable or not? Televisions, stereos, some vehicles, etc, and especially beer are not worth it IMO.

Sorry bro. I have been before the grand jury 3 different times and never hired a lawyer. They can make their own decisions with or without you, He didn’t get arrested. In this case the law is clear he is a thief at night and there was no chance to recover the property, if so the last 3 times it would have be recovered. He is a repeat offender and he got what he deserved; no one goes into business to take losses from people that want to help themselfs

thenick_ttu wrote:

Crossfire wrote:PC §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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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

but subpart (3)(A) says that the person must reasonably believe that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means. A 12 pack of beer can easily be recovered/replaced (you can get a 12-pack at any grocery store). During my CHL class, the instructor suggested that if it is a common item, then deadly force would not be justified. If it was something such as a family heirloom then you could use deadly force because that cannot be easily replaced. Am I missing something here or was I mis-informed during my CHL class?

Crossfire wrote:PC §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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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