TexasCHLforum.com

J Wilson wrote:Why would anybody want to confront someone that was smashing Wal-Mart's TV sets.As long as he wasn't attacking someone or you, why would someone want to jump in the middle of that fiasco.

How do you know he's going to stick to the TVs? That's often one of the more crowded parts of WalMart, and not everybody can run away very quickly.

CrimsonSoul wrote:It's my understanding you can only do a citizens arrest if the person has committed a felony

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

What's an "offense against the public peace?" Well, there are a few ways you could interpret that. I would note that, in the official DPS training materials for security officers, criminal mischief is listed as such an offense. (As is "use of indecent, abusive, profane, or vulgar language or gesture in a public place to incite an immediate breach of the peace," which, while it doesn't specify "going bonkers in a store while waving a deadly weapon" as such a gesture, is somewhat open to that interpretation.)

As for using force against the guy, he committed criminal mischief, so what time of day was it?

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Note that it's (1) or (2), so as long as the requirement in (1) is met, (2) is not necessary. The back references to 9.41 and 9.42 would be met by using the force to "terminate the other's...unlawful interference with the property" and "to prevent the other's imminent commission of...criminal mischief during the nighttime." (Assuming, of course, that it happens during the night.)

More productive would be the argument that there's an armed, obviously irrational guy swinging a bat in a crowded store. Waiting until he actually hits a person before taking action would be an unnecessary and substantial risk to the safety of those in the area.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so check with yours before you pull the gun.

As for myself, I'd probably try pepper spray first.