Unfortunately this is where the phase "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" comes from. This person will need to prove that it was a robbery and not a theft, then they will have to demonstrate that at the time they beilieved that it was immediately necesarry to use deadly force.newlife12176 wrote:Sorry, wrong section of PC posted....
Here....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
I would not want to be in that position over my employers bottle of booze...