TexasCHLforum.com

duns

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

duns

LarryH wrote:Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

You may have a point. Firing at the thieves' vehicle or tires might be treated in law as the same as firing at them. But morally it is not the same thing.

duns

tacticool wrote:
duns wrote:It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.
Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

duns

baldeagle wrote:
duns wrote:
Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.
It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.
Not really. It still can be in Texas, according to deadly force law.

Yeah, I read the Penal Code that way too. I keep wondering if I'm misreading it. Personally, I would not shoot to prevent loss of property but only to defend my life.

duns

Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.

It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.

duns

baldeagle wrote:You cite doesn't support your conclusion.

He only needs to show that he "reasonably believed" that "the use of force other than deadly force....would expose [him] to a substantial risk...".

Reasonable belief means the belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the actor (Section 1.07[42]). He will need to demonstrate that his belief was reasonable to the Grand Jury. Without knowing the full facts, I cannot form an opinion on whether this will be difficult or easy for him. Just to give one example, what if the injured thieves might have voluntarily returned his property on seeing the shotgun? Did he give them an opportunity to return the property before he fired? Maybe the property would have been returned without need for force at all. Maybe force was not justified let alone deadly force.

duns

PC §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.
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:
(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
(8) 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 (8) 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.

See the bold text above. This property owner would need to show that he could not reasonably have used a lesser degree of force and that he could not have recovered the property by any other means.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 matches

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County

Re: Burglars shot by owner in Denton County