TexasCHLforum.com

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 (Protection of One’s Own Property) or 9.42 (Deadly Force to Protect Property) 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.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:10 pm Does it help our shooter since it was at night?

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 (Protection of One’s Own Property); 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.

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:20 am This is going to be interesting. It is a legal shoot (IMO) because Texas allows deadly force to prevent a robbery or escape after a robbery. Shoplifting is theft. Using force at any time during the theft or attempting to flee from it makes it robbery. But the shooter may not have known it was a robbery and thought it was just a fight.

He could be justified for using deadly force just based on the fight alone, but that is not nearly as clear cut. The fact that the two employees had already used weapons that were not deadly force (a stick and mace) may help the shooter.

Sec. 9.32
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(a)
A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)
if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 (Self-defense); and
(2)
when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)
to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B)
to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.