TexasCHLforum.com

Story needs more details....

http://mobile.chron.com/chron/db_271389 ... d=au3cQMJe

I guess it would depend on whether it was at night, and whether it was really his truck and it was not being repossessed or he had given permission for the 19 year old to drive it.

Sad.

Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

How is that different than someone stealing your bag sitting next you, them running away with it, and then you shooting them. As far as I know both scenarios are legal in Texas to shoot for if you reasonably believe you wouldn't get your stolen items back.

philip964 wrote:I guess it would depend on whether it was at night,.

It is quite dark still at 5:30.

I hope this pesky phrase doesn't come back to bite him in the rear end:

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.

MasterOfNone wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.

Which brings us back, not to the issue of whether or not it is moral to shoot someone over property (only the property owner can make that determination for him/herself); but whether or not it is worth it to shoot someone over property. Will the potential loss be worth the legal fees?

I hope we don't get more details because the police don't arrest him, the grand jury no bills him, and therefore there's nothing the MSM wants to publicize.

Jumping Frog wrote:

philip964 wrote:I guess it would depend on whether it was at night,.

It is quite dark still at 5:30.

I hope this pesky phrase doesn't come back to bite him in the rear end:

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

...that "or" at the end means he's got another option...read on and you'll see he's got a stronger defense because (A) doesn't apply...

MasterOfNone wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.

...before using deadly force to recover property, we must meet 9:42, and 9:42(3)(B) specifically says "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." whether protecting property against a listed crime or trying to recover property, after meeting the other requirements in 9:42, the question becomes whether a threat to the actor is present while he's using deadly force to protect or recover the land or property...in this case the deadly force protects the ACTOR as he tries to recover the property...if they say that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" they are correct if the actor hasn't met 9:42(3)(B)...that's where one could get into trouble...if I'm chasing after a burglar immediately after the crime, I must meet (3) (A) or (3)(B)...and if his hands are full of TV and he has no weapon...I may have a hard time convincing a grand jury that I "reasonably believed" that (B) applies...and that's what this actor will have to do...convince the Grand Jury that the above was his situation...

H6RBW wrote:Story needs more details....

http://mobile.chron.com/chron/db_271389 ... d=au3cQMJe

...not much more here http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/atascoci ... 34932.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.

...before using deadly force to recover property, we must meet 9:42, and 9:42(3)(B) specifically says "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." whether protecting property against a listed crime or trying to recover property, after meeting the other requirements in 9:42, the question becomes whether a threat to the actor is present while he's using deadly force to protect or recover the land or property...in this case the deadly force protects the ACTOR as he tries to recover the property...if they say that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" they are correct if the actor hasn't met 9:42(3)(B)...that's where one could get into trouble...if I'm chasing after a burglar immediately after the crime, I must meet (3) (A) or (3)(B)...and if his hands are full of TV and he has no weapon...I may have a hard time convincing a grand jury that I "reasonably believed" that (B) applies...and that's what this actor will have to do...convince the Grand Jury that the above was his situation...

Though you mentioned it, you pretty much dismissed the significance of (3)(A). If (3)(A) is met, (3)(B) is not required. And with the low recovery rates for stolen property, it seems a reasonable case could be made for (3)(A) any time a BG is fleeing with property.
Otherwise, under what circumstances would you see a person justified in using deadly to stop someone from fleeing with property?

A little more information here:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8483516

MasterOfNone wrote:

speedsix wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.

When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.

...before using deadly force to recover property, we must meet 9:42, and 9:42(3)(B) specifically says "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." whether protecting property against a listed crime or trying to recover property, after meeting the other requirements in 9:42, the question becomes whether a threat to the actor is present while he's using deadly force to protect or recover the land or property...in this case the deadly force protects the ACTOR as he tries to recover the property...if they say that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" they are correct if the actor hasn't met 9:42(3)(B)...that's where one could get into trouble...if I'm chasing after a burglar immediately after the crime, I must meet (3) (A) or (3)(B)...and if his hands are full of TV and he has no weapon...I may have a hard time convincing a grand jury that I "reasonably believed" that (B) applies...and that's what this actor will have to do...convince the Grand Jury that the above was his situation...

Though you mentioned it, you pretty much dismissed the significance of (3)(A). If (3)(A) is met, (3)(B) is not required. And with the low recovery rates for stolen property, it seems a reasonable case could be made for (3)(A) any time a BG is fleeing with property.
Otherwise, under what circumstances would you see a person justified in using deadly to stop someone from fleeing with property?

...the reason I ignored (3) (A) is that by calling in his license, or the police, the truck could likely be recovered...but if he chooses to actively pursue and (B) applies...(A) is not necessary...and I would think that he could prove the element of extreme danger to himself as he tries to recover the truck easier than he could convince a Grand Jury that he didn't reasonably believe that the truck could be recovered by any other means...we made the distinction that it was either (A) OR (B) earlier...but I don't think it would be as easy to sell (A) under the circumstances in the OP's example...(B) seems to me to be a slam dunk but the way the law's written if (2)(B) fits then either (3) A or (3)((B) would, of course be possibilities...

...I personally wouldn't use deadly force to stop a thief/burglar from fleeing with property unless they had threatened/harmed/a person, or the item(s) stolen included a weapon...making him a threat to people...or, as (3)(B) states, I was pursuing/struggling and he armed himself or attacked me...it would take threat to human life/health before I'd pull the trigger...that's just me...things aren't that important to me...

All actions have consequences; getting shot for stealing stuff is one possible consequence for such rude behavior. It's not something I'd do if someone drove off in my 4x4 Cummins Ram, but the shootee should have thought about it before he heisted the guy's truck.