Not so hypothetical question regarding right to defend...

[treadlightly]

The Prime Directive - deescalate, the modern gunslinger's weapon of choice.

[Soccerdad1995]

My understanding is that you would be on shaky legal ground if you simply shot the folks breaking into your vehicle without any warning. I would think that the more likely scenario would be to yell at them to stop, possibly without even drawing your weapon initially (assuming you are at a safe distance), then react based on how the BG reacts to your yell. I know that I have approached the wrong vehicle before, mistaking it for mine. It's always possible that the situation is not as it appears to be.

Also, get your SO to safety before you do anything.

[LucasMcCain]

Just a quick cautionary tale.

I left a grocery store one evening after picking up a few things. I walked out to the parking lot and went to unlock my car. My key stuck in the lock a little, then turned, and I got in the car with my groceries. At this point my girlfriend said "um, sweetie, this isn't your car." I looked around, saw a bunch of stuff in the back seat I didn't remember having there, and realized my girlfriend was correct. It was the same make, model, and color scheme as my car, and the key had even worked in the lock. But it was definitely not my car. I quickly grabbed my groceries, exited and locked the vehicle, looked around to make sure there wasn't an angry looking person headed in my direction, and headed to my actual car post haste. True story.

The moral here is: things aren't always what they seem. It would have really sucked if the car's owner had shot me while I was trying to unlock his car, or even when I was sitting in it. I was not a criminal. I was not trying to rob him. However, it sure would have looked like it if he had come out to the parking lot at the wrong moment. In that situation, had he reacted by taking pictures and calling the police instead, he would have seen me freak out a little and figured out what was happening.

Just food for thought.

[The Annoyed Man]

From a safe distance: "Excuse me, but that's my car. Can I help you?" The felon either flees or he doesn't.

If he doesn't stop, [hand on gun, but not drawn]"HEY!!!! GET THE BLANKETY BLANK BLANK AWAY FROM MY CAR!!!!"[/hand on gun but not drawn]

Then see what develops, and act accordingly. You might never have to draw the gun. He may back down and offer some lame excuse and back away. He may argue and tell you to go have intimate knowledge of yourself. If he backs away, call 911 when its safe to do so, and report the attempted theft and give a good solid description of the individual. If he stands there and argues, get it on video and warn him that you are calling 911 (with your hand on your gun, but not drawn), and then actually call and let him see that you're actually on the phone with them. Make sure you tell the 911 operator that you are armed, but have not yet drawn your gun. That may have the desired effect, but keep 911 on the phone until he leaves.......IF he leaves. If he does not leave, but instead comes at you, draw the gun and let the operator know what's going on. Hopefully, the sight of the gun deters further aggression. If not, shoot him.

BUT...... I can think of other things that would avoid all of the above..... for instance, does your car have remote security buttons on the key? Does it have an emergency horn button on it that, when pushed, causes the horn to begin honking loudly and continuously until you press it to stop? No thief wants that kind of attention. In addition to that, I also have a carl alarm installed. Among other neat tricks, even if someone succeeds in breaking in and hot-wiring the ignition, pressing on either the gas or brake pedals will disable the engine immediately unless the key (not a screwdriver) has been put in the ignition and turned exactly 2 clicks to the right, and it cannot be restarted without disabling the alarm first. As an added tactic, I can remote start the car from a distance, startling the thief and maybe driving him off.

My point is that there are all kinds of tactics available in most late model cars that can potentially spare you the need to physically confront a thief, or to get involved in a shooting. Shooting is a last resort, but that doesn't mean that you have to just stand there and not do something to try and protect your property from theft. Shooting to stop a theft may be permissible under certain aspects of the law, but you have to decide for yourself whether or not the value of property is worth taking a human life. But there is an entire continuum of possible responses between ignoring the theft, and shooting the thief, which are far less troublesome legally and easier to live with morally than shooting someone over property.

[GlockBrandGlock]

Now if they pull a weapon, charge you, etc., then have the right to use deadly force.
Home driveway, I believe the same rules apply.

What if you pull a weapon as a use of force to stop the burglary, then they charge at you? Would that constitute using deadly force? Or would they need a weapon in hand? I know you're not a lawyer, but I'd like another opinion, or know if there is already a precedent for this.

If they charge you, and you have a firearm in hand (they have nothing in hand), you would still be justified in using deadly force. If they are fixing to use force against you, you can go a level above that to stop the threat, the level above being deadly force.

Also, think of it this way - guy is charging me and we get into a scuffle, he gets lucky and knocks me out, and could potentially kill me when I'm unconscious. When can you shoot? Before they get to you. You don't want to decide to shoot after the guy is already on you. That is too late.

This only applies however, if you did not initiate the encounter. What I mean by that is if you start a fight, and then drew/shoot, the shooting would not have been legal.

Thanks for clarifying, I need to have it burned in my brain that escalating is appropriate on someone who is already initiating force. I'm still stuck in the mind set that you have to match levels of force. Which wouldn't work out too well for me. 5'6" is not an intimidating height.

[Beiruty]

Keep it simple:
1) Threat of deadly force is use of force where said force is justified.
2) Most likely if the bad guy flee the scene, all is good.
3) If the BG hit the floor, wait for 911
4) if the BG present a deadly weapon, use of deadly force is justified
5) if the BG uses force, go back to 1.
5) if the BG uses deadly force,

[Pawpaw]

Just a quick cautionary tale.

I left a grocery store one evening after picking up a few things. I walked out to the parking lot and went to unlock my car. My key stuck in the lock a little, then turned, and I got in the car with my groceries. At this point my girlfriend said "um, sweetie, this isn't your car." I looked around, saw a bunch of stuff in the back seat I didn't remember having there, and realized my girlfriend was correct. It was the same make, model, and color scheme as my car, and the key had even worked in the lock. But it was definitely not my car. I quickly grabbed my groceries, exited and locked the vehicle, looked around to make sure there wasn't an angry looking person headed in my direction, and headed to my actual car post haste. True story.

The moral here is: things aren't always what they seem. It would have really sucked if the car's owner had shot me while I was trying to unlock his car, or even when I was sitting in it. I was not a criminal. I was not trying to rob him. However, it sure would have looked like it if he had come out to the parking lot at the wrong moment. In that situation, had he reacted by taking pictures and calling the police instead, he would have seen me freak out a little and figured out what was happening.

Just food for thought.

My mother and I had a similar experience when I was a kid. This was back in the days when almost nobody ever locked their cars when going into a store. Heck, we even left the windows rolled down.

We came out of a J.C. Penny store and I got into the front passenger seat of our car. My mother got into the driver's seat of the car to my left, the exact same make, model, & color. We looked at each other, both with puzzled looks. She told me to get out of that other car. I told her this WAS our car. When she insisted that SHE was in our car, I reached down and picked up the ever-present box of Kleenex from the transmission hump and held it up for her to see. She looked down and immediately got a sick look on her face as she hurried out of that car and got in ours.

[Ryan]

I agree, I made the decision to never involve myself for property related issues, I don't think it is worth the possible trouble, I have insurance to cover those issues. If I ever draw my weapon it will be for a life or death situation.

I'm of the same mindset except for one thing. Although dogs are only considered "property" according to the state, they are "family" to me and I will use whatever force necessary to protect and or save them from being taken.

[rc-mike]

What time of day is this hypothetical happening ? It does make the difference for the use of deadly force as I understand it.

Where is this written? I hear it now and then, but I've never seen a law that says you can only shoot at night.

Mike

[Pariah3j]

What time of day is this hypothetical happening ? It does make the difference for the use of deadly force as I understand it.

Where is this written? I hear it now and then, but I've never seen a law that says you can only shoot at night.

Mike

casp625 quoted this earlier but I'll requote it:

Sec. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


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.

Its not only night time, but using deadly force just because they are burglarizing you isn't always allowed.

[WTR]

I would never use lethal force to protect material possessions ( that's what insurance is for). I have my safe place and I'll stack up BGs like cord wood if they threaten a loved one ( be it human or four legged critter).

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Whether you are acting within the law or not is just one of the issues. The bigger question in this scenario is should you introduce deadly force from a risk versus reward perspective. Reward = recovery of personal property (car and its contents). Risks include shooting a by-stander inadvertently, damaging someone else's property, possible arrest and trial before a jury of your peers who will assess the "reasonableness" of your actions based only on the facts presented and allowed at trial. To me, personal property isn't worth the potential risks involved, and I'll do what I can to be a good witness.

to the OP;
I'd put the 'risk vs. reward' equation in even more blunt terms. Is whatever you're trying to recover/retain worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees? Or jail time?

[Bryanmc]

Things in my car, and my car are insured. My deductible is less than an hour or two of billed time with a good attorney.

[BTP]

What time of day is this hypothetical happening ? It does make the difference for the use of deadly force as I understand it.

Where is this written? I hear it now and then, but I've never seen a law that says you can only shoot at night.

Mike

casp625 quoted this earlier but I'll requote it:

Sec. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


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.

Its not only night time, but using deadly force just because they are burglarizing you isn't always allowed.

I'm not a lawyer and firmly believe laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, punctuation of a sentence can make all the difference in the world. But the way I read it, burglary is a shoot onsite offense, day or night. Do I want to pay to defend this position, no. Do I want to pay to hire a disaster restoration company and re-carpet, no. Do I want the hassle, no. That said, walking into your house being burglarized, you are in rather confined spaces, their actions would highly dictate the outcome.

The part that I put in green kinda raises my eyebrows, but still situation dependent and reasonable if that's the road one needs to go down.

[VoiceofReason]

You have the right to use force to keep someone from stealing your property, so you are covered to use the THREAT of deadly force, i.e. drawing your firearm. NOT the actual use of deadly force, unless certain conditions apply (items not covered by insurance/invaluable/your life or someone else's is in danger, nighttime, etc.). Read the penal code for those exceptions. I wouldn't risk going to jail over an unjustified use of deadly force for someone running off with my GPS/laptop/etc. after I told them to stop.
Now if they pull a weapon, charge you, etc., then have the right to use deadly force.
Home driveway, I believe the same rules apply.

I may be wrong but I don't believe insurance or value play a part in justification.