Don't let your emotions get you in trouble

[oldboyshooter]

I just had a couple of shotguns stolen from my vehile (they popped the lock as easily as one pops popcorn)at 12 high noon from a well known sports big box store, and grabed two gun cases with two 12 gauge O/U in them (one had Briley tubes - ouch for the wallet). They missed my three handguns as they were in too much of a hurry to look in the glove box. I usually do not carry at work, but will carry from now on at lunch. I will only have one handgun in the car from now on also. I always carry after work.

However, I was so hot that if i had my gun, and I had seen these jerks stealing from me, I am not certain what I would have done. I was lucky that the box store had a long line at the check out or I would have run right into the bad guys. I have heard from a good friend who was an assistant DA and is now a Judge, and he says that unless i was in fear of my life (and the shotguns were in cases) then I would be in the wrong for popping the bad guys. I thought as such, but at the time, I was so hot that my mental facilities were not up to snuff.

Just a thought to remember, if you need to shoot, make damn certain you are in fear of your life! And then you had better have a lot of money for the lawsuits that will be flowing your way.

I know our jails are overflowing, but somehow, we need to get bad folks like these off the street.

[10Shooter]

Just PM'd you

[Hoi Polloi]

Your DA/judge friend did not really give you an accurate answer. He should brush up on his penal code. I'm sorry you had your guns stolen.

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.

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.

[JJVP]

Your DA/judge friend did not really give you an accurate answer. He should brush up on his penal code. I'm sorry you had your guns stolen.

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.

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.

The theft occurred at highnoon. Might want to check the word "Nighttime" bolded above

[dicion]

Your DA/judge friend did not really give you an accurate answer. He should brush up on his penal code. I'm sorry you had your guns stolen.

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.

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.

The theft occurred at highnoon. Might want to check the word "Nighttime" bolded above

Nighttime Restrictions only apply to Theft and Criminal Mischief. The Other ones are valid 24/7.
Including Burglary

And Breaking into a Vehicle isn't theft, it's:

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer carried on a rail car is a part of the rail car.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that:
(1) the offense is a Class A misdemeanor with a minimum term of confinement of six months if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this section; and
(2) the offense is a state jail felony if:
(A) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of an offense under this section; or
(B) the vehicle or part of the vehicle broken into or entered is a rail car.
(d-1) For the purposes of Subsection (d), a defendant has been previously convicted under this section if the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in return for a grant of deferred adjudication, regardless of whether the sentence for the offense was ever imposed or whether the sentence was probated and the defendant was subsequently discharged from community supervision.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor entered a rail car or any part of a rail car and was at that time an employee or a representative of employees exercising a right under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).

Which is Burglary, and does not have the Nighttime Requirement!

[Hoi Polloi]

Which is Burglary, and does not have the Nighttime Requirement!

Thanks, dicion!

Assuming the other criteria are met, deadly force is justified in any of the following:

• arson,
  burglary, (ding, ding, ding)
  robbery,
  aggravated robbery,
  theft during the nighttime,
  or criminal mischief during the nighttime

[dicion]

Which is Burglary, and does not have the Nighttime Requirement!

Thanks, dicion!

Assuming the other criteria are met, deadly force is justified in any of the following:

• arson,
  burglary, (ding, ding, ding)
  robbery,
  aggravated robbery,
  theft during the nighttime,
  or criminal mischief during the nighttime

Don't forget:

PC §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; 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.

and also the really weird one that seems odd at first...

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and
to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious
bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
emergency.

Which is an odd one... you can use deadly force to save someone's life in an emergency.
If you think about it in gun terms, that doesn't make much sense, but remember, the statutes don't specify firearms anywhere in the deadly force section.

If you think about it as something like amputating a limb with a knife, performing a tracheotomy, or something like that, it makes more sense.

[Hoi Polloi]

You rock, dicion!

[DanMan28]

Whatever it is... I feel for you buddy. That has totalllllly gotta suck!

[srothstein]

Your DA/judge friend did not really give you an accurate answer. He should brush up on his penal code. I'm sorry you had your guns stolen.

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.

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.

The theft occurred at highnoon. Might want to check the word "Nighttime" bolded above

Nighttime Restrictions only apply to Theft and Criminal Mischief. The Other ones are valid 24/7.
Including Burglary

And Breaking into a Vehicle isn't theft, it's:

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES.

Which is Burglary, and does not have the Nighttime Requirement!

I really, really hate to disappoint you and I really, really wish you were right, but you have made a critical error in your understanding of the law. Breaking into a car is a violation of PC 30.04, Burglary of vehicles, as you note. But the law in question only applies to PC 30.03, Burglary. Look again at the way the law is worded. Note that it mentions both Robbery and Aggravated Robbery. These are each specific sections of the Penal Code (29.02 and 29.03 respectively). from this, it is clear the law was listing specific sections of the code, as opposed to groups of types of crime. There is a specific section, 30.02 named Burglary, as listed in the code section quoted. If this was to be taken to mean any type of burglary (including coin machines in 30.03 and vehicles in 30.04), then the term robbery would also have included all type of robberies, including aggravated ones. Since the law lists the two robbery sections by name, it is naming specific code sections and not general types of crimes. Burglary of a vehicle does not come under the defense of burglary as listed.

Also, obviously, your lawyer may have a different interpretation of the law than I was taught. Get good legal advice on questions like this (in other words, I could easily be wrong).

[apostate]

I believe Steve is correct, so you wouldn't have legal justification to shoot them in the back while they're running away with property stolen from your vehicle. However, if you catch them in the act, 9.04 provides an avenue for creating the apprehension you'll use deadly force if necessary.

Looking forward to next Friday night.

[baldeagle]

I really, really hate to disappoint you and I really, really wish you were right, but you have made a critical error in your understanding of the law. Breaking into a car is a violation of PC 30.04, Burglary of vehicles, as you note. But the law in question only applies to PC 30.03, Burglary. Look again at the way the law is worded. Note that it mentions both Robbery and Aggravated Robbery. These are each specific sections of the Penal Code (29.02 and 29.03 respectively). from this, it is clear the law was listing specific sections of the code, as opposed to groups of types of crime. There is a specific section, 30.02 named Burglary, as listed in the code section quoted. If this was to be taken to mean any type of burglary (including coin machines in 30.03 and vehicles in 30.04), then the term robbery would also have included all type of robberies, including aggravated ones. Since the law lists the two robbery sections by name, it is naming specific code sections and not general types of crimes. Burglary of a vehicle does not come under the defense of burglary as listed.

Also, obviously, your lawyer may have a different interpretation of the law than I was taught. Get good legal advice on questions like this (in other words, I could easily be wrong).

Well, according to 29.02, robbery is nothing more than theft with an additional element:

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

So, if burglary of a motor vehicle is theft, then it becomes robbery when it includes the threat or fear of imminent harm.

However, you would already be justified, under the law, in drawing your weapon to confront the thieves. At that point it's up to the BG(s?) if they surrender, leave without your property or get perforated.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

And the use of force is justified under 9.41

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.

So, ISTM that if you see something stealing items from your vehicle you are 1) justified in drawing your weapon and using it as a threat and 2) if the BG's reaction is to attack, you are justified in using deadly force.

[Ameer]

However, you would already be justified, under the law, in drawing your weapon to confront the thieves. At that point it's up to the BG(s?) if they surrender, leave without your property or get perforated.

If they see your gun and run away, you're not justified in shooting them, even if they run away with your property. I think that's what Steve was saying.

[PappaGun]

Boy am I glad I'm not a lawyer.

Sorry for your missing guns.

Why so many guns in your vehicle on a work day?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.