What would you do?

[casp625]

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.

[Keith B]

Just remember, a set of golf clubs is cheaper than a cheap lawyer when it comes to defending why you shot or ran over him.....

[Skiprr]

I don't own anything that I'd be willing to take a life over.

I always figured that I wasn't the one who decided his life was only worth a television, he made that decision when he decided to steal one.

Seriously?

And you actually possess a Texas License to Carry?

Get some schoolin' my friend. Take some defensive shooting courses, read Mas Ayoob, attend one of Charles Cotton's seminars.

Your understanding of use of deadly force is very much lacking.

[ScottDLS]

Double tap to the head then drag him back into the house before the cops get there. Then tell the cops that you didn't mean to shoot him, but your revolver went off (twice) while cleaning it. Oh yeah and you were in fear of your life or something.

[Skiprr]

Double tap to the head then drag him back into the house before the cops get there. Then tell the cops that you didn't mean to shoot him, but your revolver went off (twice) while cleaning it. Oh yeah and you were in fear of your life or something.

We all know you believe yourself to be humorous enough to take over Jimmy Fallon's job.

I was in Ft. Lewis years ago.

[casp625]

I don't own anything that I'd be willing to take a life over.

I always figured that I wasn't the one who decided his life was only worth a television, he made that decision when he decided to steal one.

Seriously?

And you actually possess a Texas License to Carry?

Get some schoolin' my friend. Take some defensive shooting courses, read Mas Ayoob, attend one of Charles Cotton's seminars.

Your understanding of use of deadly force is very much lacking.

Juries seem to be much more understanding though: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/j ... -1.1365975

[lildave40]

I don't own anything that I'd be willing to take a life over.

I always figured that I wasn't the one who decided his life was only worth a television, he made that decision when he decided to steal one.

Seriously?

And you actually possess a Texas License to Carry?

Get some schoolin' my friend. Take some defensive shooting courses, read Mas Ayoob, attend one of Charles Cotton's seminars.

Your understanding of use of deadly force is very much lacking.

If no life is in danger you should never shoot.

[apvonkanel]

I agree that I don't believe sporting goods would warrant me taking a life.

I was very specific in how I phrased that. It is my understanding that the law allows for the use of deadly force in this circumstance.

According to the statements of some on this board, it would be the perpetrator (and not the home-owner) that made the decision that their life was worth less than the bag of golf-clubs, but I honestly believe that to be a denial of truth to avoid personal accountability. If I were to pull the trigger, it would be a declaration that I agree with the value. Actions are a result of belief. I can abstain from an action if my belief runs contrary. Just as my belief states that a human life is worth more than sporting goods, it is also my belief that if another committed this action they would be subject to the law as it is written regardless of whether or not I condone it. If the law of the country, state, county, and city (as directly written) states they are not guilty of a crime, as a juror I would follow the law. I can't condone the the state convicting a man for something the state has mandated is not a crime.

[ScottDLS]

On a more serious note (from my last post). It seems Texas law allows for deadly force in protection of property, or against criminal mischief at night. I wonder if this is because deadly force doesn't HAVE to kill someone, only have the potential/possibility to.

Maybe it dates back to the cattle rustling or horse thief days. If you're in the middle of the wilderness and someone steals your horse, you may very well be dead. In that case there seems some moral as well as legal justification for shooting someone, in defense of property. As far as a TV...maybe legally justified. Morally...between you and your creator.

One situation where I might be willing to take a life is for strong arm robbery. If someone demands my wallet, clearly outsizes me, and threatens violence if they don't get it, I might shoot them. Even if I can replace the contents easily. Another situation, rape. I wouldn't hesitate to take a life even if my wasn't in danger. And I HAVE taken the LTC course multiple times...

[Bitter Clinger]

On a more serious note (from my last post). It seems Texas law allows for deadly force in protection of property, or against criminal mischief at night. I wonder if this is because deadly force doesn't HAVE to kill someone, only have the potential/possibility to.

Maybe it dates back to the cattle rustling or horse thief days. If you're in the middle of the wilderness and someone steals your horse, you may very well be dead. In that case there seems some moral as well as legal justification for shooting someone, in defense of property. As far as a TV...maybe legally justified. Morally...between you and your creator.

One situation where I might be willing to take a life is for strong arm robbery. If someone demands my wallet, clearly outsizes me, and threatens violence if they don't get it, I might shoot them. Even if I can replace the contents easily. Another situation, rape. I wouldn't hesitate to take a life even if my wasn't in danger. And I HAVE taken the LTC course multiple times...

Scott, it is biblical in its derivation. See Exodus 22 here in English for your convenience:

If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed

[RPBrown]

Lets throw another little hiccup into the equation. All the same except you go into the house through the garage and the thief is inside your home.
Scenario # 1--Has a TV in hand but no visible weapon
Scenario # 2--Same as # 1 but has a holstered pistol

[Ruark]

On a more serious note (from my last post). It seems Texas law allows for deadly force in protection of property, or against criminal mischief at night. I wonder if this is because deadly force doesn't HAVE to kill someone, only have the potential/possibility to.

When you talk about "taking a life," it's not just his life you're taking, it's your life, too, by the time you get through paying retainers and fees. How much equity do you have in your house? That might cover your bail.

I'd hate to explain to a jury how I was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury while sitting in my car watching somebody step out of my garage.

Once again, we have the situation of "holding him with your gun until the police arrive." So you think you'll pull your gun and he'll suddenly obey your every command? If he ignores you and walks off, you'll just blow his head off? Yeah.

I think this whole line of reasoning is faulty. People sometimes ask "can I shoot if..." "can I shoot if..." "can I shoot if..." when the right mindset should be more like, "am I in clear, immediate danger of death or seriously injury, such that the ONLY WAY I can prevent it is to shoot?"

[ScottDLS]

On a more serious note (from my last post). It seems Texas law allows for deadly force in protection of property, or against criminal mischief at night. I wonder if this is because deadly force doesn't HAVE to kill someone, only have the potential/possibility to.

When you talk about "taking a life," it's not just his life you're taking, it's your life, too, by the time you get through paying retainers and fees. How much equity do you have in your house? That might cover your bail.

I'd hate to explain to a jury how I was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury while sitting in my car watching somebody step out of my garage.

Once again, we have the situation of "holding him with your gun until the police arrive." So you think you'll pull your gun and he'll suddenly obey your every command? If he ignores you and walks off, you'll just blow his head off? Yeah.

I think this whole line of reasoning is faulty. People sometimes ask "can I shoot if..." "can I shoot if..." "can I shoot if..." when the right mindset should be more like, "am I in clear, immediate danger of death or seriously injury, such that the ONLY WAY I can prevent it is to shoot?"

You are not necessarily in clear immediate danger of death or serious injury if someone is breaking into your house at night and you don't know if they are armed or not, but will you be weighing your testimony to the jury before deciding to shoot? There are also situations where I would use deadly force in defense of another, even if they weren't in immediate danger of death. Robbery, kidnapping, and rape come to mind.

[apvonkanel]

Lets throw another little hiccup into the equation. All the same except you go into the house through the garage and the thief is inside your home.
Scenario # 1--Has a TV in hand but no visible weapon
Scenario # 2--Same as # 1 but has a holstered pistol

Neither I nor anyone else can say for certain what will happen unless they've been faced with it before. Mike Tyson said it best: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Until you've actually responded to an adrenaline filled situation, you can't guarantee what your behavior will be. That being said, if a man is in my house that immediately raises the threat to my life. I say this because with reduced opportunity for "flight", "fight" often becomes the default drive for both thief and homeowner. An open garage is easier than a living room to run out of. Unless you're talking about my dad's garage. So my reasoning doesn't change.. What changes is the fact that there's an increased chance my life is in danger, not just my property. If property is the only risk, a TV in and of itself isn't worth a human life. It comes down to situational awareness, and if I truly believed human life was in danger. I'd be more prone to feel like human life was in danger if they were in my house trapped with me. If I was certain they had a weapon, that substantially increases the threat.

[Soccerdad1995]

Personally, I would not shoot a perp just to protect my property that had a relatively low value (approx. $1,500 in the case of my golf clubs). Legally, I might be justified, but as far as what I would do? No, I likely would not shoot just to prevent the loss of $1,500.

But I might get out of my vehicle and draw my gun, as in the OP hypothetical. In that case, if the BG started casually walking away from me carrying my clubs, I would follow and observe. However, if he started closing the space between us, while carrying deadly weapons (the clubs), and possibly having other unseen weapons, then I might possibly decide to shoot to stop the approaching threat. If it came to that, I would try to not focus on the question of whether his life was worth more of less than the $1,500 worth of clubs. That is a decision best left to the BG. My decision would be based on the threat to me and my family.

In my driveway, it would be impossible for the BG to walk away from me, unless he was going back into the garage and toward my home. He could walk laterally, but one of the two possible directions would be toward my front door, and the other direction, he would run into a large shrub that would cause him to move toward me. All three of those options are potentially threatening to me or my family. This would complicate the decision somewhat.

I would probably also factor in the irrational behavior of continuing his theft while facing the business end of a .45. That would make me think he might well be unstable, high, or just plain crazy, which would also factor into my threat analysis.