TX: man fleeing in your BMW in daytime - can you legally shoot

[philip964]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/

Car thief faces instant justice.

But was the shooting legal? News says he’s not expected to face charges.

Did shooter leave keys in car, was it running, when he went into quick trip? Which is worse getting the car back after this or after stolen?

Anyone here own a BMW?

[BigGuy]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/

Car thief faces instant justice.

But was the shooting legal? News says he’s not expected to face charges.

Did shooter leave keys in car, was it running, when he went into quick trip? Which is worse getting the car back after this or after stolen?

Anyone here own a BMW?

1991 Z3 and 2005 X3. Both a lot of fun to drive, but expensive and difficult to maintain. I did my own maintenance and minor repairs on my motorcycles and American cars. But you need special tools and knowledge for the Bimmers.* For example, while you don't absolutely have too, you need to reprogram the ECM after replacing the battery. Apparently the Bimmers allow for decreased performance of aging batteries. You need to tell the car it's got a new one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTj5j6pe0MA&t=14s

*That's not a typo. Turn's out that "Beemers" are motorcycles. Cars are pronounced the same way, but spelled "Bimmer." An indie author I know got scathing reviews from Bimmer fans for making that mistake.

[OneGun]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/

Car thief faces instant justice.

But was the shooting legal? News says he’s not expected to face charges.

Did shooter leave keys in car, was it running, when he went into quick trip? Which is worse getting the car back after this or after stolen?

Anyone here own a BMW?

I believe the answer is in PC 9.32

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; 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.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[philip964]

Ok I’ll spare everyone the BMW joke.

But was the shooting legal, no mention of the car being driven towards the owner in a threatening manner?

[philip964]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/

Car thief faces instant justice.

But was the shooting legal? News says he’s not expected to face charges.

Did shooter leave keys in car, was it running, when he went into quick trip? Which is worse getting the car back after this or after stolen?

Anyone here own a BMW?

I believe the answer is in PC 9.32

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; 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.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

What is meant removing with force.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/01 ... sapd-says/

This says he was in the store when he noticed someone driving off with his car.

[OneGun]

I think the answer is: "unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"

[Deitz83]

The grand jury or jury will decide his fate. Drove a BMW years ago. I only drive Mercedes and Lexus L's now. I don't dislike BMWs. I just don't have a 4 car garage.

[AF-Odin]

#1: Yes, owned a beautiful 520 series for the four years I lived in Germany. Great car that just hummed on the autobahn and got great mileage at 150kph (that is 93 MPH). Took it up to 200kph a few times (that is 124mph). Above that, front end started to dance a little and I slowed it down a bit.

#2: IANAL, but, if the guy/owner was in the store, the perp was not forcibly attempting to remove him from the car. Did the perp display or threaten to display a weapon? Could the owner/shooter articulate how/why he felt he was in danger of deadly force or even force?

This one will be sorted out by the Bexar County DA. Do not know the climate there. Where I live, DA would probably smile and choose not to charge. That said, personally, I would not have shot.

[jerry_r60]

I think the answer is: "unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"

You hightlighted "Vehightl". I think it can be read like this.

"unlawfully and with force removed or attempted to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actors vehicle".

Given this, if the guy was in the store, then this defense doesn't apply.

[jerry_r60]

I think the answer is: "unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"

I think it can be read like this:
"unlawfully and with force removed or attempted to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actors vehicle".

The other one that might apply would be:
"A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied vehicle"

Given this, if the guy was in the store and no one else was in the car then this defense doesn't apply.

[OneGun]

I stand corrected.

[srothstein]

I think it really depends on the time of day and the official sunset that day. Since the vehicle was unoccupied, it needs to be covered in PC section 9.42 for deadly force in defense of property. That justifies it for theft at nighttime (more than 30 minutes after official sunset until 30 minutes before official sunrise.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think it really depends on the time of day and the official sunset that day. Since the vehicle was unoccupied, it needs to be covered in PC section 9.42 for deadly force in defense of property. That justifies it for theft at nighttime (more than 30 minutes after official sunset until 30 minutes before official sunrise.

Same rules for deer hunting. Only you can't shoot them after sunset and before sunrise. Ghetto thugs make a good substitute to fill in the time.

[KC5AV]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/
What is meant removing with force.

I believe removing with force would be things like carjacking and/or kidnapping… like trying to remove you from your vehicle with force, or trying to remove you from a place with force.

[dlh]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/c ... t-justice/
What is meant removing with force.

I believe removing with force would be things like carjacking and/or kidnapping… like trying to remove you from your vehicle with force, or trying to remove you from a place with force.

Agreed.
If you are in your car and someone is trying to forcefully remove you from your car that would also meet the elements of a "robbery" justifying use of deadly force.
There was a news source quoting a Cleveland prosecutor that carjackings were nearly a daily event in their area. Hope that does not come to Texas.